TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

its over 75 acres so yes it meets the definition but not the spirit

Fort Worth Zoo is not over 75 acres is what I meant, so AG ruling is not going to help them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Yep, whatever it takes to meet the Amusement Park definition:

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.

Don't really think a zoo was what legislature had in mind when they made the amusement park exemption.

ScottDLS wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

its over 75 acres so yes it meets the definition but not the spirit

Fort Worth Zoo is not over 75 acres is what I meant, so AG ruling is not going to help them.

its 106 acres so yea he gave them the pass, now its going to be frenzy, all the government agencies are going to use shoddy logic and get a pass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Zoo

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

its over 75 acres so yes it meets the definition but not the spirit

Fort Worth Zoo is not over 75 acres is what I meant, so AG ruling is not going to help them.

its 106 acres so yea he gave them the pass, now its going to be frenzy, all the government agencies are going to use shoddy logic and get a pass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Zoo

As I said, the Fort Worth Zoo
is not over 75 acres...from their own website....

The Fort Worth Zoo is 64 acres in size and has been at its current location since 1910.

ScottDLS wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:See this thread: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83538

Apparently, AG Patrick has determined that the Dallas Zoo qualifies to post signs as an amusement park. I'm sure it will be minutes before Ft Worth makes the same claim.

Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

its over 75 acres so yes it meets the definition but not the spirit

Fort Worth Zoo is not over 75 acres is what I meant, so AG ruling is not going to help them.

its 106 acres so yea he gave them the pass, now its going to be frenzy, all the government agencies are going to use shoddy logic and get a pass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Zoo

As I said, the Fort Worth Zoo
is not over 75 acres...from their own website....

The Fort Worth Zoo is 64 acres in size and has been at its current location since 1910.

sorry I misread....yea I still have doubts that anything will be done, the amusement park thing is so thin as to believe that Obama has our best interest in mind before believing that they are parks or educational institutions. I have no confidence in the AG or Governor at this point, just more liars that will enable malfeasance of public officials

Conceal carry has been legal for 20 years. Has shootings at Texas zoos by CHL holders occurred to many times for them to have to now make it illegal? I'm curious why all the sudden after 20 years Is there a reason to ban

TreyHouston wrote:Conceal carry has been legal for 20 years. Has shootings at Texas zoos by CHL holders occurred to many times for them to have to now make it illegal? I'm curious why all the sudden after 20 years Is there a reason to ban

most of the signs have been up for 20 years, its the advent of a mechanism to enforce the no posting by or on government entity property that has fueled this, when there was no way to enforce it we just merely ignored it. now the AG is ignoring the reality of it so he doesn't have to alienate the cities or other government entities and doesn't really have to do anything by accepting straw man arguments his office and he can just post non effective letters and ignore it like the ostrich by shoving his head in a dark place

ScottDLS wrote: Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

They seem to be ignoring that facts.. Or they can't read. One or the other. Not sure which is worse.

cb1000rider wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: Except they are not large enough to meet the statutory definition...

They seem to be ignoring that fact.. Or they can't read. One or the other. Not sure which is worse.

watch the AG accept the educational institution argument from Ft Worth and Houston and do nothing cept laugh at us for being rubes

I do not understand that law.
At least the AG should have some courtesy to simply say, "..nope, just don't want guns there.. no other reason.."

Ft Worth Zoo was not claiming to be an amusement park, but rather a day care center.

Fort Worth Zoo was also claiming to be an "educational institution".

rtschl wrote:Fort Worth Zoo was also claiming to be an "educational institution".

They have certainly caused us to learn a lot about the law.

Based on the link above, the agreement with the zoological association is a management agreement, not a lease. If the AG finds licensees may carry in the Fort Worth Zoo, expect the management agreement to be terminated and a new lease entered into, thereby giving the zoological association, a tenant, an independent right to ban weapons.

KLB wrote:Based on the link above, the agreement with the zoological association is a management agreement, not a lease. If the AG finds licensees may carry in the Fort Worth Zoo, expect the management agreement to be terminated and a new lease entered into, thereby giving the zoological association, a tenant, an independent right to ban weapons.

Except that the property is OWNED by the city, so 30.06 still not valid.