TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah, the zoo is making a different argument than what I'm mentioning. However, I'm hoping the ruling will shed some light on some other situations such as gun shows in publicly owned facilities and such. The topic is more general than just the Zoo situation so I took the liberty to mention other situations also.

I understand how expensive it will be, however, I also realize those that live on other people's money tend not to be such good stewards.

I understand. However, it doesn't stop people from claiming it until it gets tested in court.

If it was so clear cut, it wouldn't be an issue. The tennant/lessee usually claims not all property rights are conveyed from one to another but are natural property rights regardless whether they own or lease the property. They claim just because the lessor doesn't have the right, the tenant isn't also void of that right. Hoping it gets resolved soon.

This is where the idea of owned by city or state and leased to or ran by private company gets tested. I've heard the argument of who is running the operation or business is the determinining factor since a lease or operating agreement conveys rights similar to ownership without the actual ownership.

Should be interesting.