TexasCHLforum.com

rtschl wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:With respect to the Ft. Worth Zoo, was there ever a ruling from AG Paxton, or were they relying on KP-108 which refers not to Educational Institutions but non-profits leasing government property. If the Fort Worth Zoo contends they are a school, then they still may not prohibit carry on the property...only in the buildings. Same with 51% licensees.

Yes. We lost: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=86826

chasfm11 wrote:I have no reason to try to defend General Paxton nor do I want to. I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to pose a written question to him about the fines for signs enforcement. General Paxton was at the event in person. I was fortunate in the fact that the person actually reading my question to General Paxton was an LTC instructor and was able to embellish what I had asked (What is necessary to more vigorously enforce the fines for signs law)
General Paxton's response was that some of the language and definitions needed to be cleaned up. He did not elaborate on which ones or what the changes should be. He did express his surprise to be named as the enforcer of the law and talked about its sponsor. I'm not in a position to pass judgement about the validity of his response. I'm as disappointed as you that places the the Ft. Worth Zoo are allowed to continue with their charade. How you can claim to be an educational institution in order to post the 30.06 and have a liquor license at the same time boggles my mind.

I guess that I thought that anti-sanctuary city bill did not go into effect until September 1st. I happened to be watching Fox News this morning and saw his exchange with the hosts over the filling of the lawsuits. General Paxton did a decent job of articulating why he decided to file now - so that he could pick the battleground rather than allow it to evolve. To be honest, I'm not much more optimistic about Sheriff Hernandez getting arrested than I am about the Ft. Worth Zoo taking down their signs. Time will tell.