logunowner
Regular Member
Thanks for the update, keep up the good work.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
St. Louis Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed
- Thread starter BB62
- Start date
Thanks for the update, keep up the good work.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Interesting, The zoo states that "Saint Louis Zoo’s mission includes animal conservation, research, education, recreation and amusement."
Here is "Saint Louis Zoo’s mission statement:
I don't see the term "amusement" mentioned anywhere in the official mission statement.
Recreation means activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.
Amusement means the state or experience of finding something funny.
The mission statement also says "educational programs that encourage the support and enrich the experience of the public." Did you catch that???? educate the public to encourage support of the zoo and being glad you did. It's called marketing.
I just sayin....
Here is "Saint Louis Zoo’s mission statement:
http://www.stlzoo.org/about/mission/
I don't see the term "amusement" mentioned anywhere in the official mission statement.
Recreation means activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.
Amusement means the state or experience of finding something funny.
The mission statement also says "educational programs that encourage the support and enrich the experience of the public." Did you catch that???? educate the public to encourage support of the zoo and being glad you did. It's called marketing.
I just sayin....
very interested to see where this goes. hopefully the judge can review facts and not conjoin her opinion with ruling on her personal bias or emotion, assuming she is anti, or the judge that signed the TRO.
and while I noticed you are putting together another protest, I will not be able to join most likely, still workin for a living and have a family that needs to eat and have a roof over their heads.
i wish you guys the best of luck, and hope you educate all the hoplophobes with open dialogue.
and while I noticed you are putting together another protest, I will not be able to join most likely, still workin for a living and have a family that needs to eat and have a roof over their heads.
i wish you guys the best of luck, and hope you educate all the hoplophobes with open dialogue.
STLDaniel
Regular Member
Who's planning a new protest?
it is up top in the events.. of course I may have skipped the date, so there may not actually be one, I really don't have much time to devote to the forum. I apologize if I've just added confusion.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
** Interim Status Report **
I got a call today from Ms. Hogan. NO, it was not THE call. <sigh>
First, she told me that Judge Moriarity had made an entry to the docket yesterday: "Cause Taken Under Advisement". (the case # is 1522-CC09876, in case anyone wants to follow it on Missouri's Casenet: https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do)
Here's my version of what Ms. Hogan said next: Court action at the beginning of the year related to other case filings, combined with spillover from last year has apparently pushed our case lower in the judge's "to do" stack. Ms. Hogan's speculation is that now that the judge has formally made a docket entry foreclosing filings related to the preliminary injunction, our case is at or near the top of the judge's pile of paperwork.
What this means as far as when we can expect a ruling is anyone's guess. Ms. Hogan wouldn't venture one, so say your prayers and cross your fingers. I take the judge's entry as a good sign, though.
Also, Ms. Hogan let me know where things stood financially (unchanged), and told me that because of the time granted to each side for production, the discovery portion of the litigation was going to start, even though there has not been a decision yet in the preliminary phase.
At the moment there is approximately $1,000 in the kitty to cover expenses related to discovery. Depending on the specifics of the judge's ruling, for the discovery phase and for example: depositions may be required ($$$$), expenses for production of documents will have to be reimbursed ($$ to $$$), and various people/entities may have to be served with subpoenas ($). There may be other areas of expense, but those are the ones which stood out to me.
When the judge issues her ruling, and when the expected expenses for the next phase (the permanent injunction) become more easily estimated, I will post specifics about "How much?" and "Why?", and will seek targeted financial support.
THANK YOU for making this legal action possible. I'm proud of every aspect of it.
Understand that although I can't offer specifics, we remain confident that the law is on our side.
Making donations
If you don't want to enrich GoFundMe to the tune of ~8% of the donation amount, be aware that Ms. Hogan can accept checks sent to her, made out to "Jane C. Hogan, IOLTA Trust". Please put "Jeffry Smith" or "St. Louis Zoo" in the memo. Her address is 5216 Chippewa Street, St. Louis, MO 63109.
GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/rp5tgsps
I got a call today from Ms. Hogan. NO, it was not THE call. <sigh>
First, she told me that Judge Moriarity had made an entry to the docket yesterday: "Cause Taken Under Advisement". (the case # is 1522-CC09876, in case anyone wants to follow it on Missouri's Casenet: https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do)
Here's my version of what Ms. Hogan said next: Court action at the beginning of the year related to other case filings, combined with spillover from last year has apparently pushed our case lower in the judge's "to do" stack. Ms. Hogan's speculation is that now that the judge has formally made a docket entry foreclosing filings related to the preliminary injunction, our case is at or near the top of the judge's pile of paperwork.
What this means as far as when we can expect a ruling is anyone's guess. Ms. Hogan wouldn't venture one, so say your prayers and cross your fingers. I take the judge's entry as a good sign, though.
Also, Ms. Hogan let me know where things stood financially (unchanged), and told me that because of the time granted to each side for production, the discovery portion of the litigation was going to start, even though there has not been a decision yet in the preliminary phase.
At the moment there is approximately $1,000 in the kitty to cover expenses related to discovery. Depending on the specifics of the judge's ruling, for the discovery phase and for example: depositions may be required ($$$$), expenses for production of documents will have to be reimbursed ($$ to $$$), and various people/entities may have to be served with subpoenas ($). There may be other areas of expense, but those are the ones which stood out to me.
When the judge issues her ruling, and when the expected expenses for the next phase (the permanent injunction) become more easily estimated, I will post specifics about "How much?" and "Why?", and will seek targeted financial support.
THANK YOU for making this legal action possible. I'm proud of every aspect of it.
Understand that although I can't offer specifics, we remain confident that the law is on our side.
Making donations
If you don't want to enrich GoFundMe to the tune of ~8% of the donation amount, be aware that Ms. Hogan can accept checks sent to her, made out to "Jane C. Hogan, IOLTA Trust". Please put "Jeffry Smith" or "St. Louis Zoo" in the memo. Her address is 5216 Chippewa Street, St. Louis, MO 63109.
GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/rp5tgsps
logunowner
Regular Member
Glad to hear that things are starting to move in this case. Keep up the good work...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
** Preliminary Injunction Issued **
Thanks again to kcgunfan for hosting the preliminary injunction decision. It's an 2MB .pdf file called "Preliminary Injunction Order".
Link to files: http://tinyurl.com/pl6gj99
I have not spoken to Ms. Hogan yet, but I have been asked to refrain from commenting on the decision until she and I speak.
If you were at the second hearing, please comment on what you heard versus what is in the judge's decision.
Thanks again to kcgunfan for hosting the preliminary injunction decision. It's an 2MB .pdf file called "Preliminary Injunction Order".
Link to files: http://tinyurl.com/pl6gj99
I have not spoken to Ms. Hogan yet, but I have been asked to refrain from commenting on the decision until she and I speak.
If you were at the second hearing, please comment on what you heard versus what is in the judge's decision.
logunowner
Regular Member
So much for laws against and for the 2nd Amendent being held to strict scrutiny, looks like when numerous parents feel their children might be offended, the court system puts more weight on that. Liberal Judges need to be removed...period.
STLDaniel
Regular Member
The judge clearly has tipped her hand that she deems the presence of guns damaging, even if peacefully and lawfully carried. Based on the wording of this memorandum it's clear she'll uphold the zoo's ban, and the trial strategy will most likely be focused on setting the record for the appeal process.
"... irreparable harm likely would result to the Saint Louis Zoo in the absence of this Court granting preliminary injunctive relief, as the patronage, image and autonomy of the Saint Louis Zoo would be fundamentally diminished if visitors were permitted to carry firearms on the Zoo campus..."
Judge tips her personal ideology here that firearms peacefully and lawfully carried diminish the image and hurt the patronage of the zoo.
"The evidence further showed that Saint Louis Zoo's management and its Education Department have received a large number of phone calls and other contacts from parents with children who participate in the Zoo's educational programs and have learned of the dispute... These parents have expressed concerns about Smith's challenge to the Zoo's no-weapons policy; and many of them will likely remove their children from the Saint Louis Zoo's educational programs if firearms are allowed on the campus."
"large" is misleading... I believe the testimony by the zoo was only in the neighborhood of 10-20. Also, they presented no evidence, admitted they took no records and that they did not verify the callers actually had children enrolled in the programs. Hard to see how the court views that as the "evidence showed" anything.
"Similarly, on social media, numerous persons have posted their concerns about whether they would bring their children to the Zoo were guns permitted to be carried..."
I don't recall this submission at all. I believe only the phone calls were discussed.
"It is clear that a gun demonstration in the Zoo... would cause a chilling effect on the experience of visiting the Zoo for many. It would significantly harm the level of visitorship, as well as the mission, the public image, and the autonomy of the Saint Louis Zoo as an institution."
Doesn't explain why it's "clear" that guns have a chilling effect (other than the above referenced phone calls).
"The Court notes a preliminary injunction will not adversely impact the ability of Mr. Smith (or anyone else) to visit and enjoy the zoo; rather, they merely cannot carry guns with them while on the Zoo's gated grounds. If they are concerned about protecting themselves while at the Zoo, the evidence showed there is a staff of former police officers and military veterans serving as security guards at the Zoo 24 hours per day."
The testimony was that this individual "believed" many were former officers but couldn't actually speak to knowledge of their backgrounds, and that they had 15 (I think.. maybe 15-25) for the entire 90 acre campus. That sure doesn't address my concerns. Stating I'm not harmed because I can still go while being denied my 2A rights misses that denial of a right is in and of itself harm.
[After finding that there would possibly by irreparable harm to the Zoo] "In contrast, if the Court grants perliminary injunctive relief but then the case in the end is resolved in favor of Mr. Smith, the only harm that Mr. Smith nad like-minded citizens will suffer in the meantime is a fairly brief "interim" period of time during which, as noted above, they would still be perfectly free to visit the Zoo but (if they did visit) would have to do so without carrying guns."
Again, harmed by being denied my rights. Also, seems hypocritical in that the parents concerned would only have to pull their children out for a "fairly brief 'interim' period".
On the probability of success and public interest...
"the Court agress with Plaintiff that by necessary implication, the Carry Statutue, $571.107.1, applies equally to concealed carry and openly carried firearms alike. [...] This is so because the Preemption Statute, and in particular the parts of it which refer to and permit (to some extent) open carry, are expressly conditioned on the existnece of--(and hence the limits of)--a person having "a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit."
Given that, the zoo simply has to fall into one of the "gun free zones". The Court stated basically it wouldn't address each claim, as it found one zone that seemed to apply so addressing each one would only be necessary during full trial, not pre-lim.
The one the court thinks is the obvious one: the Zoo is a school!
"The issue thus becomes, simply put, whether the Zoo can fairly be considered an elementary and/or secondary "school facility" within the meaning of this part of the statute. The Court concludes that the answer to this question is "yes;"
The court then ruled on Mr. Smith's affirmative defense that the "strict scrutiny" wording added to our constitution would invalidate any previous laws that otherwise would have restricted carry at the zoo.
The court made two observations, first that it's unlikely to have invalidated anything (referencing prior MO SupCourt ruling stating it didn't change anything). Second that the restrictions where narrowly defined and as such would pass strict scrutiny.
"... irreparable harm likely would result to the Saint Louis Zoo in the absence of this Court granting preliminary injunctive relief, as the patronage, image and autonomy of the Saint Louis Zoo would be fundamentally diminished if visitors were permitted to carry firearms on the Zoo campus..."
Judge tips her personal ideology here that firearms peacefully and lawfully carried diminish the image and hurt the patronage of the zoo.
"The evidence further showed that Saint Louis Zoo's management and its Education Department have received a large number of phone calls and other contacts from parents with children who participate in the Zoo's educational programs and have learned of the dispute... These parents have expressed concerns about Smith's challenge to the Zoo's no-weapons policy; and many of them will likely remove their children from the Saint Louis Zoo's educational programs if firearms are allowed on the campus."
"large" is misleading... I believe the testimony by the zoo was only in the neighborhood of 10-20. Also, they presented no evidence, admitted they took no records and that they did not verify the callers actually had children enrolled in the programs. Hard to see how the court views that as the "evidence showed" anything.
"Similarly, on social media, numerous persons have posted their concerns about whether they would bring their children to the Zoo were guns permitted to be carried..."
I don't recall this submission at all. I believe only the phone calls were discussed.
"It is clear that a gun demonstration in the Zoo... would cause a chilling effect on the experience of visiting the Zoo for many. It would significantly harm the level of visitorship, as well as the mission, the public image, and the autonomy of the Saint Louis Zoo as an institution."
Doesn't explain why it's "clear" that guns have a chilling effect (other than the above referenced phone calls).
"The Court notes a preliminary injunction will not adversely impact the ability of Mr. Smith (or anyone else) to visit and enjoy the zoo; rather, they merely cannot carry guns with them while on the Zoo's gated grounds. If they are concerned about protecting themselves while at the Zoo, the evidence showed there is a staff of former police officers and military veterans serving as security guards at the Zoo 24 hours per day."
The testimony was that this individual "believed" many were former officers but couldn't actually speak to knowledge of their backgrounds, and that they had 15 (I think.. maybe 15-25) for the entire 90 acre campus. That sure doesn't address my concerns. Stating I'm not harmed because I can still go while being denied my 2A rights misses that denial of a right is in and of itself harm.
[After finding that there would possibly by irreparable harm to the Zoo] "In contrast, if the Court grants perliminary injunctive relief but then the case in the end is resolved in favor of Mr. Smith, the only harm that Mr. Smith nad like-minded citizens will suffer in the meantime is a fairly brief "interim" period of time during which, as noted above, they would still be perfectly free to visit the Zoo but (if they did visit) would have to do so without carrying guns."
Again, harmed by being denied my rights. Also, seems hypocritical in that the parents concerned would only have to pull their children out for a "fairly brief 'interim' period".
On the probability of success and public interest...
"the Court agress with Plaintiff that by necessary implication, the Carry Statutue, $571.107.1, applies equally to concealed carry and openly carried firearms alike. [...] This is so because the Preemption Statute, and in particular the parts of it which refer to and permit (to some extent) open carry, are expressly conditioned on the existnece of--(and hence the limits of)--a person having "a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit."
Given that, the zoo simply has to fall into one of the "gun free zones". The Court stated basically it wouldn't address each claim, as it found one zone that seemed to apply so addressing each one would only be necessary during full trial, not pre-lim.
The one the court thinks is the obvious one: the Zoo is a school!
"The issue thus becomes, simply put, whether the Zoo can fairly be considered an elementary and/or secondary "school facility" within the meaning of this part of the statute. The Court concludes that the answer to this question is "yes;"
The court then ruled on Mr. Smith's affirmative defense that the "strict scrutiny" wording added to our constitution would invalidate any previous laws that otherwise would have restricted carry at the zoo.
The court made two observations, first that it's unlikely to have invalidated anything (referencing prior MO SupCourt ruling stating it didn't change anything). Second that the restrictions where narrowly defined and as such would pass strict scrutiny.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
The zoo went judge shopping and got what they paid for. The judge's opinion has no legal foundation. Impractical it's for the children, in the end, will not carry the day.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Disturbingly, the judge ruled that it is better to infringe on a right than take a chance that someone might be offended by the peaceful presence of a holstered handgun.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
true.. but then again when you have idiots who unholster to use the firearm as a hammer, it doesn't help the cause any. just paints those of us with a lick of common sense as some outback hillbilly who likes to tote his gun around.
the foundation of arms rights really needs a good PR person, and a media outlet in one of the big 10 to focus mass opinion on the pros of individual ownership and carry.
davidmcbeth
Banned
A million guys using their gun as a hammer effects a right ? How so?
Rhetorical query. Because it doesn't have any effect.
Don't debate antis on this garbage ....
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Texas AG just ruled that the Dallas zoo is an amusement park for the purposes of prohibiting handguns. I haven't had time to read and ruminate on the actual ruling, but it was (mis)quoted in the newspaper today.
Our law prohibits cities from prohibits handguns on city property but also allows the exclusion of handguns from amusement parks meeting certain criteria. The Dallas zoo is privately run in public property and has, iirc, three rides for children in one small area of the zoo. The zoo also claims to be covered by the exemption for schools. I now have hope that my kids can attend the School of Six Flags by the time they reach school age.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Our law prohibits cities from prohibits handguns on city property but also allows the exclusion of handguns from amusement parks meeting certain criteria. The Dallas zoo is privately run in public property and has, iirc, three rides for children in one small area of the zoo. The zoo also claims to be covered by the exemption for schools. I now have hope that my kids can attend the School of Six Flags by the time they reach school age.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
** Depositions Scheduled + Request for Donations for Discovery Phase
Back in February I posted an "Interim Status Report" a little more than a week before the preliminary injunction ruling was issued: http://tinyurl.com/jh38ptg
In that February post, part of what I said was the following:
So... as I previously said, I will post specifics about "How much?" and "Why?", and will seek targeted financial support.
What's New
- Discovery requests have been made under Missouri's open's records law
- A transcript has been ordered of the first phase of the trial
- Depositions have been scheduled for June 14 & 15, 2016. I will be deposed (answering questions under oath) on June 14, and various Zoo or other people will be deposed on June 15
COSTS associated with the current actions (there may well be more, however)
- Open records request: $60
- Transcript: $650
- Depositions: $4 per double-spaced page, est. $700
Total = $1,410
Current bank balance = $965
How much?
Minimum donations sought (net) = $500
Why?
- responses to open records requests can be introduced as evidence, and may also provide valuable insight
- the hearing transcript is necessary to prepare for the final hearing, and because it can be referenced during the final hearing - in motions, briefs, etc. We also need to have evidence of what was said as proof of the Zoo's misstatements of fact.
- Depositions are necessary so that we can explore things that might warrant further investigation in preparation for the final hearing
Making donations
If you don't want to enrich GoFundMe to the tune of ~8% of the donation amount (which reduces the net donation), be aware that Ms. Hogan can accept checks sent to her, made out to "Jane C. Hogan, IOLTA Trust". Please put "Jeffry Smith" or "St. Louis Zoo" in the memo. Her address is 5216 Chippewa Street, St. Louis, MO 63109.
GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/rp5tgsps
THANK YOU.
I will be glad to answer questions about costs & donation methods, but as you can imagine, I'm unable to speak about details of the case.
Thanks again.
Back in February I posted an "Interim Status Report" a little more than a week before the preliminary injunction ruling was issued: http://tinyurl.com/jh38ptg
In that February post, part of what I said was the following:
So... as I previously said, I will post specifics about "How much?" and "Why?", and will seek targeted financial support.
What's New
- Discovery requests have been made under Missouri's open's records law
- A transcript has been ordered of the first phase of the trial
- Depositions have been scheduled for June 14 & 15, 2016. I will be deposed (answering questions under oath) on June 14, and various Zoo or other people will be deposed on June 15
COSTS associated with the current actions (there may well be more, however)
- Open records request: $60
- Transcript: $650
- Depositions: $4 per double-spaced page, est. $700
Total = $1,410
Current bank balance = $965
How much?
Minimum donations sought (net) = $500
Why?
- responses to open records requests can be introduced as evidence, and may also provide valuable insight
- the hearing transcript is necessary to prepare for the final hearing, and because it can be referenced during the final hearing - in motions, briefs, etc. We also need to have evidence of what was said as proof of the Zoo's misstatements of fact.
- Depositions are necessary so that we can explore things that might warrant further investigation in preparation for the final hearing
Making donations
If you don't want to enrich GoFundMe to the tune of ~8% of the donation amount (which reduces the net donation), be aware that Ms. Hogan can accept checks sent to her, made out to "Jane C. Hogan, IOLTA Trust". Please put "Jeffry Smith" or "St. Louis Zoo" in the memo. Her address is 5216 Chippewa Street, St. Louis, MO 63109.
GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/rp5tgsps
THANK YOU.
I will be glad to answer questions about costs & donation methods, but as you can imagine, I'm unable to speak about details of the case.
Thanks again.