Fort Worth Zoo vs. Texas State Fair

[Caliber]

I've been reviewing the chatter regarding 30.06/30.07 on these two locations. The opinions are:
Fort Worth Zoo - 30.06 sign is legal and enforceable.
Texas State Fair - 30.06 sign is legal, but not enforceable.

I'm not sure what the differences are here. Both locations are owned by the City, both locations are leased to another entity to operate. So, what am I missing?

[Flightmare]

I thought many people have carried at the Texas State Fair in Dallas and that there was no 30.06 sign.

[Caliber]

OK, sorry, there's a 30.07, not a 30.06 at the Texas State Fair. But, my question regarding enforceability remains.

[DynamicDan]

Probably because the city isn't managing it.

[Caliber]

The city doesn't manage either location.

I believe we (on the forum) concluded that if an entity leases property owned by the city, then the entity can post 30.06/30.07 signs but the signs are not enforceable. So, why is the Fort Worth Zoo's 30.06 sign enforceable?

And, to add more to the discussion, I read the AG's letter regarding the Zoo. He expressly states that the 30.06 sign is not in violation, but he did not expressly say that it is enforceable.

[ScottDLS]

The city doesn't manage either location.

I believe we (on the forum) concluded that if an entity leases property owned by the city, then the entity can post 30.06/30.07 signs but the signs are not enforceable. So, why is the Fort Worth Zoo's 30.06 sign enforceable?

And, to add more to the discussion, I read the AG's letter regarding the Zoo. He expressly states that the 30.06 sign is not in violation, but he did not expressly say that it is enforceable.

It's not enforceable. Carry away. But beware the proverbial "ride".

[Liberty]

The city doesn't manage either location.

I believe we (on the forum) concluded that if an entity leases property owned by the city, then the entity can post 30.06/30.07 signs but the signs are not enforceable. So, why is the Fort Worth Zoo's 30.06 sign enforceable?

And, to add more to the discussion, I read the AG's letter regarding the Zoo. He expressly states that the 30.06 sign is not in violation, but he did not expressly say that it is enforceable.

It's not enforceable. Carry away. But beware the proverbial "ride".

Not much of a chance of taking the ride if you stay concealed. In order to take the ride.

1: Some one would have to see a concealed gun.
2: Someone would have to care.
3: The responding officer would have to not understand the law.
4: officer would have to be a jerk or stupid to actually arrest someone when they could just write out a ticket.

[C-dub]

I don't recall anyone on this forum saying that the signs at the FW Zoo were legal and enforceable. And that's not just our opinion, but the State AG also. IIRC, he said something along the lines that a third party may post the signs and not be in violation of the fines for signs law since they are not a governmental entity. Personally I think that's junk and the city should still be held responsible since they are still the owners of the property. They need to tell their tenants to behave and tow the line legally.

The Dallas Zoo, on the other hand, is a different issue. They managed to get themselves classified as an amusement park because of that one little train or a few little kiddie rides. That too is bogus. No one thinks of them as an amusement park unless you want to consider it amusing how many of their animals are able to escape their enclosures.

[rtschl]

Possible confusion from Star Telegram article we discussed here: viewtopic.php?t=87067

But as I noted in that thread:

"After review, the OAG determines the 30.06 signs at issue were posted by the association, which possesses the exclusive right to post signage on the zoo premises under the terms of its fee-for-services management contract with the city. Further, a reviewing court would likely conclude that under existing law, a private non-profit corporation such as the association is not considered a political subdivision of the state for purposes of section 411.209(a) of the Government Code. Accordingly, the OAG finds signage posted at the entrance to the zoo is not in violation of section 411.209 of the Government Code. The OAG is closing these complaints."

The letter also referenced the OAG's earlier Opinion KP-0108 which the OAG also believes a license holder would be excepted from 30.06 and 30.07 posting at such property:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of the Penal Code.

[C-dub]

I don't recall anyone on this forum saying that the signs at the FW Zoo were legal and enforceable. And that's not just our opinion, but the State AG also. IIRC, he said something along the lines that a third party may post the signs and not be in violation of the fines for signs law since they are not a governmental entity. Personally I think that's junk and the city should still be held responsible since they are still the owners of the property. They need to tell their tenants to behave and tow the line legally.

The Dallas Zoo, on the other hand, is a different issue. They managed to get themselves classified as an amusement park because of that one little train or a few little kiddie rides. That too is bogus. No one thinks of them as an amusement park unless you want to consider it amusing how many of their animals are able to escape their enclosures.

The Dallas DA said they won't prosecute trespassing.

That's right!

I bet they would, though, for one of those scary white guys with a gun that has a cleaner record than your average police officer.

[Dreamer42]

In regards to the title of "Amusement Park" I did a generic Google search "Amusement Parks in North Texas. As you can guess, several parks came up, but oddly enough, neither of the DFW zoos were anywhere on the search. Go figure. Could it be that NOBODY considers them amusement parks?

[Papa_Tiger]

In regards to the title of "Amusement Park" I did a generic Google search "Amusement Parks in North Texas. As you can guess, several parks came up, but oddly enough, neither of the DFW zoos were anywhere on the search. Go figure. Could it be that NOBODY considers them amusement parks?

All that matters is that it meets the legal definition, regardless of it's title.

[Deltaboy]

Fort Worth Zoo trying to use the excuse they are an education institution!

[chasfm11]

Fort Worth Zoo trying to use the excuse they are an education institution!

...and how many other educational institutions do you know that sell alcohol? IANAL but if I were busted for carrying at the Dallas Zoo, I'd want to see all of the compliance records for the Zoo that are required of amusement parks in the State of Texas. The Zoo had better have all of the same amusement reporting that the State Fair has to complete.

I doubt that TABC would want to play but it would be good to take the letters claiming the educational institution for the Ft. Worth Zoo to them and ask them while they are allowed to license a school. Those permits need to be renewed the the Tarrant Tax Collector, too, but I really wouldn't expect them to do anything but back the zoo.