TexasCHLforum.com

twomillenium wrote:

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first and foremost, and he is not above going back and saying "Oops, based on new case law my previous decision no longer valid."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

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.

ELB wrote: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.

RiverKing wrote:"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.

ScottDLS wrote:

Glockster wrote:

dhoobler wrote: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.

Glockster wrote: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 wrote:

Glockster wrote: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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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?

(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.

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

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.

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.