Star-Telegram article on carry at Ft. Worth zoo

[FrogFan]

The following article ran today in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 36048.html. The title says it all: "Ft. Worth Zoo can remain gun-free".

Based on my understanding of what happened with the zoo, I think the author got it wrong. The ruling was, I think, that the city of Ft. Worth can't be fined because they didn't post the sign. The signs can stay up, but we can still carry there; i.e., they have no force of law. Is that right? Moreover, I think there will be an attempt to clarify this in the upcoming legislative session, but I've lost track of the details.

I was about to write a letter to the editor but I decided not to do that for two reasons. First, I don't have command of all the facts, and second, I figure there is nothing to gain by setting them straight. Regardless, I thought I'd check with the experts here to see if I'm in the ballpark on this issue.

[doncb]

They think they can exclude LTC because they're a "daycare" facility. The AG ruling only had to do with the fines for signs.
I hope the issue with a private business posting on government owned property is resolved soon.

Does anyone know if they still have the combo 30.06 /07 signs up?

[rtschl]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

[hillfighter]

I would carry without guilt knowing I'm in full compliance with the law.

30.06(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

[ScottDLS]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

Don't complain to the AG either or you may be the "test case" for a lawsuit by the City a la Holcomb...

[RoyGBiv]

I would carry without guilt knowing I'm in full compliance with the law.

30.06(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

My feelings as well.

[Beiruty]

All those confusion should be cleared in 2017 session. It is a priority that in addition to the building shared by the courts. Amusements parks, zoos, and professional sporting venues (a soft target for terrorists).

[mr1337]

It looks to me like the HB234 proposed, that the definition now includes "occupied by a government entity". This is going to make even more people crazy. If I own a building and I don't want guns in it, then I can't lease it to a govt entity to "occupy' it. If the govt owns a building and leases it to a private entity for their use, then the private entity can ban guns.

Yeah, HB234 is saying is if it's a government-owned property/building but the government doesn't occupy it, the private entity can post 30.06/07 signs that have force of law. In order to be exempted, the property would have to be owned and occupied by the government.

[MeMelYup]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

Wouldn't the management company that runs the zoo under contract from the city be considered the same as a city employee?

[mr1337]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

Wouldn't the management company that runs the zoo under contract from the city be considered the same as a city employee?

No, an employee of the zoo is an employee of a private entity. The "fines for signs" law only penalizes government employees posting on government property.

The FWZ signs are still invalid since it's government-owned property, but the law doesn't allow the AG to penalize private entities for posting invalid signs.

[MeMelYup]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

Wouldn't the management company that runs the zoo under contract from the city be considered the same as a city employee?

No, an employee of the zoo is an employee of a private entity. The "fines for signs" law only penalizes government employees posting on government property.

The FWZ signs are still invalid since it's government-owned property, but the law doesn't allow the AG to penalize private entities for posting invalid signs.

Yes the signs are non-prosecutorial due to the city owning the property. Wouldn't the management company be classed as employed by the city, as they are under contract to the city to run the zoo?

[mr1337]

I agree that the author got it wrong. What the AG ruled was that the City of Fort Worth nor the Zoo can be fined:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

That being said, I would not want to be the test case. Let's let the bill Charles has in the works take care of it.

Wouldn't the management company that runs the zoo under contract from the city be considered the same as a city employee?

No, an employee of the zoo is an employee of a private entity. The "fines for signs" law only penalizes government employees posting on government property.

The FWZ signs are still invalid since it's government-owned property, but the law doesn't allow the AG to penalize private entities for posting invalid signs.

Yes the signs are non-prosecutorial due to the city owning the property. Wouldn't the management company be classed as employed by the city, as they are under contract to the city to run the zoo?

Doing business with or for a government entity does not make you a government entity.

[FrogFan]

A much more balanced article appeared today, with quotes from Alice Tripp and Terry Holcomb: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 48378.html

“I’ve gotten complaints about the Fort Worth Zoo forever,” said Alice Tripp, legislative director of the Texas State Rifle Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association. “People have been questioning the signs since they went up there 20 years ago.

“Taxpayer-owned property can’t be prohibited to licensees, except for the properties currently prohibited in statute,” she said. “This is not something the Legislature intended to have happen.”

ETA

Meanwhile, Holcomb said he’s putting state lawmakers and the Fort Worth Zoo on notice.
“I will give the Legislature a chance to fix this in the next five months,” he said. “If they don’t fix it, then I will go be the test case.
“Someone has to do something to protect the license holders in the state.”
But for now, Holcomb says he is asking the more than 1.1 million Texans who have a License to Carry to not push the issue.
“I’m recommending to people to stand down,” he said. “I absolutely don’t want to see anyone get arrested.”

I'm looking forward to the upcoming legislative session.

[treadlightly]

Doing business with or for a government entity does not make you a government entity.

Seems like there could still be an argument that the Fort Worth Zoo Association operates in at least a special relationship with Fort Worth.

For instance, in a contract from 2010 (http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles ... ntract.pdf), there are provisions stating the contract can't be used as evidence the zoo acts as an agent of the city, despite the management fees the city pays the zoo.

On the other hand, the city requires (page 12) bonds for contracts in excess of $50,000 in accordance with Government Code Section 2253.021 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... V.2253.htm). That section addresses "A governmental entity that makes a public work contract," not private entities.

I'm not a lawyer, obviously. I just skimmed that contract looking for anything that jumped out. Sounds to me like at least some law aimed at government includes the Fort Worth Zoo, and that the Zoo facilities are a public work.

Probably a slim argument, based too much on horse sense. I believe the real operative things are that the zoo spent money to put up gun signs. Clearly, they want those signs noticed and have effect - but they chose signs that only affect those who have handgun licenses.

Without doubt, the Fort Worth Zoo therefore wants as many people as possible to have handguns, and they are so egalitarian they want them left unattended all day in parked cars for easier access by the disadvantaged.

Hug a panda, buy more guns. Got it.