Since it should be posted soon at OAG website I will just quote the last paragraph:
"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."
This is just crazy. The City of Fort Worth is a political subdivision and they own the Zoo and the land it is on. I fail to see why who manages the property matters. I will not be going to either of these zoos in the future and have never been to the Dallas zoo in the past. However, this kind of stuff needs to be straightened out legislatively or cities will start taking advantage of this "loophole" and putting all kinds of stuff under the management of a third party.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Imam not a lawyer yada yada yada ... But it seems to me that they claim that they can't force them to take the sign down, Whats not said and I believe to be true is that it is still perfectly legal to carry there. I would carry there, but I would carry concealed.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand, this only means that the State cannot fine the city for the improper posting. The land is owned by the City of Fort Worth but they are not responsible for posting the signs.
But I have no desire to spend money at the Fort Worth Zoo.
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.
rtschl wrote:...snip...
But I have no desire to spend money at the Fort Worth Zoo.
Same here. My Dad called cash "fold-over money".
I'll just fold it over and put it back in my pocket.
LabRat
This is not legal advice.
People should be able to perform many functions; for others and for themselves. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein (Severe paraphrase)
rtschl wrote:Took me a few minutes to find but below is the last paragraph of the relevant OAG's Opinion KP-0108 located here: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... kp0108.pdf. This was referenced in the letter.
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.
READ THIS AGAIN!!!
The opinion upholds our right to carry!
tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot
rtschl wrote:Took me a few minutes to find but below is the last paragraph of the relevant OAG's Opinion KP-0108 located here: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... kp0108.pdf. This was referenced in the letter.
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.
READ THIS AGAIN!!!
The opinion upholds our right to carry!
tex
Except for that "amusement park" zoo nearby, then we left in the breeze
doncb wrote:This law has been turned into a farce. A precedent has been set. Thanks AG.
Fixed in 2017? Not going to hold my breath.
His ruling may not be what we wanted, but I think it is correct. He made a judgement based on the rule of law, not how he felt about it, or not how he wanted the law to be.
What he said was, that a law intended to punish a political entity does not apply to a private entity. We just need to go back to the Lege and tighten up the rules. maybe put prison or the capital punishment on the line for the sign posters.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
So... they can post the signs without running up a tab for violating the no signs on public property ordinance.... but LTC's can carry past the signs because they are posted on public owned property, which is an exception to the sign law... ??
Do I have that straight?
I'm laughing out loud.
Looking forward to 2017.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
rtschl wrote:Took me a few minutes to find but below is the last paragraph of the relevant OAG's Opinion KP-0108 located here: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... kp0108.pdf. This was referenced in the letter.
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.
READ THIS AGAIN!!!
The opinion upholds our right to carry!
tex
Seems to me it's just saying they THINK it's LIKELY that a license holder wouldn't get convicted. Not sure I'd want to be the test case for this.
“Public safety is always the first cry of the tyrant.” - Lord Gladstone
XinTX wrote:
Seems to me it's just saying they THINK it's LIKELY that a license holder wouldn't get convicted. Not sure I'd want to be the test case for this.
I wouldn't hesitate to CC, It's not too high of a risk. The risk of getting caught, combined with the cost of defending oneself in the likelihood of most likely winning doesn't seem too bad.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
XinTX wrote:
Seems to me it's just saying they THINK it's LIKELY that a license holder wouldn't get convicted. Not sure I'd want to be the test case for this.
I wouldn't hesitate to CC, It's not too high of a risk. The risk of getting caught, combined with the cost of defending oneself in the likelihood of most likely winning doesn't seem too bad.
Probably. Just trying to point out the letter doesn't say "It's okay to CC" there. It just says they don't believe you'd be convicted.
“Public safety is always the first cry of the tyrant.” - Lord Gladstone
