Dallas Zoo’s gun ban found to be legal by Texas AG

[roadkill]

Since Dallas zoo is now an amusement park are they in violation of any amusement park codes? Be a real shame if they got classified as one without being up to snuff on the associated regulations.

[LabRat]

I'm hoping this is a fake April Fools story:

The office – led by Ken Paxton, a Republican – said in a letter dated Wednesday that the zoo qualifies as an amusement park. That’s an area where state law says the licensed carrying of handguns can be prohibited, so long as the proper notice is given.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... -ban.html/

One more place I won't be going to anytime soon. Their loss. On the whole, do I care?
No. There are places that actually want my business; so I'll go there and spend instead.

It's not personal; it's business.

LabRat

[Solaris]

Adding to the confusion is this circular logic:

30.06 says 30.06 does not apply on govt property unless prohibited from carrying in 46.035

46.035 says amusement parks are not off limits if not given 30.06.

[Right2Carry]

If the AG sided with the ZOO we need a new AG. It seems someone needs to understand the difference between Zoo and amusement park. I agree if they are an amusement park they better be meeting every single regulation that applies to an amusement park and I mean everyone.

[dhoobler]

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?

[MeMelYup]

Do they offer daycare? Do they have an alcohol license?

[Glockster]

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?

There are other requirements as well. Don't have access to my bigger screen so can't re-chase it down, but there are inspection requirements, licensing and on and on. The biggest violation perhaps is one requirement that they post at the entrance specific language about reporting ride hazards and such and if I recall correctly violation of that one calls for a daily misdemeanor violation and fine daily. I put together a listing on this about a year ago and compared it to what I found on each zoo and what I found was that they may have an amusement ride license, none met the state licensing requirements to be an amusement park.

[rtschl]

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.

[gljjt]

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:

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.

I agree ^^^. I think it meets the legal definition but not the intent of the legislature.

[ScottDLS]

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?

There are other requirements as well. Don't have access to my bigger screen so can't re-chase it down, but there are inspection requirements, licensing and on and on. The biggest violation perhaps is one requirement that they post at the entrance specific language about reporting ride hazards and such and if I recall correctly violation of that one calls for a daily misdemeanor violation and fine daily. I put together a listing on this about a year ago and compared it to what I found on each zoo and what I found was that they may have an amusement ride license, none met the state licensing requirements to be an amusement park.

The problem is the 46.035 requirements are all they must meet to exclude us. The occupational code or whatever else qualifies them doesn't really matter unless the agency responsible decides to take it up.

[Liberty]

Dallas falls, is Houston next?

[ScottDLS]

Dallas falls, is Houston next?

No because Houston is not big enough to qualify as an amusement park and it's not a school.

[G.A. Heath]

Keep in mind that the AG is an attorney first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid." If you will notice the ones he is proceeding with at this time are easy cases, that help establish case law, which will help him go after tougher and tougher cases. Additionally each case where he doesn't go after the posting helps us in the next legislative session to remove off limits locations and tighten the exemptions that they claim or make up. For those who want to replace the AG can I make a suggestion of wait and see where he takes these wrongful exclusion complaints before breaking out the tar and feathers, he might surprise you with a well thought out plan.

[twomillenium]

Keep in mind that the AG is an attorney first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid." If you will notice the ones he is proceeding with at this time are easy cases, that help establish case law, which will help him go after tougher and tougher cases. Additionally each case where he doesn't go after the posting helps us in the next legislative session to remove off limits locations and tighten the exemptions that they claim or make up. For those who want to replace the AG can I make a suggestion of wait and see where he takes these wrongful exclusion complaints before breaking out the tar and feathers, he might surprise you with a well thought out plan.

If he can admit his mistake, then I also can. I hope G.A. Heath is right, but until then, Paxton is on the "get rid of list".

[ScottDLS]

Keep in mind that the AG is an attorney first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid." If you will notice the ones he is proceeding with at this time are easy cases, that help establish case law, which will help him go after tougher and tougher cases. Additionally each case where he doesn't go after the posting helps us in the next legislative session to remove off limits locations and tighten the exemptions that they claim or make up. For those who want to replace the AG can I make a suggestion of wait and see where he takes these wrongful exclusion complaints before breaking out the tar and feathers, he might surprise you with a well thought out plan.

If he can admit his mistake, then I also can. I hope G.A. Heath is right, but until then, Paxton is on the "get rid of list".

I disagree. It's the legislature's problem to fix, not the AG. With the monorail and the merry-go-round they meet the plain meaning of the 46.035 statute as it was written. Sure it was "intended" for Six Flags and Seaworld, but it was written 21 years ago. By the AG's reading of the law it appears that the Dallas Zoo meets the definition. The "intent" of the legislature might have been different, but what the law SAYS in defined statutory construction is how it should be interpreted. Of course anyone from a County Court judge to the State Supreme Court can interpret it however they want...but they shouldn't.

Otherwise we'll be reading a Constitutional "right" to abortion and Sodomite marriage into the 14th amendment... (ohh...ahhh, never mind)...