TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:Putting Paxton on the enemies list because he followed the law where it went is just nuts. The definition for an amusement park for the purposes of licensed carry is not complicated and if the Dallas Zoo meets it, it meets it. If he is doing the "easy" cases first then this one certainly falls in the easy category, and hence, unlikely to be redone as a "mistake."

As noted above, this is a legislative problem, not an AG one.

I do not like how the Dallas Zoo is able to get around the intent of the legislature, but I do not want an AG who does not follow the law - that would make us no different from the democrats i.e. Eric Holder.

dhoobler wrote:Sec. 46.035(f)
(1)"Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times.

Does the Dallas zoo have amusement rides?

Besides their monorail, I believe they also have a carousel and safari express train. So technically, yes, they do.

To be honest, I was a little worried about the Dallas Zoo being able to successfully argue that they are an amusement park. Fort Worth and Houston Zoos are different and I think we will win those.

Do I think the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park - NO. Does it meet the current legal definition of one - sadly yes. I agree with Solaris:

Solaris wrote:This is the consequence of failing to strip out hospitals, amusement parks, churches,. etc. in 46.035. Instead they were left in, and (i) was added.

So this is on the legislature not the AG. Removing off limit areas and cleaning up 51% issues needs to be THE top priority next legislative session.