

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Thank you for standing up for all of us.OldAg wrote:I'm not sure whether or not there was more than one complaint. The one I filed with the city clearly showed the 30.06 posting (including arrows pointing them out). The one referenced in the article did not seem to as they just showed the "no guns" sign. However, if you blow up the picture I sent and pan right, you can get the view that is shown in the article.
It does show that there can be some positive results if we politely follow the new law. I had not sent anything to the AG's office yet to allow the Arboretum to rectify the issue. Hopefully, this one is done and the others will also get resolved!
Outstanding! Carry on.OldAg wrote:I'm not sure whether or not there was more than one complaint. The one I filed with the city clearly showed the 30.06 posting (including arrows pointing them out). The one referenced in the article did not seem to as they just showed the "no guns" sign. However, if you blow up the picture I sent and pan right, you can get the view that is shown in the article.
It does show that there can be some positive results if we politely follow the new law. I had not sent anything to the AG's office yet to allow the Arboretum to rectify the issue. Hopefully, this one is done and the others will also get resolved!
Well, if your name is Bradley Young, then it was you. Named in the story.OldAg wrote:I'm not sure whether or not there was more than one complaint. The one I filed with the city clearly showed the 30.06 posting (including arrows pointing them out). The one referenced in the article did not seem to as they just showed the "no guns" sign. However, if you blow up the picture I sent and pan right, you can get the view that is shown in the article.
It does show that there can be some positive results if we politely follow the new law. I had not sent anything to the AG's office yet to allow the Arboretum to rectify the issue. Hopefully, this one is done and the others will also get resolved!
Dallas City Council member Mark Clayton, whose district includes the arboretum, said Tuesday that he wasn’t familiar with the legal issues and didn’t know about the arboretum’s decision.
Still, he expressed unease.
“My overall opinion is your right to bear arms should not infringe on my rights to have a pleasant outing,” he said.
ScottDLS wrote:Thank you for standing up for all of us.OldAg wrote:I'm not sure whether or not there was more than one complaint. The one I filed with the city clearly showed the 30.06 posting (including arrows pointing them out). The one referenced in the article did not seem to as they just showed the "no guns" sign. However, if you blow up the picture I sent and pan right, you can get the view that is shown in the article.
It does show that there can be some positive results if we politely follow the new law. I had not sent anything to the AG's office yet to allow the Arboretum to rectify the issue. Hopefully, this one is done and the others will also get resolved!
Ah, of course - the old Pleasant Outing Amendment.mojo84 wrote:This is classic whiny entitlement.
Dallas City Council member Mark Clayton, whose district includes the arboretum, said Tuesday that he wasn’t familiar with the legal issues and didn’t know about the arboretum’s decision.
Still, he expressed unease.
“My overall opinion is your right to bear arms should not infringe on my rights to have a pleasant outing,” he said.
I'm not Mr. Young and I don't know whether my notification to the City made the difference or not. I was told by the AG's office that there had been only one complaint filed against the Arboretum and that it did not have all the pictures necessary to meet the statute. That prompted my notice (with the proper pictures). If the DMN did an open records request of the AG's office, they would not have gotten my name. I only filed with the City and was giving them time to act.AJSully421 wrote:Well, if your name is Bradley Young, then it was you. Named in the story.OldAg wrote:I'm not sure whether or not there was more than one complaint. The one I filed with the city clearly showed the 30.06 posting (including arrows pointing them out). The one referenced in the article did not seem to as they just showed the "no guns" sign. However, if you blow up the picture I sent and pan right, you can get the view that is shown in the article.
It does show that there can be some positive results if we politely follow the new law. I had not sent anything to the AG's office yet to allow the Arboretum to rectify the issue. Hopefully, this one is done and the others will also get resolved!
Signs are still not authoritative at Fort Worth... Both the city property thing, and the sign is a hodgepodge of 30.06 and 30.07 language.TexasJohnBoy wrote:![]()
Wife was saying today that she wanted to go to the zoo soon. Hopefully Dallas and Ft. Worth zoos follow suit soon.
So who's gonna open carry with me there in January?AJSully421 wrote:Signs are still not authoritative at Fort Worth... Both the city property thing, and the sign is a hodgepodge of 30.06 and 30.07 language.TexasJohnBoy wrote:![]()
Wife was saying today that she wanted to go to the zoo soon. Hopefully Dallas and Ft. Worth zoos follow suit soon.
Probably a LEO will show up....ScottDLS wrote:So who's gonna open carry with me there in January?AJSully421 wrote:Signs are still not authoritative at Fort Worth... Both the city property thing, and the sign is a hodgepodge of 30.06 and 30.07 language.TexasJohnBoy wrote:![]()
Wife was saying today that she wanted to go to the zoo soon. Hopefully Dallas and Ft. Worth zoos follow suit soon.