Forth Worth & Dallas Zoos

[Abraham]

Given their hard core anti-gun stance, I attribute their signs to a lack of knowledge about proper signage.

Not a wink-wink in my opinion.

[cowhow]

Don't know that I'd want to be the test case for OC either, but that sign is useless and if that's their best effort then I'm a happy camper. I'll CC right past it with a smile.

[Keith B]

Given their hard core anti-gun stance, I attribute their signs to a lack of knowledge about proper signage.

No a wink-wink in my opinion.

I think it may be done on purpose as well. However, it's not a 'wink wink' pass, it's a "Well Mr.AG Your Honor, we don't have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted because it's illegal to do that on government owned property". Since it's not a legal 30.06 or 30.07 sign they can put up the guise that it is, the uninformed LTC will turn back to their car, the anti's that don't know better will think it is valid, and since its not a 30.06/30.07 they won't get fined for it. However, since the sign refers to 30.06/30.07, then it's still a violation of the law and they CAN be fined.

[Photoman]

Have any of the OC'ers gone to the zoo yet? If so, what happened?

[TXBO]

Given their hard core anti-gun stance, I attribute their signs to a lack of knowledge about proper signage.

No a wink-wink in my opinion.

I think it may be done on purpose as well. However, it's not a 'wink wink' pass, it's a "Well Mr.AG Your Honor, we don't have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted because it's illegal to do that on government owned property". Since it's not a legal 30.06 or 30.07 sign they can put up the guise that it is, the uninformed LTC will turn back to their car, the anti's that don't know better will think it is valid, and since its not a 30.06/30.07 they won't get fined for it. However, since the sign refers to 30.06/30.07, then it's still a violation of the law and they CAN be fined.

You would think the people making these decisions would actually read the law.

Sec.A411.209.AAWRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder
carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is
prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place
owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders
are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other
place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code

[Abraham]

TXBO,

If I read what you posted correctly, the posting of false signage IS illegal and the AG "can" do something about it.

Posting such signage doesn't make me as an LTC/CHLer feel good because if I'm in the know enough, if you will, I know I really can carry, as the signs aren't valid, while the anti-gun folk supposedly also feel good because they think I can't carry, doesn't hold up...such signage isn't allowed by law.

Ah, assuming my understanding of what TXBO posted is accurate...

[SH3P4RD_117]

Posted as of 5/5/2016 at the Fort Worth Zoo

Entrance to Parkinglot by booth to pay for parking:


To the right of the booth for purchasing admission tickets:


Closer view:

[Kolamer]

I may be wrong but those signs are not legal due to the wording. I am pretty sure you cannot combine the signs.

[AJSully421]

I may be wrong but those signs are not legal due to the wording. I am pretty sure you cannot combine the signs.

You can't, the signs are not compliant in a couple of ways. Conceal away, I do every time that I go.

[Rex B]

They sure go to a lot of trouble to avoid following the law.I think the AG should make an example of them, in a big way

[rotor]

If the signs are not legitimate 30.06 and 30.07 signs how can the AG make them remove them? By definition the place is not posted.

[Wes]

And let's not tell them please, thanks

[twomillenium]

I may be wrong but those signs are not legal due to the wording. I am pretty sure you cannot combine the signs.

Your not wrong.

[Papa_Tiger]

If the signs are not legitimate 30.06 and 30.07 signs how can the AG make them remove them? By definition the place is not posted.

WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

Seems to me like they are referring to the concealed handgun license as well as referring to section 30.06 of the penal code and are therefore subject to GC 411.209

[DevilDawg]

And let's not tell them please, thanks

Let's all of us pay very close attention to the above quote..... Please quit trying to make it your personal mandate to educate them. Use the process enacted through the AG and let them get fined. Meanwhile LTC holders who know and fully understand the law can carry concealed without fear of prosecution.