Dallas Zoo is an Amusement Park - Who Knew?

[ScottDLS]

I have heard that the Dallas City Attorney is saying that the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park and can therefore lawfully prohibit carry by posting 30.06 signs.

I think the first step should be to file a complaint to see if we can get the city fined. If we get a ruling that they have to take it down then I might volunteer to be the Test Case for Open Carry after Jan. 1.

[DocV]

Well, it does have a carousel, a train and a monorail. Maybe the pony rides also count? It has over 100 acres, controlled access, and is open for more than 120 days per year. So, from a strict definition perspective, they seem to have some basis for arguing it meets the relevant definition of being an amusement park.

[baldeagle]

The Dallas City Attorney may have some problems in court arguing that. Zoos are regulated under TITLE 13. SPORTS, AMUSEMENTS, AND ENTERTAINMENT, SUBTITLE D. OTHER AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CHAPTER 2152. REGULATION OF CIRCUSES, CARNIVALS, AND ZOOS. Amusement parks are regulated under TITLE 13. SPORTS, AMUSEMENTS, AND ENTERTAINMENT, SUBTITLE D. OTHER AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, CHAPTER 2151. REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RIDES.

So Zoos are regulated by a different code than Amusement Parks.

Zoos are specifically defined in Sec. 2152.001. (6) "Zoo" means any mobile or stationary premises where living animals that normally live in a wild state are kept primarily for display to the public.

Penal Code 46.035 defines an amusement park:

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So what are the amusement rides that the Dallas Zoo maintains? I doubt the Monorail would qualify, because it's purpose isn't amusement but access to the animals. Furthermore, if the zoo wants to classify itself as an amusement park, then all of its rides are subject to the regulations in Title 13, Subtitle D, Chapter 2151.

So I think they would struggle in court to make that argument, and any decent judge would see through their transparent attempt to deny citizens their rights.

[G.A. Heath]

I have very good reason to suspect that Charles is on this. In fact I think he may have an ORR ready to be filed, if not already filed, for more information on this.

[ELB]

The Dallas City Attorney may have some problems in court arguing that. Zoos are regulated under ...Amusement parks are regulated under ...

Don't know which Texas agency oversees the "amusments" code but if Dallas does in fact argue to court or Attorney General, I think an immediate inspection of the Zoo for compliance with all of the "amusment park " regulations would be in order. I'm sure there are some nice fines to go with non-compliance, and they should be hefty since the zoo has been operating for years but only recently acknowledged its "amusement park" status. A Governor and/or AG willing to play hardball would avail themselves of this opportunity.

[ScottDLS]

The Dallas City Attorney may have some problems in court arguing that. Zoos are regulated under TITLE 13. SPORTS, AMUSEMENTS, AND ENTERTAINMENT, SUBTITLE D. OTHER AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CHAPTER 2152. REGULATION OF CIRCUSES, CARNIVALS, AND ZOOS. Amusement parks are regulated under TITLE 13. SPORTS, AMUSEMENTS, AND ENTERTAINMENT, SUBTITLE D. OTHER AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENT, CHAPTER 2151. REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RIDES.

So Zoos are regulated by a different code than Amusement Parks.

Zoos are specifically defined in Sec. 2152.001. (6) "Zoo" means any mobile or stationary premises where living animals that normally live in a wild state are kept primarily for display to the public.

Penal Code 46.035 defines an amusement park:

(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So what are the amusement rides that the Dallas Zoo maintains? I doubt the Monorail would qualify, because it's purpose isn't amusement but access to the animals. Furthermore, if the zoo wants to classify itself as an amusement park, then all of its rides are subject to the regulations in Title 13, Subtitle D, Chapter 2151.

So I think they would struggle in court to make that argument, and any decent judge would see through their transparent attempt to deny citizens their rights.

I think you're right that they will have trouble meeting the statutory definition, based on their existing categorization as a Zoo. Also, because it's an obvious intent to subvert intent of the law regarding posting by government entities. The only reason I'm not willing to be the TEST CASE unless they take down the sign is because 46.035 violations are a Class A Misdemeanor, vice 30.06/07 being a Class C (after 1/1).

[treadlightly]

I have heard that the Dallas City Attorney is saying that the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park and can therefore lawfully prohibit carry by posting 30.06 signs.

I think the first step should be to file a complaint to see if we can get the city fined. If we get a ruling that they have to take it down then I might volunteer to be the Test Case for Open Carry after Jan. 1.

I applaud the sentiment but worry the outcome. All it should actually take, in a fair and honest society, to be a test case is to approach the zoo, see the sign, and turn away.

Your rights have been infringed, unfortunately, a lot of do-gooders probably wouldn't care.

[Glockster]

As much as I HATE to have to say it, they apparently ARE an amusement park. You can verify them as on the listing of this holding amusement park licenses at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/lcamuseinfo.html , at page 60, record 462.

[G.A. Heath]

Can someone help me understand how being an amusement park has anything to do with the ability to post 30.06 signs? I don't get the angle he's trying to come at. Amusement parks are not treated special anymore.

If it's owned by the city, you typically cannot post a 30.06 sign, the end.

Amusement parks are off limits per TPC 46.035, only if they provide notice pursuant to TPC 30.06. As such a city owned amusement park can post a 30.06 sign and not run afoul of the new law regarding improper postings.

[G.A. Heath]

As much as I HATE to have to say it, they apparently ARE an amusement park. You can verify them as on the listing of this holding amusement park licenses at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/lcamuseinfo.html , at page 60, record 462.

They may have a license, but I can have a business license w/o having a business. Worming their way into meeting the requirements for an amusement park may just one of the tools we need to strip amusement parks and other off limits locations out of the penal code. This is not a fight gun owners and our advocates are willing to loose.

[baldeagle]

As much as I HATE to have to say it, they apparently ARE an amusement park. You can verify them as on the listing of this holding amusement park licenses at http://www.tdi.texas.gov/commercial/lcamuseinfo.html , at page 60, record 462.

Just a second. Amusement rides do not make it an amusement park. By legal definition it's a zoo. If it also has amusement rides, they are required by law to sticker them and undergo inspections, but that does not change the definition of what they are.

It does strengthen their legal argument that they are an amusement park, and some judges may side with them because of it. If would be interesting to know when they first got the rides stickered. That might enter into the judgment of the court as to whether or not they're trying to pull a fast one.

[SewTexas]

last I heard they were saying they were an Amusement Park and a Day Care Center. But I agree with G.A., I believe Mr Cotton is working on this.

[Glockster]

And as an amusement park they also must:
- produce the required amusement ride compliance sticker showing that they've received permission to then operate as an amusement park by the Texas Department of Insurance
- meet the insurance required by the Amusement Ride Safety Inspection and Insurance Act
- fully meet the requirements of the Texas Title 13 Occupations Code CHAPTER 2151 REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RIDES, including producing inspection certificates
- have the required signage under Sec. 2151.105. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS that requires posting a sign at the entrance informing the public how to report an amusement ride that appears to be unsafe.

I think it would be interesting to see if they do, as there are penalties if they don't including class B misdemeanors for each person operating and for each day.

[srothstein]

This is an interesting turn. For those of you arguing against it, I might point out that there is nothing forbidding a place from being two things at once, under the law. After all, haven't we already asked if a hospital can also be a school if it is a teaching hospital? Or a church that is a school if it owns a private school? It is entirely possible that the Zoo is both a zoo and an amusement park and is under both sets of regulations. Based on this, I would strongly suggest NOT carrying in the zoo if they post it, at least until the courts rule on this.