No More Ft. Worth Zoo
January 5, 2004
|
Posted by Aubrey Turner
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 statute) 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.
Categories: Guns
GFW = Gun Fearing Wuss?
Was gun violence perpetrated by licensed gun carriers previously a problem at the FW Zoo? I’m puzzled. What difference does it make to the zoo?
Your take on GFW is correct. I borrowed that term from Kim du Toit and sometimes I forget to define it.
As far as I know, they haven’t had any problems of this sort anywhere (CHL holders tend to be pretty law-abiding sorts). I’m not sure what the deal is with the zoo. In some respects I think they may be opening themselves up to more liability by posting the 30.06 sign that if they’d just not taken any stand on the issue. By prohibiting CHL holders from carrying on the premises, it would seem to me that they are taking on a greater responsibility to protect them. If an incident of violence occurred, and it could be reasonably shown that the CHL holder could have defended themselves or others, then it would seem that the zoo would be negligent for preventing the CHL holder from carrying. On the other hand, if something happens and a CHL holder injures an innocent bystander, the responsibility rests on the CHL holder, not the zoo (although I’m sure some lawyer somewhere would try to sue the zoo as well).
I recall during the initial debate by businesses over whether to post or not that someone posited the above—that a business was better off not taking any position on concealed carry in terms of liability.
I won’t go back there. Too bad, it’s a nice zoo.
Yes, they need to ammend the law to require the sign to be posted at all entrances and to be prior to paying an admission fee, etc…
You know that some bonehead on the zoo board envisioned bubba with his 6-shooter drawing a bead on one of the animals and decided a ban would be prudent.
Fry’s Electronics has a sort-of 30.06 sign—its white letters stuck on glass, and only in English. I’m sure once a case got to court it would be thrown out on this technicality, but it would cost some bucks to get this far.
I have also seen a trend towards car dealerships posting the 30.06 signs, either at the parking lot gates or at the door to the showroom. Of course the ones with the signs posted tend to be the ones most likely to rip you off…
This is in the general safty of everyone weather it be animals, workers, or guest of the zoo. What if they did let a licensed gun carrier(with a gun) into the but this one guy/girl was a little disturbed by an attitude that a worker gave them for breaking a rule of the zoo, and they decided to pull a gun on them. Not to say they shoot anyone but that is still assult with a deadly weapon. It’s not that the person as a whole is not welcome, but the weapon. And whos to say that someone else that is visiting the zoo does’nt steel the gun and then rob’s the place. I’m not trying to convince you to go back to the. i hate it myself! But i just think your a little to dramatic about it. Kind of like mothers getting pissed off about a woman on a TV show dropping her towel to a guy and you dont even see anything!
Guy,
All of your points with regards to concealed carry are incorrect. But let me address them one-by-one in case you haven’t yet had the benefit of knowing how these things really work.
First, CHL holders are the most law-abiding segment of society you will be able to find. We’re not going to “go off” on someone just because of some perceived slight or a bad attitude. Carrying a weapon for your protection is an awesome responsibility and it’s one we take very seriously. A weapon is not something to be pulled out at the slightest provocation or during an argument. But don’t just take my word for it. See if you can find one real incident where a CHL holder (or CCW, depending on the state) has shot someone or pulled a weapon based on an argument or slight. The people most likely to exhibit the behavior you’re afraid of are gang-banger types, who will carry their guns in the zoo regardless of the signs.
Second, concealed means concealed. No one can steal what they don’t know you have. Further, the idea that someone will take your gun and use it on you is a tired old canard of the gun-confiscation movement. I won’t deny that it can happen. In fact, there are a couple of interesting documented cases where the criminal had his gun taken… But in any event, it’s a matter of mindset. If you pull a gun you must be prepared to use it. That’s an issue that each carrier must be prepared to deal with before making the decision to carry. In any event, it’s not something that happens often enough to make policy on (in fact, I don’t know of any concealed-carry holders who have had this happen).
Finally, let’s take a look at the “general safety” argument. A 30.06 sign has the force of a criminal trespass charge behind it, but that’s about all. But being law-abiding sorts, CHL holders abide by these signs where ever they are legally posted. I most point out to you, though, that criminals don’t give a rat’s ass about these signs. So what you’ve effectively done is create a zone where your most law-abiding and safe citizens are legally prevented from carrying a weapon while criminals still have free reign. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the “safety” in this.
Finally, I don’t consider it “dramatic” to research and make comments on a policy I consider ill-advised and unsafe and to take action based on that policy to ensure the safety of myself and those around me (namely to avoid gun-free criminal empowerment zones).
This is the most retarded (for a lake of better words, because this argument is for a lack of better intelligence). You must be backwoods as “bubba” mentioned earlier. You cannot honestly complain about the sign that hinder your horrible judgment to bring a freaking gun to the “ZOO”. Give me a break. It is the zoo people. Why would you need to bring a gun to the zoo? In case another gorilla breaks free and try’s to attack you. Get real. Regardless of the matter of holding a CHL or not, you have the right to carry the gun, be happy about that. You aren’t there for target practice are you? If so you need to be in a cage with other morons there for target practice. This would most definitely eliminate the problem. All of your gun totting hillbillies would be out of the picture, and the people there to “enjoy” the zoo can.
Last statement, like you said, “I’m not going back to the zooâ€; please doesn’t come back to the zoo. It is always a better place when semantic DA’s like you aren’t around.
Signed,
I’m glad I’m not a moron
P.S. You may not wish to post this, but then that is your personal right to deliver, your ignorance directly to your door. It is perfectly sane to want to cary gun, but to complain about something like the zoo to hinder that ability, is pointless. I hope this gets your goat. Because that was its intention. Your not very bright if you complain about the above.
good bye moron.
Rich,
It’s very rare that someone can “get my goat,” especially GFW’s such as yourself. I’m used to emotional, irrational rants from such people, so if your intent was to tick me off, you really didn’t get very far. My reaction is more one of, “Oh great, another GFW troll is stinking up my comments,” accompanied by a sad shake of the head. Kind of like when you get dog crap on your shoe.
I was initially tempted to delete your comment. You have no right to post this kind of trash on my website, as I clearly state in the Comment Policy (viewable on this page for your convenience). However, I decided to leave it here for posterity, since it so perfectly displays the highly emotional, irrational side of the typical GFW. If you feel the urge to drop the ad-hominem, backwoods crap, please feel free to return to the site for commentary from the “gun culture.” If, as I suspect, you don’t wish to drop your irrational fear of guns and gun owners, allow me to suggest an alternate website that might suit you better.
As a 20 year member of the NRA and two year member of the TSRA, I sympathise with your anger about the Ft. Worth Zoo not recognizing the rights of concealed weapons licensees. However, aren’t there other government institutions that reject “concealed carry” that we could boycott first? I hate to make a “guinea pig” out of the Ft. Worth Zoo, because they are the only zoo in the country that recognizes and explains hunting in a positive light. The Zoo has taken much criticism from other national Zoos because of this. The Ft. Worth Zoo actually does more for our cause by promoting hunting as a management tool. Don’t kid yourself, if it was not for the millions of hunters in this country, there probably would not be an NRA or a “concealed weapon” law in any state. I disagree with the Ft. Worth Zoo concealed weapon position, but the are so many other public institutuons that are completely hostile to concealed weapons and sportsmen as well, I would hope we could put pressure on them, and spare the Ft. Worth Zoo for now.
Sincerely,
Brady Whatley
Dallas, TX
Brady,
To read your comment you’d think I was leading an organized boycott. However, I’m just making decisions for myself here. If others decide to do the same as me, then so be it.
As for the issue of other public institutions, you’re absolutely correct that there are a lot of them that are hostile to concealed weapons. I’m not sure, though, why bringing up the bad policies of one of them somehow diminishes the wrongness of the others.
As for the issue of hunters, that’s a sore spot with me. I don’t really care at all about hunting, but I’m not going to tell someone whether they can hunt or not or what kind of gun they can use. What chaps my hide is that there are some hunters out there who are perfectly content to sit on their butts as long as the anti-gunners don’t come after their hunting rifle or duck gun. What they don’t understand is that those scary handguns are the canary in the coal mine, so to speak.
Anyhow, you’re perfectly welcome to frequent the zoo. I’m not going to judge someone badly who decides to go to the zoo. It’s actually a quite nice zoo. But I’m not going back there, either.