TexasCHLforum.com

From Dallas Morning News 8/24/2015:
"In Texas’ hard-charging gun community, the Dallas Zoo is something of a terra incognita.

The property is city-owned — under state law, that would typically mean holders of concealed handgun licenses could carry pistols there. But the zoo is privately run, and it posts “no guns” signs, pointing to exemptions in the statute for “amusement parks” and “educational institutions.”

Gun owners have long argued over the arrangement, and now, a new state law could help settle the debate over that and other aspects of Texas’ gun laws. Starting in September, Texans will have a formal process by which to complain to the state attorney general about government entities that might wrongfully bar concealed guns."

Read more at http://goo.gl/PDmG8s

The zoo is not an amusement park. It also does not qualify as an educational institution. People are amused there and there is some education going on, but that can be said of many places.

Fair Park, in Dallas, is also privately managed. They know better and we covered all that with them years ago. The property is still owned by the city and they will lose this battle.

Well, I'm having fun in there right now.

Well, this article reminds me that SB273 was one of my favorite bills passed this year.

Finally, we'll get the question answered...can we carry at the Houston Zoo, which is privately run, but on city owned land? And the GWB convention center? And why is the HPD Westside Command Center building posted, when only some of the rooms in the building have traffic court inside?

And the list goes on and on. I know that I personally don't have the knowledge base and/or resources to start all those fights, but eventually someone will.

Being able to proactively fight this (rather than getting wrongfully arrested and pray that good case law arises from it) is a good thing, if you ask me.

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.

mojo84 wrote: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.

I'm sure I remember Charles explaining that the lessor (the city) cannot transfer a right (prohibiting licensed carry) that they don't possess in the first place.

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.

mojo84 wrote: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.

It's going to be a mighty expensive test for any city. The starting fine is $1,000 per sign per day. If the case takes two years from trial through appeal, then the city will be liable for $730,000 for each sign, plus legal expenses for the AG. If each cashier at the Dallas Zoo has a 30.06 sign, then it's $730,000 X [number of cashiers] plus legal expenses.

From what I've read, the Dallas Zoo isn't trying to claim that the operator can post a 30.06 sign on city-owned property. They are claiming they are both 1) an "educational institution," and 2) an amusement park, as defined in the Code. That's laughable!!

Chas.

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.