No EMPTY Gun Holsters Allowed In St.Louis Zoo!

[BB62]

...I will however, since it was mentioned above, once again voice my thought that LGOC at the St. Louis Zoo is counterproductive at this point in our fight...

...There is no mention if LGOC is planned at the St. Louis Zoo so my above comments are only made in response to earlier LGOC references.

(my bold above)

First, marshaul raises the subject with no basis, then you comment on it? :banghead:

Let me make something perfectly clear - if there is to be an event at the Zoo, I will likely be the organizer of it, and long guns will not be invited.

Furthermore, and depending how my future conversations with Chief Dotson go (he called me yesterday), it's quite possible that this will be an EMPTY HOLSTER event. I may very well ask people to respect the fact that Peyton and I will be the only people will full holsters. It's all about presentation, you know?

On another subject, no doubt perceptive people have already noticed that Peyton got no mention in the TV report - and it's not because I didn't give the full story of how things developed. I know readers here are shocked, yes SHOCKED, that a member of the press decided to do the "outside agitator" angle, rather than the full story.

 

[BB62]

Not so for public property...

Yep.

It's simply stunning to me that members of two other internet gun forums (on which I have posted about this subject) are completely blind to that fact. After multiple people posted the same sort of "it's their property, they can do what they want..." I felt like I was in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

For those who may have missed it, from the Zoo's own website: http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

"The Saint Louis Zoo is legally classified as a tax-supported political subdistrict of the State of Missouri. Essentially, the Zoo is a government agency..."

 

[Grapeshot]

Yep.

It's simply stunning to me that members of two other internet gun forums (on which I have posted about this subject) are completely blind to that fact. After multiple people posted the same sort of "it's their property, they can do what they want..." I felt like I was in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

For those who may have missed it, from the Zoo's own website: http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

"The Saint Louis Zoo is legally classified as a tax-supported political subdistrict of the State of Missouri. Essentially, the Zoo is a government agency..."

"The Missouri State Legislature established the Zoo Subdistrict Commission as the Zoo's governing authority.
http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

In Missouri, is an authority/commission subject to preemption?

 

[BB62]

Amazingly enough, the Zoological subdistrict doesn't quite seem to be the place for an "amusement park", as various Zoo representatives have claimed the Zoo to be...

"(15) "Zoological subdistrict" shall consist of such institutions and places for the collection and exhibition of animals and animal life, for the instruction and recreation of the people, for the promotion of zoology and kindred subjects, for the encouragement of zoological study and research and for the increase of public interest in wild animals and in the protection of wild animal life."

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/18400003521.html

 

[redhawk44]

"The Missouri State Legislature established the Zoo Subdistrict Commission as the Zoo's governing authority.
http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

In Missouri, is an authority/commission subject to preemption?

Reason would indicate yes. It would seem the Legislature "established and/or created", an authority/commission serving and administering public property and funds, thus a government entity. The wording and intent of the Legislature does not create/establish/recognize private property rights in relation to the Zoo Subdistrict/Commission.

 

[redhawk44]

Yep.

It's simply stunning to me that members of two other internet gun forums (on which I have posted about this subject) are completely blind to that fact. After multiple people posted the same sort of "it's their property, they can do what they want..." I felt like I was in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

For those who may have missed it, from the Zoo's own website: http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

"The Saint Louis Zoo is legally classified as a tax-supported political subdistrict of the State of Missouri. Essentially, the Zoo is a government agency..."

Exactly, otherwise why would an authority/commission need to be established. Personal/corporate law/rights already provide the necessary avenue to regulate/administer ones' property that is open to the general public.

 

[BB62]

Reason would indicate yes. It would seem the Legislature "established and/or created", an authority/commission serving and administering public property and funds, thus a government entity. The wording and intent of the Legislature does not create/establish/recognize private property rights in relation to the Zoo Subdistrict/Commission.

Yep!

Besides the fact that the perceptive viewer of the KMOV video will note something that the Zoo wouldn't say, here's an example of the length the Zoo will go to to deceive/lie to the public:

(from their attorney)

"This correspondence is in follow-up to the June 4th email communication you sent to Wyndel Hill, Vice-President of Internal Relations for the Saint Louis Zoo, regarding your inquiry concerning the Zoo’s policy prohibiting weapons on its premises. Please be advised that it remains the Zoo’s position that all weapons, including concealed firearms, are prohibited within the gated area of the Zoo, and additionally please be aware that the signage regarding this issue will not be removed."

(my reply)

"I’m at a loss to understand your “position” with regard to your policy. You failed to supply any statutory or case law which supports your position. In addition, I’m unable to find any statutory or case law which supports your position. Therefore, it appears that your position is without substance.

After all, according to the Zoo’s own website, the Zoo “…is legally classified as a tax-supported political subdistrict of the State of Missouri. Essentially, the Zoo is a government agency…”. Also, the Zoo association’s 501(C)(3) status has no bearing on the matter.

The St. Louis Zoo is a public entity, open to the public, on land owned by the City of St. Louis - yet another political subdivision of the State of Missouri.

It’s my intention to carry a handgun, openly or concealed, onto the Zoo premises sometime between June 13 and June 20. If there is any statutory or case law which would prohibit me from doing so, please let me know."

 

[logunowner]

City "No Firearm" signs

I agree BB62, and I am convinced any city admin building or police department in Missouri is in violation of Missouri law by posting "No Firearm" signs. I believe it would apply to conceal carry, but not to a person open carrying a firearm less than 16 inches in length.
Thoughts???

 

[BB62]

Facebook event page created: https://www.facebook.com/events/1642895425925841/

I'm working on sending out invites.

 

[BB62]

I agree BB62, and I am convinced any city admin building or police department in Missouri is in violation of Missouri law by posting "No Firearm" signs. I believe it would apply to conceal carry, but not to a person open carrying a firearm less than 16 inches in length.
Thoughts???

I don't know MO law well enough to comment on the 16" length issue, but I certainly agree about the signage.

 

[logunowner]

I don't know MO law well enough to comment on the 16" length issue, but I certainly agree about the signage.

I think it is time for Lake Ozark to remove their signs in front of the Police Dept. and their Admin Building...I'll keep you posted.

 

[Grapeshot]

"The Missouri State Legislature established the Zoo Subdistrict Commission as the Zoo's governing authority.
http://www.stlzoo.org/about/organization/

In Missouri, is an authority/commission subject to preemption?

Reason would indicate yes. It would seem the Legislature "established and/or created", an authority/commission serving and administering public property and funds, thus a government entity. The wording and intent of the Legislature does not create/establish/recognize private property rights in relation to the Zoo Subdistrict/Commission.

Reason has nothing to do with it.

Authorities, agencies, and commissions are not always subject to statutes and are not necessarily treated the same as municipalities. Many are created by executive action and governed by internal regulations. In other words, the state does not impose the same restrictions on itself that it applies to others.

Therein lay the problem and the purpose of my query as it applies to Missouri.

 

[redhawk44]

Reason has nothing to do with it.

Authorities, agencies, and commissions are not always subject to statutes and are not necessarily treated the same as municipalities. Many are created by executive action and governed by internal regulations. In other words, the state does not impose the same restrictions on itself that it applies to others.

Therein lay the problem and the purpose of my query as it applies to Missouri.

While part of your statement may have merit, you are speaking in general terms. This is a very specific instance, spelled out by the Legislature.

 

[BB62]

While part of your statement may have merit, you are speaking in general terms. This is a very specific instance, spelled out by the Legislature.

You're correct, but so is Grapeshot's general point: "...the state may (striking "does") not impose the same restrictions on itself that it applies to others."

If the Zoo can find a way to wriggle out of things, they will. The anti-gun mentality pervades St. Louis politicians and those appointed (including the board which runs the Zoo) by them.

FYI - MO does have preemption which applies to political subdivisions.

If anyone finds a crack the Zoo can slip through, please PM me - don't post it here where it can be read! :uhoh:

 

[redhawk44]

You're correct, but so is Grapeshot's general point: "...the state may (striking "does") not impose the same restrictions on itself that it applies to others."

If the Zoo can find a way to wriggle out of things, they will. The anti-gun mentality pervades St. Louis politicians and those appointed (including the board which runs the Zoo) by them.

FYI - MO does have preemption which applies to political subdivisions.

If anyone finds a crack the Zoo can slip through, please PM me - don't post it here where it can be read! :uhoh:

Legislatures often impose restrictions on the state and its' agents. Regulations and rules are/should be, imposed pursuant to applicable law. If not specifically addressed in law, then case law and the Constitution are the guiding considerations.

Appointed (political) boards may/should only impose rules and regulations pertaining to unacceptable and/or illegal behavior/actions, etc., considering applicable exceptions, exemptions, and defenses noted in law! Certainly, problems arise via city and county attorney's/prosecutor's opinions and guidance.

The state and its agents are not some mystical, all powerful unaccountable entity. I am retired, and if at all possible, I will make my "second" only visit to S.L. on the 17th. I/we are the state! I am done,

"Show Me!".

 

[BB62]

...I am retired, and if at all possible, I will make my "second" only visit to S.L. on the 17th...

Excellent!

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think I forgot do so so here:

This *may be* an empty holster event for everyone but Sam and myself - it just depends. As I've said elsewhere, this is a *much more nuanced* event than the OC walk last October.

The press would have a field day with 50+ people with full holsters, and, depending on how things go, I have no intention of giving some of them what they might like.

 

[BB62]

Sorry, something else I forgot to post here:

*** The time/date and the exact nature of this challenge may change ***, so please keep an eye on the Facebook event page for the latest news and schedule, because communications with the Zoo and the authorities are ongoing.

 

[Ezek]

(my bold above)

First, marshaul raises the subject with no basis, then you comment on it? :banghead:

Let me make something perfectly clear - if there is to be an event at the Zoo, I will likely be the organizer of it, and long guns will not be invited.

Furthermore, and depending how my future conversations with Chief Dotson go (he called me yesterday), it's quite possible that this will be an EMPTY HOLSTER event. I may very well ask people to respect the fact that Peyton and I will be the only people will full holsters. It's all about presentation, you know?

On another subject, no doubt perceptive people have already noticed that Peyton got no mention in the TV report - and it's not because I didn't give the full story of how things developed. I know readers here are shocked, yes SHOCKED, that a member of the press decided to do the "outside agitator" angle, rather than the full story.

I had figured Marshaul was in negotiations with you and other potential protester's/activists, and that somewhere along the line someone mentioned LGOC, which is the initial purpose of my reply, it is also just a general statement as to the idea in general. not meaning to agitate or annoy you.

however I am curious as to why you feel the need for Peyton and yourself to actually be armed while everyone else must disarm if the whole point of being proactive is over the views of being removed unfairly and unjustly for an empty holster, shouldn't everyone participating show up with empty holsters for solidarity in the message including the organizer and the initial victim? you did say in this post it is all about presentation.

besides, wouldn't protesting open holster based discrimination for a second round with loaded holsters only antagonize zoo managers and security even more?

 

[BB62]

* News *

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...7-847a-590e9634b65f.html#.VXYCEbm6VbQ.twitter

The money quote: "The statement said the zoo's weapons ban also relies on "numerous state statues" including several provisions of state statute 571.107 "that support our position that weapons are prohibited." The statement did not specify which parts of the law applies to the zoo."

 

[JoeSparky]

Question--- In Mo are amusement parks regulated, licenced, and inspected? When was the zoo inspected last for this amusement park function?