The Dallas Zoo has a 30.06 sign, but it's city owned property....

[gringogigante]

So wouldn't that negate the 30.06 sign?

 

[txinvestigator]

So wouldn't that negate the 30.06 sign?

30.06 does not apply on property owned or leased by a government entity.

 

[Dawico]

From what I understand, the 30.06 sign trumps everything else. Is that what you are saying TXI, or do have that wrong?

 

[txinvestigator]

From what I understand, the 30.06 sign trumps everything else.

What does that mean?

A 30.06 sign on property owned or leased by a government entity is meaningless.

Texas Penal Code 30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035

 

[Dawico]

I thought that a posted 30.06 sign made it illegal to carry on that property, no matter who owns it. I see that is wrong. Dang, some of these carry laws are confusing.

 

[txinvestigator]

I thought that a posted 30.06 sign made it illegal to carry on that property, no matter who owns it. I see that is wrong. Dang, some of these carry laws are confusing.

I understand. I have been involved in the CHL program since 1996 and I STILL mix stuff up. I have written a plain English guide and posted it here in my blog on this website;

Texas Gun Talk - txinvestigator - Blogs

 

[MAJIK_BONE_77]

It might be a good idea to check into who exactly owns the property the Dallas Zoo is on, or who actually owns the zoo itself, it's been awhile since I lived in Dallas but it may be that the zoo is a private entity that may recieve sponsorship from the city, or may be in some sort of partnership with the city, but is probobly not actually owned by the city, or not actually on city property. Now I could be wrong, But something tells me that if the sign is there, then there's probobly a valid reason for it to be there. It may even have something to do with the Dallas zoo being a regular destination for school field trips, and may be covered under the same section of the law that does not allow CHL holders to bring guns onto school property.

Just a thought.

 

[Adionik]

I wouldn't try to jump around the technicality...if you get stopped by a LEO, good luck talking yourself out of the case.

 

[jagged97]

The City of Dallas contracts with DZM/DZS (Dallas Zoo Management, Inc./Dallas Zoological Society) for the management, maintenance and operation of the Dallas Zoo. The City pays an annual management fee to DZM/DZS for this purpose. The Zoo continues to be an asset owned by the City of Dallas, and managed by the not-for-profit entities DZM/DZS. Similar contracts exist for the Dallas Arboretum, the Trinity River Audubon Center and most major zoos around the country (including Fort Worth and Houston).

It is clearly noted in the documents I found that despite personal property utilized by the zoo for daily operations being transfered to DZM/DZS, the "City shall retain ownership of all land, real property interests, buildings and improvements."

This is all from a city council briefing from August 2009. The resolution approving this transfer and contract agreement was passed by the city council later that month.

 

[SC-Texas]

Looks like teh 30.06 signs are invalid.

Anyone want to be teh test case?

 

[txinvestigator]

Looks like teh 30.06 signs are invalid.

Anyone want to be teh test case?

I carry there. There is no issue, no metal detectors, no wanding, etc.

 

[txinvestigator]

I wouldn't try to jump around the technicality...if you get stopped by a LEO, good luck talking yourself out of the case.

Stopped by a LEO for what? I have not seen too many cops patrolling around inside the Zoo.

 

[txinvestigator]

It may even have something to do with the Dallas zoo being a regular destination for school field trips, and may be covered under the same section of the law that does not allow CHL holders to bring guns onto school property.

Just a thought.

It is not. It is a zoo, not a school.

 

[Adionik]

Stopped by a LEO for what? I have not seen too many cops patrolling around inside the Zoo.

I was at the zoo a few weeks ago. There were no cops inside the zoo, but plenty outside.

 

[MAJIK_BONE_77]

Well I do know that the law prohibits carrying concealed in an amusment park regardless of wether or not the park is owned by the city, state or other government entity, the law states:

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:​

*Amusement parks. Amusement Parks means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where
amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only
through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private​

driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

30.06(e)
It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a ​

handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity

​

and is not a premises or other place on which the
license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.​

I'd be willing to bet that Dallas considers the Zoo an amusement park.
And because of that last sentence in the 30.06 rule, just because it's property owned or leased by a governmental entity does not trump everything else, you still have to abide by section 46.03 and 46.035.​

​

 

[txinvestigator]

Well I do know that the law prohibits carrying concealed in an amusment park regardless of wether or not the park is owned by the city, state or other government entity, the law states:

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:​

*Amusement parks. Amusement Parks means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where
amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only
through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private​

driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

30.06(e)
It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a ​

handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity

and is not a premises or other place on which the
license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.​

I'd be willing to bet that Dallas considers the Zoo an amusement park.
And because of that last sentence in the 30.06 rule, just because it's property owned or leased by a governmental entity does not trump everything else, you still have to abide by section 46.03 and 46.035.​

Ahh, Majik; here we go again.

#1 Amusement parks are NOT off limits unless posted 30.06

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(5) in an amusement park


(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

#2. The zoo is not an amusement park;

(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

It does not have amusement rides or 24 hour security.

 

[MAJIK_BONE_77]

Well it is posted as was stated, and if you talk to the management at the zoo, the safari monorail, among several other small attractions of miniscule note, are all considered amusement rides. And for the purposes of concealed carry the Dallas zoo conciders itself an amusement park, in addition to the fact that they do have what they consider around the clock security, (although u and I might not think of it that way, I don't think they carry firearms), and the fact that the dallas zoo is owned by the zooalogical society, and leases from the city.

Let's be clear here, I'm not standing up for the zoo posting that sign, or even saying that they can, I like everyone else on here thinks that you should be able to carry anywhere, as long as you have been proven to be a responsible person with a firearm by having recieved a CHL. Not trying to start something with Txinvestigator either, but my original post was to point out the fact that if the sign is posted then there is probobly (at least in the opinion of the people who put it there) a good reason for it, and is it really worth getting hassled by the zoo officials, or worse DPD, and running the risk that if it was taken to any further action, that someone would say you shouldn't have been carrying there, and you have your CHL revoked? I personally don't think so, and for my money, if someone, is going to post that sign, then I won't take my kids there, regardless of wether or not it a valid sign. Too many people get screwed over doing something they should have the right to do, just to have some buerocrat come along and punish them in some way for doing it.

 

[txinvestigator]

Well it is posted as was stated, and if you talk to the management at the zoo, the safari monorail, among several other small attractions of miniscule note, are all considered amusement rides. And for the purposes of concealed carry the Dallas zoo conciders itself an amusement park,

I don't care what they consider themselves.

Let's be clear here, I'm not standing up for the zoo posting that sign, or even saying that they can, I like everyone else on here thinks that you should be able to carry anywhere, as long as you have been proven to be a responsible person with a firearm by having recieved a CHL. Not trying to start something with Txinvestigator either, but my original post was to point out the fact that if the sign is posted then there is probobly (at least in the opinion of the people who put it there) a good reason for it, and is it really worth getting hassled by the zoo officials, or worse DPD, and running the risk that if it was taken to any further action, that someone would say you shouldn't have been carrying there, and you have your CHL revoked? I personally don't think so, and for my money, if someone, is going to post that sign, then I won't take my kids there, regardless of wether or not it a valid sign. Too many people get screwed over doing something they should have the right to do, just to have some buerocrat come along and punish them in some way for doing it.

***sigh*** whatever

 

[MAJIK_BONE_77]

People can "sigh", and say "whatever" or just say that they don't care what the dallas zoo says, but until someone can say definitivley without a doubt that if a person gets caught with a concealed pistol at the dallas zoo, and there is nothing adverse that will happen to that individul, then not only is it irresponsible to advise people on this thread to go ahead and do it, but then why am I being treated like the red headed step-child for saying that you shouldn't push your luck. It's people that push their luck, and get caught that left-wing nutjobs use as examples to push for more gun restrictions, and having someone walk into some place that has a sign posted, and saying "screw them, I know the law" then getting busted on it, Justly or not, is just what these wack jobs point to whenever they want to make a point about gun control, thank God we live in Tx and even with a couple of bad examples we more than likely still wouldn't loose our freedom to carry.

But 9 times out of 10 I'm willing to bet that if someone got busted with a gun at the zoo the police, and or judge would side with the Zoo, and not the individual. I have 5 cops in the Dallas area in my family, and people that push their luck, and say what they can and can't do, "screw what the sign says, I know the law" are just the type of people that cops love to mess with, where as being respectful of that sign, wether or not you like it will have a much better result. Just do what I would, don't go there. If it were you, or one of your students who you told should just go ahead and carry at the zoo that got busted, then either had their CHL revoked or had to go through some lengthy process to prove they had the right to be there, would you still think it was a better idea to carry onto zoo property, than to just not patronize there?

Look the zoo has no metal detectors, and nobodys gonna be giving you a pat down search at the zoo, so even if you carry there, more than likely nobody will ever know. All I'm saying is what if? what if your gun was seen by someone at the zoo? what if your CHL got revoked? what if it was just another example used by some nutjob to rally support for gun control? what if? what if? what if? Isn't that why we all carry a gun in the first place? What if I get attacked? What if I need to protect myself? Think of the what if's and prepare accordingly.

Anyway "sigh" and "whatever" all you like. If someone refuses to even consider something that is based on common sense, even if they disagree, and was only posted as a waring to be careful, not a lesson on the law, and would rather keep saying "screw them I know what the law says" then that person is more concerned about being right then considering that someone else might have a point of view that is valid even if it differs from their own. And just comes off sounding just a stubborn as every left-wing blogger, and politician out there that will never concede to the facts that regardless of their opinion, that guns might not be as bad as they think. And isn't that the same mentality that drives us gun owners so crazy about the left-wing, the fact that they won't even consider another side of the argument. Anyway it does no good to keep arguing about something that should be common sense, especially when I can concede to the fact that Txinvestigator is probably right about wether you legally ought to be able to carry at the zoo, and if you do carry at the zoo you will probably never have a problem, but that doesn't mean it's a given that you won't have problems if you do, and someone see your gun.

I'm done, can't argue anymore about something that should be so simple.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I wouldn't try to jump around the technicality...if you get stopped by a LEO, good luck talking yourself out of the case.

I would say that a subsection that plainly states that the provisions of Section 30.06 are inapplicable on government owned or lease property is a bit more than a technicality. That would be like saying the subsection in 46.02 that says UCW is inapplicable to a CHL carrying a handgun of the same category of which he is licensed is a technicality. This is a substantial part of the statute.