BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Don't worry about posting "out of state". Only those guys from Virginia get wound up about that kind of thing!
-
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.
No EMPTY Gun Holsters Allowed In St.Louis Zoo!
- Thread starter Peyton
- Start date
- Status
logunowner
Regular Member
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Grim_Night
Regular Member
My thoughts exactly... I tend to wear long sleeve button up shirts over top of short sleeve tucked in pocket t-shirts. If it gets too hot, I can take off the long sleeve shirt and be a bit cooler and if weather gets bad, I can cover back up again.
Sorry guys new to the getting hassled side of this. Lol. Never Really thought an EMPTY HOLSTER would stir up so much BS. Regardless of why I had an Empty Holster on and why I took my shirt off, shouldnt the point be They wrong and Full of Crap??
Last edited:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Yes. But on a public forum one can never anticipate the myriad of opinion or perspective, supportive and critical.
As to stirring up stuff - this thread has gone far afield of just your OC of an empty holster but has been VERY informative. For example, we have learned that the Zoo apparently posts the entirety of their grounds on the basis that it claims to be a gated amusement park, a position most of us find ridiculous. However, it is valuable to know their position for any challenge. Furthermore it is valuable to know because that rationale only has legs under 571 and only as to CC, not OC as we have also learned in this thread.
We have also learned that not only will the Zoo trespass CC/OC but even the vestiges of OC/CC, I.e. your empty holster.
The debate and discussion raised have caused several of us to review, reconsider and some to just read the Revised Missouri Statutes applicable to open and concealed carry fully and in current context with all the new language inserted since last fall.
All in all, I think the Zoo's aggressiveness on your empty holster is going to lead to the entirety of their gun ban being challenged in some manner as to OC anywhere and CC anywhere except maybe posted buildings.
So yeah, the point is they are wrong and full of dog squeeze, but you, my friend, handed the Zoo the can opener for this particular can of worms and they used it happily.
Oh Im not complaining by far, and i did give them the can opener, but just because you can open it doesn't mean what's in the can is good for you. I'm Glad it happened to me and I think I handled it fairly well. Now since they open that can now I have people like you and other looking into things. That's exactly what I was hoping for. Im a newbie but to you Vets it can be open season on the St.Louis Zoo. If I had to endure the simple BS for the Greater good, then dammit I'll do it again.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
To clarify, uninformed (not uniformed) people may threaten such things anyway. It's our collective job to inform them of the risks of carrying through on their threats.
With reference to going forward, does anyone remember the use of the term "notice"?
Absolutely!
Last edited:
I have read and followed this thread routinely.. and all I have got to say is, I love this subforum sometimes.
some of you are rather hilarious with your convictions, all while still being very effective. quite the talents.
I wonder what the outcome for these poor zoo employees will be.
some of you are rather hilarious with your convictions, all while still being very effective. quite the talents.
I wonder what the outcome for these poor zoo employees will be.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Don't make things too available. This website is read by many, many people - including those whom you may not wish to telegraph your knowledge or intentions.
Oramac
Regular Member
QFT.
If something were organized, I would gladly participate. But be careful about how/when it is organized. BB62 is a great guy with a lot of knowledge on such things, though it might be wise to wait for official word from the Zoo on the case at hand before organizing anything overt.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Texas here, but this thread sounds eerily familiar. The Dallas Zoo has a small train, a carousel, and a monorail, and joined a club called the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. It appears that they claim status as an amusement park solely for the purpose of restriction carry of handguns. They also claim to be an educational institution. The land and buildings are city owned. This all sounds very similar to your issue.
I am pursuing the matter with the locals here, and at the very least agree that these claims of "unique use" fail on their face. A zoo is not an amusement, and it is not a school.
I wonder if they have a committee or newsletter that promotes these idiotic notions.
Good luck, we all seem to need it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am pursuing the matter with the locals here, and at the very least agree that these claims of "unique use" fail on their face. A zoo is not an amusement, and it is not a school.
I wonder if they have a committee or newsletter that promotes these idiotic notions.
Good luck, we all seem to need it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Very very interesting. Interesting if some organization was making membership a selling point for denying 2A rights to citizens.
Collusion to infringe constitutional rights to class action plaintiffs across numerous state lines? Sue the zoos and any organization leading and organizing the collusion. Massive federal lawsuit? The discovery would be enlightening on numerous issues I would guess. Is something like that even legally possible?
Collusion to infringe constitutional rights to class action plaintiffs across numerous state lines? Sue the zoos and any organization leading and organizing the collusion. Massive federal lawsuit? The discovery would be enlightening on numerous issues I would guess. Is something like that even legally possible?
Then could you not counter with your presence, armed, as being educational on historic precedence cause of the drafting of the BoR and what is in it? I mean really it would make about as much sense.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
** Update **
I called the Zoo last week and left a message for Wyndel Hill, VP of Internal Relations for the St. Louis Zoo. He returned my call on Sunday (!) and we had a pleasant conversation. He made it clear he was against having guns at the Zoo and that he had recommended to the board that they be disallowed. I think it's fair to say that as the person who recommended "no guns" at the Zoo, Mr. Hill had, or should have had, conversations with the Zoo's legal counsel prior to signs being posted.
I asked him a number of questions, and he told me he would be calling the Zoo's legal counsel first thing Monday morning.
Later Sunday I e-mailed him four questions:
1) Is the Zoo a public or a private entity? You may recall that I pointed out that the Zoo’s website (under “Organization”) says “Essentially the Zoo is a government agency…”
2) My recollection is that you said the Zoo was a “political subdivision” - is it?
3) Acknowledging that the Zoo has posted “No guns” signage, under what law(s) does the Zoo have the authority to do so?
4) Mention was made of the Zoo possibly claiming to be a “gated amusement park”. Is this an accurate claim, and if so, how does the Zoo meet the criterion for such a designation?
Being aware that Peyton had also contacted them, I decided to keep my outreach private until something had developed.
This morning at about 9AM St. Louis time I called Mr. Hill and inquired about where things stood with the questions I had sent. He told me that he didn't think the attorneys had seen the questions until Tuesday (?) and that he wasn't sure when an answer would be forthcoming.
I thought about it all day and concluded that based on our conversation and my experience, I knew how things were going to end, so I composed an e-mail, which I sent about an hour ago.
I'll be in St. Louis later this month, and as some may know, prior to some forms of activism involving firearms, I give notice to various parties. I informed Mr. Hill that unless the Zoo agrees to pull the signage ASAP, that I would give notice to the Zoo and various other parties after noon tomorrow.
I didn't specify the form of activism, but at minimum it will involve Peyton and myself. I also didn't and won't be specific about the date and time yet. That's it for now.
I called the Zoo last week and left a message for Wyndel Hill, VP of Internal Relations for the St. Louis Zoo. He returned my call on Sunday (!) and we had a pleasant conversation. He made it clear he was against having guns at the Zoo and that he had recommended to the board that they be disallowed. I think it's fair to say that as the person who recommended "no guns" at the Zoo, Mr. Hill had, or should have had, conversations with the Zoo's legal counsel prior to signs being posted.
I asked him a number of questions, and he told me he would be calling the Zoo's legal counsel first thing Monday morning.
Later Sunday I e-mailed him four questions:
1) Is the Zoo a public or a private entity? You may recall that I pointed out that the Zoo’s website (under “Organization”) says “Essentially the Zoo is a government agency…”
2) My recollection is that you said the Zoo was a “political subdivision” - is it?
3) Acknowledging that the Zoo has posted “No guns” signage, under what law(s) does the Zoo have the authority to do so?
4) Mention was made of the Zoo possibly claiming to be a “gated amusement park”. Is this an accurate claim, and if so, how does the Zoo meet the criterion for such a designation?
Being aware that Peyton had also contacted them, I decided to keep my outreach private until something had developed.
This morning at about 9AM St. Louis time I called Mr. Hill and inquired about where things stood with the questions I had sent. He told me that he didn't think the attorneys had seen the questions until Tuesday (?) and that he wasn't sure when an answer would be forthcoming.
I thought about it all day and concluded that based on our conversation and my experience, I knew how things were going to end, so I composed an e-mail, which I sent about an hour ago.
I'll be in St. Louis later this month, and as some may know, prior to some forms of activism involving firearms, I give notice to various parties. I informed Mr. Hill that unless the Zoo agrees to pull the signage ASAP, that I would give notice to the Zoo and various other parties after noon tomorrow.
I didn't specify the form of activism, but at minimum it will involve Peyton and myself. I also didn't and won't be specific about the date and time yet. That's it for now.
Has anyone seen the guy with the AR 15 in Atlanta's Airport
Now see I just seen an article of a guy in Atlanta's Airport wiht an AR-15. And when approached and asked "Why" he replied "Safety" and was let be. Wow It really makes me wonder.
Now see I just seen an article of a guy in Atlanta's Airport wiht an AR-15. And when approached and asked "Why" he replied "Safety" and was let be. Wow It really makes me wonder.
- Status