Dallas Zoo is an Amusement Park - Who Knew?

[Glockster]

If I read it correctly I think you may have it backwards. He said that he had an interest IN the Texas activities, specifically Dallas Zoo, but could offer pro bono assistance with regard to your situation.

(my bold above)

Thank you, but no, I read it accurately.

Here's his post:
"Previously sent PM's, offered to work with other attorneys on a pro bono basis, while I had free time over the past two months.

As of next week, will no longer have free time. Might still be able to assist a little bit, pro bono, if others are also willing to do so.

Otherwise, same type of stuff is happening where it matters to me, in TX (Dallas zoo)."


So I read that as offering to help you? And then says that where it matters to him is in TX (Dallas zoo)?

[BB62]

Also see the following where Mr. Cotton has spent considerable efforts to put together a process for reporting:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79315

That's interesting but unfortunately not applicable to Missouri law - which has no such avenue for someone like myself to pursue.

[Glockster]

Also see the following where Mr. Cotton has spent considerable efforts to put together a process for reporting:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79315

That's interesting but unfortunately not applicable to Missouri law - which has no such avenue for someone like myself to pursue.

Ah, didn't say that it was and wouldn't think that it would be applicable to Missouri law. In your above you posted:
"As I understand it, TX has a method to which allows one to insist on receiving the public entity's legal underpinnings for signage, but if those underpinnings are found wanting, how does one go about getting the signage pulled/revised?"

My response was an additional answer to your question about how TX folks get the signage pulled.

[BB62]

If I read it correctly I think you may have it backwards. He said that he had an interest IN the Texas activities, specifically Dallas Zoo, but could offer pro bono assistance with regard to your situation.

(my bold above)

Thank you, but no, I read it accurately.

Here's his post:
"Previously sent PM's, offered to work with other attorneys on a pro bono basis, while I had free time over the past two months.

As of next week, will no longer have free time. Might still be able to assist a little bit, pro bono, if others are also willing to do so.

Otherwise, same type of stuff is happening where it matters to me, in TX (Dallas zoo)."

So I read that as offering to help you? And then says that where it matters to him is in TX (Dallas zoo)?

I didn't say there was no offer of help. I said the following: "That person didn't allege that they had anything to do with a legal challenge to the Dallas Zoo situation, hence my request here." (underline and bold not in original post)

[BB62]

Also see the following where Mr. Cotton has spent considerable efforts to put together a process for reporting:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79315

That's interesting but unfortunately not applicable to Missouri law - which has no such avenue for someone like myself to pursue.

Ah, didn't say that it was and wouldn't think that it would be applicable to Missouri law. In your above you posted:
"As I understand it, TX has a method to which allows one to insist on receiving the public entity's legal underpinnings for signage, but if those underpinnings are found wanting, how does one go about getting the signage pulled/revised?"

My response was an additional answer to your question about how TX folks get the signage pulled.

Understood.

[Glockster]

If I read it correctly I think you may have it backwards. He said that he had an interest IN the Texas activities, specifically Dallas Zoo, but could offer pro bono assistance with regard to your situation.

(my bold above)

Thank you, but no, I read it accurately.

Here's his post:
"Previously sent PM's, offered to work with other attorneys on a pro bono basis, while I had free time over the past two months.

As of next week, will no longer have free time. Might still be able to assist a little bit, pro bono, if others are also willing to do so.

Otherwise, same type of stuff is happening where it matters to me, in TX (Dallas zoo)."

So I read that as offering to help you? And then says that where it matters to him is in TX (Dallas zoo)?

I didn't say there was no offer of help. I said the following: "That person didn't allege that they had anything to do with a legal challenge to the Dallas Zoo situation, hence my request here." (underline and bold not in original post)

And again, clearly they did say that they were interested in the legal challenge to the Dallas zoo. My understanding is that you came here asking about assistance with your situation? If not, then disregard. But it sounds like this other person has made attempts to contact you to offer assistance. If you don't want their assistance, your business. I was simply answering your own questions. We're all only here to help you, and we're on "your side."

[BB62]

And again, clearly they did say that they were interested in the legal challenge to the Dallas zoo...

Is there a current legal challenge against the Dallas Zoo? If there is, I'd love to get a copy of it.

If not, via the link you provided, upon re-reading it I now have my answer as to "(in TX) ...if those underpinnings are found wanting, how does one go about getting the signage pulled/revised?" as it applies to an (the?) approach which might work in Missouri: a declaratory judgement.

I'm sorry to have been initially dismissive of the link.

[Glockster]

And again, clearly they did say that they were interested in the legal challenge to the Dallas zoo...

Is there a current legal challenge against the Dallas Zoo? If there is, I'd love to get a copy of it.

If not, via the link you provided, upon re-reading it I now have my answer as to "(in TX) ...if those underpinnings are found wanting, how does one go about getting the signage pulled/revised?" as it applies to an (the?) approach which might work in Missouri: a declaratory judgement.

I'm sorry to have been initially dismissive of the link.

I'm not in Dallas myself, so am relegated to watching...but from what I read here it is moving in that direction as folks will certainly file complaints. Then it is up to the AG's office to take action, as I understand it. For us the law that we can now rely upon just became effective about a week ago. So this is new territory, but fought hard for by lots of good folks.

Understand and accept the sorry with no worries. I wouldn't want to be going through what you're going through.

[Keith B]

And again, clearly they did say that they were interested in the legal challenge to the Dallas zoo...

Is there a current legal challenge against the Dallas Zoo? If there is, I'd love to get a copy of it.

If not, via the link you provided, upon re-reading it I now have my answer as to "(in TX) ...if those underpinnings are found wanting, how does one go about getting the signage pulled/revised?" as it applies to an (the?) approach which might work in Missouri: a declaratory judgement.

I'm sorry to have been initially dismissive of the link.

You can't. Missouri has no law making it illegal to post any type of no firearms sign at a location owned by a governmental entity. In your case, the only thing you can do is what you are already doing and try to get a ruling by the Missouri AG on if they can prohibit you from openly carrying in the St. Louis Zoo.

Keith B
Moderator

[gthaustex]

If I'm not mistaken, if they are truly an amusement park they don't need a 30.06 sign. Isn't this one of the restricted places that you can't carry designated in the law? I don't feel like looking it up.

If you read farther down to Section (i) you will see the following:

Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06

The above are hospitals, amusement parks and churches, synagogues, etc.

That is why there are usually 30.06 signs plastered all over hospitals now. They HAVE to post to exclude concealed carry as they are no longer statutorily covered.

[Glockster]

In following the above mentioned thread from another forum, the guy who I think is an attorney posted this link, which contains a lot of very useful information that he indicated would make for good cut/paste things to use related to the St. Louis Zoo issue. But a lot of it deals with a city making an argument to ban certain gun types because in doing so it will "make the public feel safer" which seems to be one of the core reasons for the zoos (and others) to be trying to ban any form of carry. So I thought it might be useful to have it posted here as well (have already read through it myself, seems to be some great boilerplate there).

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/friedman/

[BB62]

Evidently the Houston Zoo is not an amusement park: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 503473.php

"Houston Zoo forced to remove 'no guns' sign by city

At the behest of the City of Houston which was prompted by a prominent Texas gun rights group, the Houston Zoo has been forced to remove all "no guns" signage from its premises..."

[locke_n_load]

Evidently the Houston Zoo is not an amusement park: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 503473.php

"Houston Zoo forced to remove 'no guns' sign by city

At the behest of the City of Houston which was prompted by a prominent Texas gun rights group, the Houston Zoo has been forced to remove all "no guns" signage from its premises..."

Already running in another thread.

[txweslawyer]

Sorry Baldeagle, but your argument misses the legal points. If you look up the defnition of an "Amusement Park" in Texas law (and I'm talking about ALL of Texas law), the ONLY place you will find a definition is in Penal Code 46.035. Your thinking that Occupations Code Chapter 2151 "Regulation of Amusement RIDES" regulates an Amusement PARK is wrong. This chapter only regulates RIDES. It says "“Amusement ride” means a mechanical device that carries passengers along, around, or over a fixed or restricted course or within a defined area for the purpose of giving the passengers amusement, pleasure, or excitement." I am sure that even the monorail is for "the purpose of giving the passengers ... pleasure."

Even if you were correct in saying that there is another definition of an amusement park somewhere, that still wouldn't affect the classification of the Dallas Zoo as an amusement park. As was pointed out by others, different things can have different definitions under different sections of the law. For example, the definition of a child under Texas law has at least two definitions. Texas Penal Code Section 22.011 (Sexual Assault) says: "(c) In this section: (1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age." However, if you go to Penal Code Section 43.25. Sexual Performance by a Child, it says "(a) In this section: (1) “Sexual performance” means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a CHILD YOUNGER than 18 years of age." But, if you go to the Family Code, one Chapter gives multiple definitions for child:
Sec. 101.003. Child or Minor; Adult.
(a) “Child” or “minor” means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.
(b) In the context of child support, “child” includes a person over 18 years of age for whom a person may be obligated to pay child support.

So, is a child under the age of 17, under the age of 18, or someone over the age of 18? If you answered yes to all three, you are correct.

If it were up to me, I would allow a license holder to carry anywhere, including the Dallas Zoo. BUT, that is not the case. You are more than welcome to carry your gun at the zoo, but you need to have a bail bondsman and an attorney on speed dial.

[G.A. Heath]

If they are going to claim that they are an amusement park then I hope they are insured as one, have all their OSHA stuff up to date as one, meet any specific requirements for an amusement park under the ADA, and are in compliance with all their "rides". I also hope they are in compliance with industry standards and best practices as well as having notified visitors that they are such just in case someone was injured and filed a claim/lawsuit against them as a zoo but did not realize they were also an amusement park (which I understand tends to have more insurance claims and lawsuits than zoos). I also hope they are in communication with amusement park industry groups so that they remain aware of the latest industry activities.

Also keep in mind if their claim to be an amusement park holds up then I suspect that an effort to strip Amusement Parks, and perhaps other locations, from TPC 46.035 might gain more momentum than if they simply complied with the wishes of the legislature.