No More Ft. Worth Zoo

During the holidays I took my sister and her kids to the Ft. Worth Zoo. I was dismayed to find a sign with 30.06 wording (although it wasn't compliant with the statue) posted at the entrance. I have come to expect this sort of thing from this kind of institution, given the type of people who run them. However, recent changes in Texas law make it illegal for a city to post a 30.06 sign on city-owned property. Given that the sign was only visible once you'd given your ticket and entered the zoo, it caused me a brief moment of consternation until I remembered that the zoo is owned by the city of Ft. Worth (or so I thought; more on this below).

This has been bugging me, so I called the zoo this morning to discuss the matter. I started with someone in security and got transferred four times until I spoke to someone who had the answers. The biggest confusion came from a simple question: "Does the city of Ft. Worth own the zoo?" The short answer is that while the city owns the land and the buildings, the zoo association leases it from the city and (according to their lawyer's legal opinion) has the authority to post a 30.06 sign. This seems like an annoying loophole in the new law, but I suppose as a private entity holding claim to the land that the association is within its rights.

Given that they appear to have the right to post against concealed carry, I pointed out to this gentleman that it would serve everyone's interest if they'd post the sign at the ticket booth so we'd have a chance to avoid violating their wishes. As it was, the sign was only visible after you'd entered the zoo, putting you in violation. Further, the sign did not comply with the statute, which requires a specific message in both English and Spanish in 1-inch high letters. According to him, there was such a sign, but I never saw one. These signs are hard to miss, because they have to be huge to accomodate the required wording (which was done on purpose; sort of a scarlet letter approach to identify GFWs at a distance).

Interestingly enough, the person I spoke to told me that he also carried. I told him that I tended to avoid giving my money to organizations that don't want me there. I felt sorry for him as he tried to justify the ban on CHLs from the zoo with something lame about all the schoolkids who come through (i.e. he tried to say it's not that they don't want me there, just that they don't want the guns). Unfortunately, any argument against concealed carry that uses this approach just boils down to that they don't trust your judgement. Whatever. Barring a legal challenge to their opinion (which I am leaning towards agreement with), I won't be going back.