Houston Zoo Reinstalls No Guns Signs

[Soccerdad1995]

Hi everybody, I've been lurking here for several months and gained a lot of good information here.

I visited the Houston Zoo today and saw their 30.06, 30.07, and they even tossed up a 46.03 sign. I walked pass the sign wall.

My firearm was IWB appendix (Browning Hi Power). I also had my saw-back knife (about 5 inches of metal from tip to top of the handle, 4" are sharpened). These weapons were openly carried on my belt.

At first everything seemed cool, no one said anything or even offered up resistance. Even had the camera dude take a picture of me including the wife and kids. Shortly after, a woman approached me and asked if I had a real firearm on me, I said yes. She said it was against company policy to have any firearms open or concealed. I informed her that since the zoo was on city property the signs were invalid. She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

So the director of security comes out and I give him the 30.06 .07 signs are invalid speech. To which he says, they are valid because the zoo is an educational institution. I asked him if he knew there was up to a 10,000 dollar fine for the illegally posted signs. He assured me he was well aware of the law. He also noted that my method of carry was not in compliance with the law and that it was illegal to carry in condition 1 (pretty good eyes to mention that detail). I told him that was not true and asked him for the statute that said otherwise. He said he could even look it up for me, and made an insulting remark that I should have paid attention in chl class. I asked him politely if he could retrieve the statute for me, and I offered to wait, or even come back after we finished viewing the zoo. So he must have realized I called his bluff on that one and he told me to look it up on my own time.

The rest of my experience at the zoo was like any other day at the park. Aside from coincidentally running into a security guard every 10-15 minutes (had me followed?). Everyone was really cordial and I'd be happy to bring the family in the future.

I think we will have our test case real soon.

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

[RossA]

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

Assuming the AG's office really pursues any of these complaints.

[TVGuy]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

[Soccerdad1995]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

[TVGuy]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

[DevilDawg]

Color me jaded.. 1st post from a professed lurker? This sounds too much like the behavior of the Oranges, Chicken & Taco club. In your face and confrontational. IMHO we should use better tactics when dealing with these illegal posted signs.

Yes, the AG office is not in a rush. The gristmill of justice always turns slow, but it does grind exceedingly fine. At $10,000/Day in fines they will be broke if they levy them retroactively.

[Soccerdad1995]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

After the part you quoted, he says that the director of security commented on his carrying in condition 1. That means the director of security had to have seen the weapon, so the guy still had it and did not return it to his car while waiting to talk to the director.

He also said that he enjoyed his visit and would return. If he had felt compelled to disarm, I doubt he would be eager to return.

[TVGuy]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

After the part you quoted, he says that the director of security commented on his carrying in condition 1. That means the director of security had to have seen the weapon, so the guy still had it and did not return it to his car while waiting to talk to the director.

He also said that he enjoyed his visit and would return. If he had felt compelled to disarm, I doubt he would be eager to return.

Could have easily been seen by video, or by a different security officer. I'm sure he looked at him over surveillance cameras before actually speaking with him.

[TVGuy]

Color me jaded.. 1st post from a professed lurker? This sounds too much like the behavior of the Oranges, Chicken & Taco club. In your face and confrontational. IMHO we should use better tactics when dealing with these illegal posted signs.

Yes, the AG office is not in a rush. The gristmill of justice always turns slow, but it does grind exceedingly fine. At $10,000/Day in fines they will be broke if they levy them retroactively.

Highly possible, but lurkers don't often call themselves out while trolling.

[Soccerdad1995]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

After the part you quoted, he says that the director of security commented on his carrying in condition 1. That means the director of security had to have seen the weapon, so the guy still had it and did not return it to his car while waiting to talk to the director.

He also said that he enjoyed his visit and would return. If he had felt compelled to disarm, I doubt he would be eager to return.

Could have easily been seen by video, or by a different security officer. I'm sure he looked at him over surveillance cameras before actually speaking with him.

Anything is possible, but I am going to say it is unlikely that security cameras at the zoo have that level of zoom capability. Maybe the OP can confirm this point.

[TVGuy]

Anything is possible, but I am going to say it is unlikely that security cameras at the zoo have that level of zoom capability. Maybe the OP can confirm this point.

Don't ever underestimate the zoom power of Big Brother!

[Soccerdad1995]

Yes, the AG office is not in a rush. The gristmill of justice always turns slow, but it does grind exceedingly fine. At $10,000/Day in fines they will be broke if they levy them retroactively.

There is a clear record that the administrators of the zoo have been made aware of the violation, so there is no reason why that clock would not be ticking right now. If they are worried about the fine, it would be much smarter to take the signs down pending a clarification from a judge on whether they are an educational institution.

Actually, if the zoo is an educational institution, then they don't need to post signs in the first place. Posting signs tells me that they believe they are not in fact an educational institution.

[suthdj]

So has the AG done anything yet?

[Txtension]

Based on this I'm guessing not. It sounds like he stayed at the zoo, openly carrying, and zoo security did nothing further. If the zoo officials had called the police, and this guy had been given a citation, then at least we would have had an opportunity for a judge to rule on the definition of "educational institution" in the law. Would a judge really want to make a precedent setting ruling in a hearing over a Class C misdemeanor? If so, that seems like a fairly low risk way to get a test case before a judge. I'm sure the person charged could get some fairly hefty donations to their legal defense fund as well.

The other potential test case will come after zoo officials are fined and they try the same "educational institution" argument as a defendant.

It sounds like he returned his weapon to the car before talking to the Director of Security to me. Hopefully he will correct us.

I didn't read that in his post.

This could be taken either way:

She restated the company policy bit, and asked me to return the gun to my car, and that I could speak to the director of security. I said sure.

After the part you quoted, he says that the director of security commented on his carrying in condition 1. That means the director of security had to have seen the weapon, so the guy still had it and did not return it to his car while waiting to talk to the director.

He also said that he enjoyed his visit and would return. If he had felt compelled to disarm, I doubt he would be eager to return.

Could have easily been seen by video, or by a different security officer. I'm sure he looked at him over surveillance cameras before actually speaking with him.

Anything is possible, but I am going to say it is unlikely that security cameras at the zoo have that level of zoom capability. Maybe the OP can confirm this point.

Yes, I field stripped my weapon and scattered it around my vehicles interior compartments/trunk. I took the ammo with me, but I did return to the zoo a few minutes later without my firearm. the director met with me in that office area by the signs. I went back to ask the director for his business card and that's when he commented on my carry method. My holster and gun are both black, so it might look like an unlawful carry open carry at first glance.

[mojo84]

If this happened, what would have been unlawful about carrying in condition 1?