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

[ELB]

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first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid."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".

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.

[wheelgun1958]

There are no mandatory national safety standards for U.S. amusement rides, but the amusement ride industry has developed an extensive suite of consensus safety standards through the ASTM F-24 committee. State and local rules, where they exist, may reference ASTM industry standards, government-drafted requirements, or a combination of both.

http://www.saferparks.org/standards

[rtschl]

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.

[RiverKing]

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

I disagree. Unless the Dallas Zoo has changed a lot since I was last there, there are no "amusement rides" there. The only thing approaching an amusement ride at the Dallas Zoo was (is?) the monorail that carries people around certain animal enclosures at a safe height above the non-human animals that might be dangerous.

[gljjt]

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

I disagree. Unless the Dallas Zoo has changed a lot since I was last there, there are no "amusement rides" there. The only thing approaching an amusement ride at the Dallas Zoo was (is?) the monorail that carries people around certain animal enclosures at a safe height above the non-human animals that might be dangerous.

Read the statute. It defines amusement rides. The monorail meets the defined requirement. I don't like it. I don't think it meets legislative intent. But it is the law.

A quote:

"More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. 'If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.' In the meantime, this Court 'has no roving license ... to disregard clear language simply on the view that ... Congress 'must have intended' something broader."

Antonin Scalia

[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.

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.

Understand and agree. I was speaking to whether they are meeting the legal requirements of being an amusement park. If they are not, then they should be subject to the same penalties as any amusement park is. Then there might perhaps be less incentive to use one law to hide from another law.

[srothstein]

Understand and agree. I was speaking to whether they are meeting the legal requirements of being an amusement park. If they are not, then they should be subject to the same penalties as any amusement park is. Then there might perhaps be less incentive to use one law to hide from another law.

I think this is the way to get Dallas to change its tune. We now need to find the agency responsible for enforcing the amusement park rules and send them a copy of the AG opinion with any complaints we have about them not meeting amusement park rules, such as not having the complaint signs, etc. I believe they will find it much more expensive to obey those rules and might change their mind.

Even better, if we can get them to deny being an amusement park to that agency, we can go back to the AG with that denial. I believe he would change his letter if they denied having to obey all of the rules of amusement parks.

[joe817]

Understand and agree. I was speaking to whether they are meeting the legal requirements of being an amusement park. If they are not, then they should be subject to the same penalties as any amusement park is. Then there might perhaps be less incentive to use one law to hide from another law.

I think this is the way to get Dallas to change its tune. We now need to find the agency responsible for enforcing the amusement park rules and send them a copy of the AG opinion with any complaints we have about them not meeting amusement park rules, such as not having the complaint signs, etc. I believe they will find it much more expensive to obey those rules and might change their mind.

Even better, if we can get them to deny being an amusement park to that agency, we can go back to the AG with that denial. I believe he would change his letter if they denied having to obey all of the rules of amusement parks.

Well, I think this might be starting point:

"Amusement Ride Regulations Home" -

http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/indexamusement.html

General information from same website: http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/lcamuseinfo.html

My search hasn't been exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but so far I'm unable to find THE state agency that regulates "amusement parks" per se.

[DanD]

Thanks to joe817 for the links. I found the following link to the Texas Department of Insurance Current Amusement Ride Stickers as of March 28, 2016:

http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/doc ... ticker.pdf

The DALLAS ZOO MANAGEMENT, INC. is listed on pages 60 and 61 with 7 amusement rides with stickers that expire on January 31, 2017.

Also, the FORT WORTH ZOO is listed on page 78 as having 3 amusement rides with stickers that expire on July 31, 2016.

Edited to add, this is what an amusement ride compliance sticker means:
http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/lca ... ml#sticker

[Soccerdad1995]

And remember that the zoo is claiming their entire premises are an amusement park. So any regulations such as not serving alcohol, or ADA requirements for access would apply to the entire zoo, not just specific rides.

[ScottDLS]

And remember that the zoo is claiming their entire premises are an amusement park. So any regulations such as not serving alcohol, or ADA requirements for access would apply to the entire zoo, not just specific rides.

Six Flags in Arlington sell beer and wine at some restaurants, don't they?

[Soccerdad1995]

And remember that the zoo is claiming their entire premises are an amusement park. So any regulations such as not serving alcohol, or ADA requirements for access would apply to the entire zoo, not just specific rides.

Six Flags in Arlington sell beer and wine at some restaurants, don't they?

I don't know. And I am not sure of what, if any, restrictions exist for alcohol sales at amusement parks. Unfortunately, I am pretty ignorant on this as I have not had the opportunity to fully familiarize myself with the applicable regulations.

My point was to stress that we should consider the fact that they are claiming the entire zoo as an amusement park when we are looking at applicable regulations. One example may be regulations around the sale of alcohol. I am sure there are others as well.

And when I say regulations on an activity I am not necessarily limiting that statement to just a ban on the activity. It may well be the case, for example, that alcohol sales are restricted to certain locations (e.g. restaurants only), as one possible example.

[NotRPB]

Since Dallas zoo is now an amusement park, and
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder's person:
(5) in an amusement park; or
...
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

applies

If I were to visit there in a few months after going to the church my Cousin Pastors there, I'll have to carry my big purse or briefcase (sigh)
since there's no "Amusement Park" restriction on those.

Those MomsDemand hoplophobic nutty people are a pain in the... shoulder (from the added weight)

[chamberc]

How much do you want to bet this gets extended to the Texas State Fair and Fair Park?

[NotRPB]

How much do you want to bet this gets extended to the Texas State Fair and Fair Park?

Unsure of Number of Acres there, per the definition but number of days open ...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm
"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. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

http://bigtex.com/info/faq/
Dates open Sept 30-Oct 23

May I bring…
…a gun? No, with one exception.
A person holding a valid Texas Concealed Handgun License (or valid CHL from a reciprocating state) is permitted to enter onto State Fair property with his/her concealed handgun; provided, however, that CHL holders will not be permitted to carry their concealed handgun inside the Cotton Bowl Stadium, a facility defined under Texas Penal Code §46.035 as “the premises where a high school, collegiate or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place.” Note that the State Fair of Texas does not provide lockers for the storage or checking of weapons for CHL holders, so if you plan to attend a game or event in the Cotton Bowl, please secure your weapon at home or in your vehicle prior to entering the fairgrounds. We want the fair to be a fun and safe experience.

…open carry? Yes.
State Fair of Texas’ policy will be similar to our policy for Concealed Handgun License Holders. The State Fair of Texas leases property owned by the City of Dallas and does not fall into any of the exception categories (amusement park, etc.) that would allow us to prohibit the carrying of handguns, so we will be allowing “open carry” according to the Texas statutes. However, we will still prohibit handguns in the Cotton Bowl Stadium under the collegiate athletic event exception.