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.SC1903A3 wrote: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.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “"Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"”
- Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:35 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6097
Re: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:52 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6097
Re: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
Yet....Charles L. Cotton wrote:
...
There are no government churches.
Chas.
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".
- Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:10 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6097
Re: "Dallas Zoo could be headed for legal showdown over ‘no guns’ signs"
If otherwise off limits under 46.03 or 46.035 city owned premises can post 30.06. Example: City owned Hospital.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.