TexasCHLforum.com

lowracer wrote:Just FYI, I got an email response back from Mr Doug Dykman, the Zoo's Deputy Director for Operations and Facilities. He says the Dallas Zoo falls under 46.03(1) (any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted) and 46.035 (5) Amusement Park.

Well, unless they have amusement RIDES, then they don't fit the amusement park portion. And, the any grounds has been interpreted to be property under control of the school, not just where school kids happen to show up, so IMO he is wrong and if I go, I will carry.

Keith B wrote:Well, unless they have amusement RIDES, then they don't fit the amusement park portion. And, the any grounds has been interpreted to be property under control of the school, not just where school kids happen to show up, so IMO he is wrong and if I go, I will carry.

This is a prime example of why it can be bad to ask. The uninformed zoo director has now been put on alert that people want to carry there, which could lead to further postings and increased scrutiny.

Know the law and carry quietly and confidently.

I am just now seeing this but have a similar dilemma in SA with the AT&T center.

Below is my thoughts from another thread...

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I read the portion in red as saying that if the property is owned or leased by a governmental entity then 30.06 does not apply regardless who posts it. The key part to me is the "or leases". it is clear to me that if the property is owned or leased by a governmental entity it cannot be posted 30.06, period. But again I am not a lawyer and this is just my simple mind's understanding.

Since Dallas owns the zoo and the property they cannot put up a 30.06 sign and legally enforce it. The penal code does not say anything about "unless it is operated by another entity" or "under the control of another entity" or anything of the like.

Keith B is correct with the amusement park and school grounds information.

I think that it is very clear that if the property is owned or leased by a governmental agency then they cannot post and legally enforce 30.06.

IANAL and according to my wife have been wrong before.

Keith B wrote:Well, unless they have amusement RIDES, then they don't fit the amusement park portion. And, the any grounds has been interpreted to be property under control of the school, not just where school kids happen to show up, so IMO he is wrong and if I go, I will carry.

He specifically mentioned the merry-go-round and the monorail, and the pony and camel rides.

rp_photo wrote:

Keith B wrote:Well, unless they have amusement RIDES, then they don't fit the amusement park portion. And, the any grounds has been interpreted to be property under control of the school, not just where school kids happen to show up, so IMO he is wrong and if I go, I will carry.

This is a prime example of why it can be bad to ask. The uninformed zoo director has now been put on alert that people want to carry there, which could lead to further postings and increased scrutiny.

Know the law and carry quietly and confidently.

The fact that he's posted some attempt at 30.06 signage means he's already aware that people want to carry there. Anyway I'd like someone to explain how the zoo is not an amusement park and if someone has a reference for the interpretation of "property under control of the school," I'd like to see that. Was that case law or something else?

OK I'm not a lawyer but I did some digging into the law. The zoo may in fact be an amusement park but under 30.06(e) they can't post it with a 30.06 sign. And an amusement park has to be posted 30.06 in order for 46.035(b)(5) to apply, see 46.035(i).

The only thing they have left to stand on is the school sponsored activity thing but I suspect that "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly" clause of 46.03 would apply, and if you went in carrying and there wasn't for example a huge banner saying SCHOOL FIELD TRIP DAY, then you would have no intent to carry into the prohibited school sponsored activity and thus no violation of 46.03.

I'm still going to press for them to remove the signs.

lowracer wrote:The only thing they have left to stand on is the school sponsored activity thing but I suspect that "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly" clause of 46.03 would apply, and if you went in carrying and there wasn't for example a huge banner saying SCHOOL FIELD TRIP DAY, then you would have no intent to carry into the prohibited school sponsored activity and thus no violation of 46.03.

I'm still going to press for them to remove the signs.

The school event thing is bull IMHO and just another example of going after our rights under the guise of protecting children.

If the powers that be really cared about children, they'd want the good guys carrying around them whenever possible.

Now I am not a lawyer but the school thing sounds like bull to me, too.

If any place a school field trip may go is off limits, where does that end? If I'm carrying in the local McDonald's and a school field trip stops in there to eat on the way to their destination, am I suddenly in violation? That's the implication from the zoo saying you can't carry because schools hold field trips there.

I would think you can't carry at the location IF YOU'RE PART OF THE FIELD TRIP as a teacher or parent chaperone, etc. Making it a criminal offense for someone who isn't part of the field trip to carry some place he may be that a school sponsored activity happens to show up to makes absolutely no sense to me.

Just got home from the Dallas zoo. Parked in the south lot and entered through the south gate. Almost didn't even see this until my wife pointed it out. It's not blatantly obvious, but noticable. On the left fence of the entrance. However, it's obviously non-compliant, so I walked right on by. Lettering way to small. Only 1/2 inch. I did measure with my iPhone ruler.

What I think is funny is that someone makes signs that have the correct wording in English and Spanish, but are too small and are making money off of places that put these up that don't know any better.

However, the sad part about this is if there is an officer or chief or DA that says they are close enough.

C-dub wrote:What I think is funny is that someone makes signs that have the correct wording in English and Spanish, but are too small and are making money off of places that put these up that don't know any better.

However, the sad part about this is if there is an officer or chief or DA that says they are close enough.

Yah. The theory I threw out there was this...Since they are government property, they know they can not legally post a 30.06. So, they put something that is as close as possible(but not actually compliant) in an effort to deter CHL's from bringing fireamrs in. And it probably works fairly well.

Bulldog1911 wrote:Just got home from the Dallas zoo. Parked in the south lot and entered through the south gate. Almost didn't even see this until my wife pointed it out. It's not blatantly obvious, but noticable. On the left fence of the entrance. However, it's obviously non-compliant, so I walked right on by.

zoo2.jpg

Lettering way to small. Only 1/2 inch. I did measure with my iPhone ruler.

In addition, it is missing the Spanish part of it. Maybe we need to copy off PC 30.06, by itself, and keep a copy in our wallet. That way, when we rightly ignore signs like that, and we somehow end up on the wrong side of the law, we can at least pull that paper out. Even if it does not serve as enough proof for the officer, maybe it will, at least, cause him to check it out before bringing you on in.

My wallet is one of those aluminium ones, and it would not fit, but just a thought.

RJ

johnson0317 wrote: In addition, it is missing the Spanish part of it.

RJ

No habla Ingles

Bulldog1911 wrote:Yah. The theory I threw out there was this...Since they are government property, they know they can not legally post a 30.06. So, they put something that is as close as possible(but not actually compliant) in an effort to deter CHL's from bringing fireamrs in. And it probably works fairly well.

Unless a new law was passed this year, it's not illegal for them to post the sign, but the sign is not valid notice for the 30.06 law.

boba wrote:

Bulldog1911 wrote:Yah. The theory I threw out there was this...Since they are government property, they know they can not legally post a 30.06. So, they put something that is as close as possible(but not actually compliant) in an effort to deter CHL's from bringing fireamrs in. And it probably works fairly well.

Unless a new law was passed this year, it's not illegal for them to post the sign, but the sign is not valid notice for the 30.06 law.

You know it. We know it. They may know it. But, they don't care.