"Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"

[srothstein]

I was just doing some reading and found that the Dallas Zoo might very well be an amusement park, at least legally. They have a monorail ride which probably meets the legal definition of an amusement ride. That is defined in Occupations Code Section 2151.002 as:

(1) "Amusement ride" means a mechanical device that carries passengers along, around, or over a fixed or restricted course or within a defined area for the purpose of giving the passengers amusement, pleasure, or excitement.

I think they probably meet the remaining requirements (days open, size, etc.). And, just for technical accuracy, the law does not include the word premises int he section banning carry there. It just says "in an amusement park". I would guess that the legislators were smart enough to realize that an amusement park would not be banned effectively if it included premises as part of the law.

The interesting part for me would be if they properly registered the monorail and complied with all of the amusement park rules. My particular concern would be section 2151.105, if there are signs posted telling people how to file complaints about safety. Anyone happen to see such a sign by the main entrance (one of the required locations)?

Of course, a lack of proper signs or insurance would not make it not an amusement park. It would simply make them guilty of a class B misdemeanor for each day it is in violation. And each section would be a separate count also.


Overall, I would advise not carrying in the Dallas Zoo until the AG rules.

[casp625]

So having one "amusement ride" at a location can make it an entire amusement park?

[Glockster]

I was just doing some reading and found that the Dallas Zoo might very well be an amusement park, at least legally. They have a monorail ride which probably meets the legal definition of an amusement ride. That is defined in Occupations Code Section 2151.002 as:

(1) "Amusement ride" means a mechanical device that carries passengers along, around, or over a fixed or restricted course or within a defined area for the purpose of giving the passengers amusement, pleasure, or excitement.

I think they probably meet the remaining requirements (days open, size, etc.). And, just for technical accuracy, the law does not include the word premises int he section banning carry there. It just says "in an amusement park". I would guess that the legislators were smart enough to realize that an amusement park would not be banned effectively if it included premises as part of the law.

The interesting part for me would be if they properly registered the monorail and complied with all of the amusement park rules. My particular concern would be section 2151.105, if there are signs posted telling people how to file complaints about safety. Anyone happen to see such a sign by the main entrance (one of the required locations)?

Of course, a lack of proper signs or insurance would not make it not an amusement park. It would simply make them guilty of a class B misdemeanor for each day it is in violation. And each section would be a separate count also.


Overall, I would advise not carrying in the Dallas Zoo until the AG rules.

Since they are responding from a position of claiming to know the law, I'd think that it would be difficult for them to claim that they don't know the laws related to an amusement park (which actually includes a few more in addition to those already cited). So I'd hope that the fact that they aren't complying with the legal requirements imposed upon legitimate amusement parks would be a clear indication that they don't actually believe that they are one.

[Jago668]

It would be hilarious. Choose your poison, violate the law for the 30.06 sign, or violate the law for not doing all the amusement park stuff since your inception.

[SC1903A3]

So my question is does Govt. property trump the amusement park prohibition or or does amusement park trump Govt. property. I'm thing Govt. property rule would trump the amusement park excuse that Dallas Zoo is trying to use.

[ScottDLS]

So my question is does Govt. property trump the amusement park prohibition or or does amusement park trump Govt. property. I'm thing Govt. property rule would trump the amusement park excuse that Dallas Zoo is trying to use.

Government owned hospitals have been able to post 30.06 IAW current law. The prohibition on government posting 30.06 has an exception for places otherwise prohibited under 46.035, I.e. hospitals, amusement parks.