TexasCHLforum.com

The Zoo claims to be on 106 acres.

Jago668 wrote:

suthdj wrote:so which law holds more power the carve out for amusement parks or the fact it is still on city owned property? My guess the one that is least cumbersome on the people.

Except I don't think it hits the 75 acre limit for an amusement park. I remember somebody posting it is only around 68 acres.

I believe you Ft Worth is 68 and Dallas over 100.

If the Dallas Zoo falls, you will see the others get in line pretty quickly. They don't have room in their operating budgets for the penalties.

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

ScottDLS wrote:

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

Got it. Thanks.

ScottDLS wrote:

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

Except for the fact that some places (hospitals, churches, amusement parks) were effectively removed from 46 by subsection (i) by saying that 30.06 is required to exclude them. This law compounds that by preventing a city from posting 30.06.

It is not circular logic, a city cannot post those noted in (i).

AJSully421 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

Except for the fact that some places (hospitals, churches, amusement parks) were effectively removed from 46 by subsection (i) by saying that 30.06 is required to exclude them. This law compounds that by preventing a city from posting 30.06.

It is not circular logic, a city cannot post those noted in (i).

SB273 creates a fine for a governmental entity that posts an unenforceable 30.06 sign. TPC §30.06(e) states that 30.06 signs on governmental property are unenforceable unless that property is already off-limits under §§46.03 or 46.035. Amusement parks and hospitals are off-limits per §46.035(b)(5) & (6), respectfully.

Therefore, governments can post enforceable 30.06 signs on hospitals and amusement parks. There are no government churches.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

Except for the fact that some places (hospitals, churches, amusement parks) were effectively removed from 46 by subsection (i) by saying that 30.06 is required to exclude them. This law compounds that by preventing a city from posting 30.06.

It is not circular logic, a city cannot post those noted in (i).

SB273 creates a fine for a governmental entity that posts an unenforceable 30.06 sign. TPC §30.06(e) states that 30.06 signs on governmental property are unenforceable unless that property is already off-limits under §§46.03 or 46.035. Amusement parks and hospitals are off-limits per §46.035(b)(5) & (6), respectfully.

Therefore, governments can post enforceable 30.06 signs on hospitals and amusement parks. There are no government churches.

Chas.

Even though it says it is not off limits if there is not a 30.06 posted? Even more reason why we need a bill to remove those locations entirely.

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

gljjt wrote:What am I missing? Even if it is amusement park, since it is owned the City of Dallas, it is not off limits for carry. The sign is irrelevant.

If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.

Except for the fact that some places (hospitals, churches, amusement parks) were effectively removed from 46 by subsection (i) by saying that 30.06 is required to exclude them. This law compounds that by preventing a city from posting 30.06.

It is not circular logic, a city cannot post those noted in (i).

SB273 creates a fine for a governmental entity that posts an unenforceable 30.06 sign. TPC §30.06(e) states that 30.06 signs on governmental property are unenforceable unless that property is already off-limits under §§46.03 or 46.035. Amusement parks and hospitals are off-limits per §46.035(b)(5) & (6), respectfully.

Therefore, governments can post enforceable 30.06 signs on hospitals and amusement parks. There are no government churches.

Chas.

Even though it says it is not off limits if there is not a 30.06 posted? Even more reason why we need a bill to remove those locations entirely.

Yes. SB273 applies to unenforceable signs only. As soon as a 30.06 sign is posted on a government-owned hospital, it is enforceable per TPC §30.06(e).

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
...
There are no government churches.
Chas.

Yet.... I wouldn't put it past them to try, in spite of the Establishment Clause" of the 1st Amendment.

Makes about as much sense as a "temporary educational institution".

TXBO wrote:

Jago668 wrote:

suthdj wrote:so which law holds more power the carve out for amusement parks or the fact it is still on city owned property? My guess the one that is least cumbersome on the people.

Except I don't think it hits the 75 acre limit for an amusement park. I remember somebody posting it is only around 68 acres.

I believe you Ft Worth is 68 and Dallas over 100.

Ah okay. Must have been what I was thinking. Thank you for correcting me.

I'm new to the board so hopefully this post is not a breach of protocol. I previously posted this question to an old link and it would be better on this one.

Slightly off topic, but related: The City of Dallas also owns the property where the Dallas Arboretum is located. When I visited it last month, I noticed that it is now posted with a 30.06 signs at the main entrance and at the entrance from the garage parking. I have since sent a letter (with pictures) to the city manager asking that the signs be removed (thanks to Charles for providing the template).

I faxed the letter last week and I expect the first class mail to get to them this week. I haven't heard from them (and don't expect to). Hopefully, the signs get removed and I won't need to follow up. However, as soon as I confirm that they are not going to remove them, I have all the documentation ready to send to the AG. My problem is that I am over 100 miles away. Is there anyone that will be going to the Dallas Arboretum in the next few weeks? If so, would they let me know if the signs are still posted?

OldAg wrote:I'm new to the board so hopefully this post is not a breach of protocol. I previously posted this question to an old link and it would be better on this one.

Slightly off topic, but related: The City of Dallas also owns the property where the Dallas Arboretum is located. When I visited it last month, I noticed that it is now posted with a 30.06 signs at the main entrance and at the entrance from the garage parking. I have since sent a letter (with pictures) to the city manager asking that the signs be removed (thanks to Charles for providing the template).

I faxed the letter last week and I expect the first class mail to get to them this week. I haven't heard from them (and don't expect to). Hopefully, the signs get removed and I won't need to follow up. However, as soon as I confirm that they are not going to remove them, I have all the documentation ready to send to the AG. My problem is that I am over 100 miles away. Is there anyone that will be going to the Dallas Arboretum in the next few weeks? If so, would they let me know if the signs are still posted?

Thanks for doing this! After you find out if the signs have been removed and whether a complaint to the AG will be necessary, please submit the information that will be used in the 2017 Texas Legislative Session. Here is a link to the form.

Thanks,
Chas.

Hell, let them call themselves an amusement park. Contained within the definition is

"The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

I'll walk on the SIDEWALKS connecting the exhibits and be hunky-dory. They want to stretch common meaning, hell, I like semantics!

Pariah3j wrote:Someone on the article commented:

If the Dallas Zoo is an amusement park then i want to ride the elephants

Decades ago when I was a little kid I got to ride an elephant at the San Antonio zoo. That was a blast.