TexasCHLforum.com

I know last year, the zoo put the signs up, took them down, and then put them back up. I also know there was a plan to fight it. Does anyone know the current status? I'd hate to drive down there, walk up to the gates, and have to turn back.

Policy is... they're public property at a location not prohibited by §46.03 or §46.035. Their opinions otherwise are adorable but powerless and wrong.

Last I heard there was still a complaint in to the AG since they reinstalled 30.06/30.07 signs. No word back from the AG as far as I know, which is getting kind of ridiculous nearly a year later.

I would conceal all day long. I would not OC.

The Fort Worth zoo also has signs, but it is a combination of a 30.06 sign and a 30.07 sign and the wording alone makes it unenforceable, let alone the fact that the city owns the property.

There is ZERO chance that the zoo is a school, it is a liberal smokescreen to muddy the water. Don't let them win, carry concealed.

"Their opinions otherwise are adorable but powerless and wrong."

I'm going to have that engraved on the back of my badge.

Their policy is to violate the law. The zoo is run by criminals, who knowingly choose to violate the law. You should definitely carry a weapon if you choose to enter a location that is run by these guys.

They have five signs. 30.06 & 30.07 in English and Spanish and then a 46.03 sign. I agree with all of you, but I don't have the time or the resources to fight it, even if it is unlikely I would get "caught."

Topbuilder wrote:"Their opinions otherwise are adorable but powerless and wrong."

I'm going to have that engraved on the back of my badge.

I wonder why it's taking so long for the AG to rule on this? The thing that makes me nervous is that they are claiming they are a school/educational institution. This would make carrying a felony. It seems absolutely ridiculous on its face, but so does the Dallas Zoo being an amusement park (although that at least seems to have support in the plain wording of the law).

I wonder if we need the 2017 Legislature to enact a "clean up" Bill, which statutorily requires the AG to issue an opinion within X number of days?

90 ?
180 ?
45 ?

locke_n_load wrote:No word back from the AG as far as I know, which is getting kind of ridiculous nearly a year later.

juno106 wrote:I wonder if we need the 2017 Legislature to enact a "clean up" Bill, which statutorily requires the AG to issue an opinion within X number of days?

90 ?
180 ?
45 ?

locke_n_load wrote:No word back from the AG as far as I know, which is getting kind of ridiculous nearly a year later.

Just flip it so that you cannot legally get a sign for any government owned property until you get an affirmative decision from the AG in your favor. Violation is a felony for anyone ordering the unauthorized sign to be placed.

Better enforced if signs on government property were further required to include the address of the prohibited location on the sign.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

juno106 wrote:I wonder if we need the 2017 Legislature to enact a "clean up" Bill, which statutorily requires the AG to issue an opinion within X number of days?

90 ?
180 ?
45 ?

locke_n_load wrote:No word back from the AG as far as I know, which is getting kind of ridiculous nearly a year later.

Just flip it so that you cannot legally get a sign for any government owned property until you get an affirmative decision from the AG in your favor. Violation is a felony for anyone ordering the unauthorized sign to be placed.

Better enforced if signs on government property were further required to include the address of the prohibited location on the sign.

Already noted in my thread for the 2017 legislative wish list. It's good stuff.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

juno106 wrote:I wonder if we need the 2017 Legislature to enact a "clean up" Bill, which statutorily requires the AG to issue an opinion within X number of days?

90 ?
180 ?
45 ?

locke_n_load wrote:No word back from the AG as far as I know, which is getting kind of ridiculous nearly a year later.

Just flip it so that you cannot legally get a sign for any government owned property until you get an affirmative decision from the AG in your favor. Violation is a felony for anyone ordering the unauthorized sign to be placed.

Better enforced if signs on government property were further required to include the address of the prohibited location on the sign.

I'm with you up to the "felony" part. We have too many crimes listed as felonies as it is. Make it a large fine and make the person who ordered it personally liable for the fine, but not a felony.

We were at the Houston zoo at the first of June. Didn't notice any signs. Carried concealed the entire time.

Robert wrote:We were at the Houston zoo at the first of June. Didn't notice any signs. Carried concealed the entire time.

The signs are on the right when you walk in. Technically, we could probably get away with saying it wasn't prominently displayed.