TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Amusement parks are off limits per TPC 46.035, only if they provide notice pursuant to TPC 30.06. As such a city owned amusement park can post a 30.06 sign and not run afoul of the new law regarding improper postings.

So I went and re-read what you were talking about, and by gosh I think you are right. I just learned something new today. It reads starting at 46.035 -> 30.06 -> Can still post because listed in 46.035. What a crock! This is a loop that needs to be closed next legislative session.

Good call sir!

Glockster wrote:And as an amusement park they also must:
- produce the required amusement ride compliance sticker showing that they've received permission to then operate as an amusement park by the Texas Department of Insurance
- meet the insurance required by the Amusement Ride Safety Inspection and Insurance Act
- fully meet the requirements of the Texas Title 13 Occupations Code CHAPTER 2151 REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RIDES, including producing inspection certificates
- have the required signage under Sec. 2151.105. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS that requires posting a sign at the entrance informing the public how to report an amusement ride that appears to be unsafe.

I think it would be interesting to see if they do, as there are penalties if they don't including class B misdemeanors for each person operating and for each day.

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:And as an amusement park they also must:
- produce the required amusement ride compliance sticker showing that they've received permission to then operate as an amusement park by the Texas Department of Insurance
- meet the insurance required by the Amusement Ride Safety Inspection and Insurance Act
- fully meet the requirements of the Texas Title 13 Occupations Code CHAPTER 2151 REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RIDES, including producing inspection certificates
- have the required signage under Sec. 2151.105. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS that requires posting a sign at the entrance informing the public how to report an amusement ride that appears to be unsafe.

I think it would be interesting to see if they do, as there are penalties if they don't including class B misdemeanors for each person operating and for each day.

This is why I think they will fail at being an amusement park. They are not going to want to follow all the rules that come with being one, therefore it will be hard for them to claim such status. I think the key will be reporting them for posting the signs, then when they claim the 46.035 status as an amusement park, challenge them to demonstrate their compliance with the above.

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

Glockster wrote:

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

Just read the entire thread on the other forum, sad state of affairs. Unless I misread things it sounds like there was someone who may well be an attorney respond to you (in post and indicated by PM) indicating that they could help?...

mr1337 wrote:

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Second of all, that was an amazing read, and I'm sure it must have been very frustrating for you to be in that position. My guess is we will have much of the same for the Dallas Zoo. Fortunately, we now have a course of action against political subdivisions that do this, so hopefully it will be short-lived.

The person to talk to would most definitely be Charles Cotton, the owner of this site. As far as suing the zoo, that would be done by the Texas Attorney General if I understand correctly.

BB62 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Second of all, that was an amazing read, and I'm sure it must have been very frustrating for you to be in that position. My guess is we will have much of the same for the Dallas Zoo. Fortunately, we now have a course of action against political subdivisions that do this, so hopefully it will be short-lived.

The person to talk to would most definitely be Charles Cotton, the owner of this site. As far as suing the zoo, that would be done by the Texas Attorney General if I understand correctly.

(my bold above)

I didn't realize that that was the case. THANK YOU for that information.

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?

Thanks for the welcome.

• Citizen/CHL Holder provides notice to political subdivision describing the violation
• If violation is not corrected within 3 business days, he/she may file a complaint with the Texas AG with evidence of the violation and a copy of the notice given to the political subdivision.
• If TX AG finds them in violation, they have 15 days to correct the situation before being fined.
• If TX AG does not find them in violation, there is no further private course of action against the political subdivision

46.035 -> 30.06 -> Can still post because listed in 46.035.

BB62 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Second of all, that was an amazing read, and I'm sure it must have been very frustrating for you to be in that position. My guess is we will have much of the same for the Dallas Zoo. Fortunately, we now have a course of action against political subdivisions that do this, so hopefully it will be short-lived.

The person to talk to would most definitely be Charles Cotton, the owner of this site. As far as suing the zoo, that would be done by the Texas Attorney General if I understand correctly.

(my bold above)

I didn't realize that that was the case. THANK YOU for that information.

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?

Thanks for the welcome.

BB62 wrote:

Glockster wrote:

BB62 wrote:I currently have a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against me because of a filing by the St. Louis Zoo, because of my stated intention to carry a sidearm into the Zoo.

You can read more about it here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... elp-needed

Is someone suing the Dallas Zoo? If so, I would appreciate their attorney's contact information (and a link to where that person/firm is mentioned).

Thank you kindly.

Just read the entire thread on the other forum, sad state of affairs. Unless I misread things it sounds like there was someone who may well be an attorney respond to you (in post and indicated by PM) indicating that they could help?...

That person didn't allege that they had anything to do with a legal challenge to the Dallas Zoo situation, hence my request here.

Glockster wrote: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.