No EMPTY Gun Holsters Allowed In St.Louis Zoo!

[Mo]

There are approximately 9 million other activists on this planet according to latest estimates. Our perceived dominance is not grounds for entitlement. These active members have as much right to life as anyone else, and this life is not forfeit as a consequence of one mistake that was hardly their fault. If anyone should be punished it should be those responsible for the mishandling of the situation.

 

[qwertyuiop]

Did something happen?

Don't understand what the previous two posts are in reference to...


Who is potentially a liar?
Why?
Who is marginalized?


huh?

"...active members have as much right to life as anyone else, and this life is not forfeit as a consequence of one mistake that was hardly their fault. If anyone should be punished it should be those responsible for the mishandling of the situation."

What happened? What did I miss?


EDIT--> I now see that there is some type of deleted post (which was/would-have-been post #201). I assume renumbered-new-posts #201 and #202 were in response to whatever that deleted post (old post #201) said.

 

[BB62]

OK, so there's the possibility that he's a liar. So what? Does that change the fact that the Zoo was still ready willing and able to violate the rights of normal LAC's? No. All he did was alert us to the situation. Ok, great. Now we marginalize him, shove anything to do with him to the side, and continue on fighting for our rights.

What, pray tell, are you talking about?

 

[kcgunfan]

One of the local trolls decide to post an expose of Sam's supposed background and told us we were in violation of federal laws for selling him a firearm.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

One of the local trolls decide to post an expose of Sam's supposed background and told us we were in violation of federal laws for selling him a firearm.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Okay, thanks.

Fortunately, *my* considerable criminal history hasn't come to light! :uhoh:

 

[Ezek]

Hmmm. Okay, thanks.

Fortunately, *my* considerable criminal history hasn't come to light! :uhoh:

Criminal? Or civil disobedience for the purpose of furthering rights?? P.s. Any update on your legal proceedings? or is it in the i can't discuss it stage??

 

[qwertyuiop]

Any updates? Response due? Was it filed? Lose by default?

I understood that there was to be a Response filed by "our" side, to argue against the Injunction, and that it was due mid-August.

I am uncertain if any legal assistance was available to "our" side, and I am concerned that no Response might have been filed, and "we" will lose by default.

Does anyone have any current information?

 

[Oramac]

I understood that there was to be a Response filed by "our" side, to argue against the Injunction, and that it was due mid-August.

I am uncertain if any legal assistance was available to "our" side, and I am concerned that no Response might have been filed, and "we" will lose by default.

Does anyone have any current information?

I don't have any more info than you, but I would also be interested to know what has happened/is happening with this.

 

[Grapeshot]

Crickets.

You can't walk away in the middle of a fight - you'll just get hit in the head or kicked in the seat of your pants.

Hopefully we shall hear something, anything soon.

 

[STLDaniel]

Looks like there has been a couple of motions ruled on. One granting an extension/rescheduling allowing the defendant more time to explore legal options, and a motion for default judgement that was denied. I do not see a rescheduled date yet, so I'll update when I do. Be patient. These things aren't quick and those with first hand knowledge are rarely able to give details on public forums

 

[qwertyuiop]

New Law in TX may impact Zoos; MO - maybe you want such a law ?

State law takes aim at cities’ and counties’ gun bans

In Texas’ hard-charging gun community, the Dallas Zoo is something of a terra incognita.

The property is city-owned — under state law, that would typically mean holders of concealed handgun licenses could carry pistols there. But the zoo is privately run, and it posts “no guns” signs, pointing to exemptions in the statute for “amusement parks” and “educational institutions.”

Gun owners have long argued over the arrangement, and now, a new state law could help settle the debate over that and other aspects of Texas’ gun laws. Starting in September, Texans will have a formal process by which to complain to the state attorney general about government entities that might wrongfully bar concealed guns.

The mechanism, which could result in legal action and a civil penalty, ostensibly targets “no guns” signs put up by cities and counties in clear violation of state law. But its broader impact could actually come from the courts tackling more nuanced areas, such as the zoo.

For those on both sides of the debate, the stakes may never be higher. That’s because in January, Texas will allow licensed gun toters to openly carry handguns — with the state’s existing concealed handgun rules serving essentially as the foundation for that new practice.

<snip>

And then there are multi-layered scenarios such as the one at the Dallas Zoo.

The zoo doesn’t shy from its “no guns” policy, posting signs at the entrance and an explanation on its website. To justify its policy, the zoo points out the exemptions for educational institutions and amusement parks.

Zoo officials are confident that the law backs them up. They have their own education department, and they host tens of thousands of school children each year. And they appear to meet an eight-point definition for “amusement park.”

“The law doesn’t change anything about what we can already prohibit,” spokeswoman Laurie Holloway said. “So nothing will change for us Sept. 1.”

But some gun activists bristle at that notion.

Though “educational institution” is undefined in state law for general purposes, it’s most commonly thought to refer to schools. For “amusement parks,” that’s been typically thought of addressing places such as Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington.

Friendswood attorney Charles Cotton, a National Rifle Association board member, said the zoo qualifying under either category is something “even a first-year law student knows is wrong.”

“There’s going to be a great opportunity here,” he said. “The city of Dallas or whoever is going to continue with that kind of stuff, and they are going to get sued.”

 

[REALteach4u]

One of the local trolls decide to post an expose of Sam's supposed background and told us we were in violation of federal laws for selling him a firearm.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Take a guess why it was deleted. It sure as hell wasn't a troll. Unless you have personally taken the time to dig into his background kcgunfan, I suggest you keep your mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard because you are illustrating you're clueless on the matter. His record goes all the way back to 1993 with felony conviction(s) in St. Louis.

http://springfieldmugshots.com/search/?q=whiteside&searchdate=&s=Search

See for yourself as these products are exact matches for the fake bodyguard schwag he has:
http://www.collectiblebadges.com/item/128_registered_bodyguard_id_card.htm
http://www.collectiblebadges.com/item/39_registered_executive_bodyguard_badge.htm
http://www.collectiblebadges.com/item/82_registered_bodyguard_certificate.htm
http://www.collectiblebadges.com/category/1_badge_wallets_holders.htm

Believe him and you are just going to be the next sucker. He duped some people going on 2+ years.

Let us not forget he's also currently on probation from the domestic assault conviction. He was on that probation at the claimed zoo incident.

 

[Richieg150]

His record goes all the way back to 1993 with felony conviction(s) in St. Louis.
Let us not forget he's also currently on probation from the domestic assault conviction. He was on that probation at the claimed zoo incident.

It doesn't matter WHO it is, having a felony conviction and a firearm is a NO NO. Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.At one extreme, some states prohibit anyone who has been convicted of a felony, and even of certain misdemeanor crimes involving violence, from ever legally carrying a gun. Other states prohibit only those persons who have been convicted of certain violent felonies from carrying a gun.

 

[Grapeshot]

It doesn't matter WHO it is, having a felony conviction and a firearm is a NO NO. Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns.At one extreme, some states prohibit anyone who has been convicted of a felony, and even of certain misdemeanor crimes involving violence, from ever legally carrying a gun. Other states prohibit only those persons who have been convicted of certain violent felonies from carrying a gun.

Can you say “antique firearm" = black powder gun?
https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

 

[WalkingWolf]

Can you say “antique firearm" = black powder gun?
https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

And unless there are laws outlawing OC of antique firearm by a felon, they can legally carry.

 

[Richieg150]

Can you say “antique firearm" = black powder gun?
https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

I'm sorry, I thought most on here would know the basics of OC'ing and know the difference between a modern FIREARM and an antique, which technically is not a firearm.. I personally have never ran across a felon, Open Carrying a antique, but there may be some out there.

Taken from the link you supplied :A muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA.

 

[BB62]

** Status Update **

I understood that there was to be a Response filed by "our" side, to argue against the Injunction, and that it was due mid-August.

I am uncertain if any legal assistance was available to "our" side, and I am concerned that no Response might have been filed, and "we" will lose by default.

Does anyone have any current information?

On August 3, I requested and received an extension of time in order to find an attorney. The judge gave me until October 2 to respond to the Zoo's petition, and the preliminary injunction hearing was delayed until the week of November 2.

In the meanwhile, in order to hire an attorney to defend against the injunction and counter-sue the Zoo, funds will be needed and solicited.

I hope to have more information on both the attorney and contribution/funding fronts very soon.

It's also my intention to lay out the FACTS and respond to some of the misinformation (some of it self-serving) that has been put forward about this matter.

 

[davidmcbeth]

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/verified-petition.pdf

Is this what you need to reply to? I'm laughing at this petition. It's a joke.

Any competent attny should be able to dispose of this very quickly.

 

[Grapeshot]

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/verified-petition.pdf

Is this what you need to reply to? I'm laughing at this petition. It's a joke.

Any competent attny should be able to dispose of this very quickly.

What is the "this" to which you refer? - the petition itself or the action it requests?

 

[davidmcbeth]

What is the "this" to which you refer? - the petition itself or the action it requests?

sent pm