Ft. Worth Zoo Update

[Rex B]

Is it even a properly worded sign?

The restriction for amusement parks is in Penal Code 46.035. The restrictions of that section are independent of whether the owner or lessee has posted signs complying with 30.06 or 30.07. So it doesn't matter that the signs don't pass muster under 30.06 and 30.07.

We have already covered that point earlier. the FtW Zoo does not meet the legal definition of an amusement park as it is not 75 acres or larger. So, no amusement park, and signs that don't meet the law. And we already know the whole park is not a day-care center as they claimed earlier.

What do we have to do to make those people drop these extralegal dodges and obey the law?

[rtschl]

We have already covered that point earlier. the FtW Zoo does not meet the legal definition of an amusement park as it is not 75 acres or larger. So, no amusement park, and signs that don't meet the law. And we already know the whole park is not a day-care center as they claimed earlier.

What do we have to do to make those people drop these extralegal dodges and obey the law?

Ft. Worth Zoo claims they are an "educational institution" whatever that means and registered as a Day Care with the state. But neither of those are off limits for Concealed or Open Carry, especially on government owned/leased land.

What needs to be done has already been done and the AG has requested further documentation from the City of Fort Worth as I posted at the beginning of this thread. The wheels are in motion and the law is working as the legislature intended. I like many others wish it was faster, but I'm a patient person.

[BTP]

Those people really think they are clever.

My typical assumption is that they want to make the SJW feel good with a sign, but not really have anything enforceable. Finding the needed wording/text type is easy, modifying it takes deliberate action. I think that is what is going on here.

[G.A. Heath]

Is it even a properly worded sign?

The restriction for amusement parks is in Penal Code 46.035. The restrictions of that section are independent of whether the owner or lessee has posted signs complying with 30.06 or 30.07. So it doesn't matter that the signs don't pass muster under 30.06 and 30.07.

46.035(b)(5) places amusement parks off limits, however if you read further you will find 46.035(i) which says

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.

So for 46.035(b)(5) to apply the signs actually do have to pass muster if they meet the definition of an amusement park, which they do not.

[Daddio-on-patio]

Something I find interesting about the Zoo being posted. Mrs. Ramona Bass is a mover-and-shaker for them and a supporter of 2A along with her husband Mr. Lee Bass ( chairman emeritus of TXPW). I had a working relationship with them and the head of security for the Zoo for a couple years in a previous occupation prior to obtaining my CC permit. All very respectful professional persons. Knowing that the people who work with and for them (I am talking us necessary types not the uber wealthy business associates) isolate them from certain day to day issues it wouldn't surprise me if they were not aware of the posting. With the working knowledge I had with them I assure you that their personal protection officer's are very well armed and trained.

If they are aware and on board with the posting I hope the AG rules on the law and not influence.

[KLB]

Is it even a properly worded sign?

46.035(b)(5) places amusement parks off limits, however if you read further you will find 46.035(i) which says

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.

Oops. I looked for that, but apparently not hard enough.