Lucas, Gregory From: Lucas, Gregory Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:01 PM To: ce: Lucas, Gregory Subject: 30.06 Complaint Mr. Walker, my name is Ceptain Gregory Lucas, lam the Law Enforcement Liaison for the Office of the Attorney General, your e-mail was forwarded to me for review. | will be forwarding your civil complaint to the proper attorney, please ‘send any photos or further information to me and contact me if you have any questions. Captain Gregory Luces Law Enforcement Liaison Office of the Attorney Genera ‘Criminal investigation Division Office 512 al sz fx 512 First Name: ‘Thomas Last Name:___Walker Phone; Emall Address: Physical Addre: 1020 Bay Area Bivd,, Suite 216 Building Name: Dallas Zoo Owner of Building City of Dallas, Texas Building Address: 650 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Dallas, Texas 77030 Date/Time Reported 09/21/2015 12:00 pm Description: ‘The 30.06 sign is located at the front entrance of the Dallas Zoo, There is further explanati attached letters. Use of Building Dallas Zoo. tried several times to upload the picture, however your website would not support it. in myWalker & Byington, PLLC Attorneys at Law 1020 Bay Area Blvd., Suite 216 Houston, Texas 77058 23!) Fax (281) October 12, 2015 Via Internet Submission at www.texasattorneygeneral,govlapps/3006/index.php Office of the Texas Attomey General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Re: Unlawfully posted "30.06" sign at the Dallas Zoo Dear Attorney General Paxton, 1am a citizen of the State of Texas and a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code. I am forwarding to your office a complaint that the criminal trespass warning sign preventing lawful handgun license holders fiom bringing concealed handguns onto the government owned real property located at the Dallas Z00, 650 South R.L. Thornton Freeway, Dallas, Texas 77030, is posted in violation of Texas Penal Code §30.06(e) and is actionable under Texas Government Code §411.209. ‘As stated in my attached demand letter, the Dallas Zoo is owned by the City of Dallas and it is not a place where firearms or concealed handguns are prohibited under Texas Penal Code §46.03 or §46.035. The fact that the real property the Dallas Zoo occupies is owned by the City of Dallas, a state agency or political subdivision, brings it under the purview of Texas Penal Code §30.06(¢) which forbids the law of criminal trespass by a handgun license holder from being used on government owned property, unless such property is also listed as a probibited place in Texas Penal Code §46.03 or §46.035. The City of Dallas has leased the zoo property to Dallas Zoological Society, who in tur has contracted with Dallas Zoo Management Corp., a 501(c)(3) corporation, to operate the zoo. Therefore, Dallas Zoological Society and Dallas Zoo Management, Inc., in spite of their purported status as a private non-profit corporations, serve as the paid contractual agent of the City of Dallas for the purposes of operating and managing City of Dallas property, thereby bringing it under the broad meaning of “political subdivision” for the purposes of Texas Government Code §411.209. ‘The offending “30.06” sign is specifically located at the main entrance to the Dallas Zoo. T have enclosed photographs of the sign and the buildings as evidence of the violation, in accordance with Texas Government Code §411.209(d). Further, I have been informed by the law firm of Haynes and Boone, LLP, who were retained by the Dallas Zoo, in a letter dated September 29, 2015 that the Dallas Zoo does not intend to remove its “30.06” signs. Mr. David Harper of Haynes and Boone, LLP, cleatly failed to read my demand letter or address my arguments in that he stated that I omitted to consider that the Dallas Zoo qualifies as‘an “amusement park” or has an “educational exemption.” His assertion ignores the fifth paragraph of my demand letter where I specifically state: 1am aware that the Dallas Zoo on its website attempts to justify its use of the “30.06” criminal trespass warning. by stating that it is an “educational institution” and an “amusement park.” However, there is no definition of “educational institution” contained in the Texas Codes and Statutes under which the Dallas Zoo could possibly fit. The Dallas Zoo does not offer any degrees, have any standardized course of study, nor is it certified or overseen by any state educational agency. Further, the Dallas Zoo does not meet the definition of “amusement park” as stated in Texas Penal Code 46.035(0)(1), in that it does not have amusement rides. The Dallas Zoo's attempt to characterize the monorail used for the purpose of transporting visitors around the park as an amusement ride is specious at best. Additionally, the penal code definition of “amusement park” specifically excludes any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area, reiterate the same position in this letter. While there is no definition of “educational institution” ‘contained in Texas Penal Code §46.03, this term is defined or used as part of a definition in various places in the Education Code, Labor Code, Utilities Code, Government Code, Business & Commerce Code, and Health & Safety Code. Yet, there is no possible expansive or hypothetical reading of any of these definitions in the statutes or in case law under which the Dallas Zoo could be considered a “schoo!” or “educational institution.” Additionally, the Dallas Zoo’s assertion that it is an “amusement park” fails as well. The “amusement park” prohibition contained in Texas Penal Code §46.035 was not initially contained in Senator Patterson's SB 60 of the 74° Legislative Session, nor was it added by the House Committee substitute. It was added by amendment during the legislative floor debate, presumably at the behest of entities that are true private “amusement parks”, i.e. Six Flags of Texas, Fiesta Texas, and (at the time) Astroworld. Further, in 1997 when the 75" Texas Legislature created Texas Penal Code §30.06, in HB 2909, it also created Texas Penal Code §46.035(i) wherein places that were previously listed as prohibited places but also happen to be private property, such as hospitals, nursing homes, places of religious worship, and amusement parks, must use a “30.06” notice to prohibit the lawful carrying of concealed handguns. This clearly manifests the Texas Legislature's intent that “30.06” notice, including signs, are to be used by private entities. There is no evidence that the Texas Legislature ever contemplated that there was or could be a govemment owned “amusement park.” The stakes in this matter for the lawful Texas handgun license holders are substantial. The issue of whether or not the Dallas Zoo is an “educationel institution,” “amusement park,” of non- exempt governmental property, needs to be resolved for the security and peace of mind for handgun license holders. In the event the Dallas Zoo is an “educational institution” the potential criminal penalty for a license holder carrying a handgun onto the premises is a third degree felony pursuant to Texas Penal Code 46.03(g). If the Dallas Zoo is an “amusement park” the criminal penalty for unlawful carrying a handgun is a class A misdemeanor pursuant to Texas Penal Code 46.035(g). If is determined that the Dallas Zoo is prohibited from posting a “30.06” sign pursuant to Texas Penal Code §30.06() there is no risk of criminal-penalty for a handgun license holder lawfully carrying a handgun. To further iilustrate the disparity in potential criminal penalties, as ‘of January 1, 2016, the penalty for a handgun license holder who violates a privately posted “30.06” sign is a class C misdemeanor, pursuant to Texas Penal Code §30.06(6),‘Three business days have expired since the receipt of my letter, as indicated in the Haynes and Boone, LLP letter. Therefore, 1am requesting pursuant to Texas Government Code §411.209, that the Office of the Texas Attorney General enforce all remedies available under the law against the Dallas Zoo, a politicat subdivision. ‘Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, 7. Ean Walker ‘T. Edwin Walker Attorney at Law Encl. ce: David H. Harper, Haynes and Boone, LLPhaynesboone September 29, 2015 Via Certiyted Matt ‘T. Edwin Walker Walker & Byington, PLLC Attomeys at Law 1020 Bay Area Blvd, Suite 216 Houston, Texas 77058 Re: Your letter regarding the purportedly unlawfully posted “30.06” sign at the Dallas Zoo. Dear Mr. Walker: We represent Dallas Zoo Management, Inc. (the “Dallas Zoo”). Your certified letter dated September 21, 2015 was received by the Dallas Zoo on September 25, 2015. Contrary to the statements made in your letter, the “30.06” signs prohibiting handgun license holders from bringing concealed handguns into the Dallas Zoo are valid and comply with applicable Texas statutes as recently amended by the Legislature; therefore, the Dallas Zoo will not be removing those signs as requested in your letter. Jn your letter, you omit an important part of 30.06(e) of the statute in your analysis of whether the Dallas Zoo may qualify for various exemptions. Also, contrary to your assertions and among, other applicable exemptions, the Dallas Zoo qualifies as an amusement park and also qualifies for educational exemptions under the statute. We are aware of the process in which you may file a complaint with the office of the Texas Attomey General, and we will respond to any request fiom that office. sion, David H. Harper Direct Phone Number“(214) 5 Direct Fax Number: (214) 8 vid harper@haynesboone.com Heyner and Boone, UP ‘Adore, and Coeasors 2323 Very Avene, Se 700, Bats, Tans 75219 1s992640,2 hore: 214681 5000 Fax 214651 5940 wo nebore conhaynesboone ‘T, Bdwin Walker Seplember 29, 2015 Page? cc; William L, Evans ‘Vice President, Administration & Chief Financial Officer Willis Winters Director of Dallas Parks and Recreation Dept. Gregg Hudson CEO and President, Dallas Zoo Darrel Rice, Esq, 1ss0n6e2.2Walker & Byington! PLLC Attorneys at Law 1020 Bay Area Blvd., Suite 216 Houston, Texas 77058 ft Fax (281) September 21, 2015 Via Certified Mail RRR No. 7014 2120 0001 4500 1374 And U.S. First Class Mail Gregg Hudson President and CEO Dallas Zoo Management, Inc. Dallas Zoological Society 650 South R.L. Thomton Freeway Dallas, Texas 75203 Via Certified Mail RRR No. 7014 2120 0001 4500 1381 And U.S. First Class Mail Willis C. Winters Director of the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department, 1500 Marilla Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Re: — Unlawfully posted “30.06” sign at the Dallas Zoo Dear Mr. Hudson and Mr. Winters, Tam a citizen of the State of Texas and 2 persoii licensed to carry a handgun under ‘Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Texas Government Code, I am writing to inform you that the criminal trespass warning sign preventing lawful handgun license holders from bringing concealed handguns onto the real property located at the Dallas Zoo, 650 South R.L. Thomton Freeway, Dallas, Texas 77030, is posted in violation of Texas Penal Code §30.06(e) and is actionable under ‘Texas Government Code §411.209. ‘The Dallas Zoo is owned by the City of Dallas and it is not a place where firearms or concealed handguns are prohibited under Texas Penal Code §46.03 or §46.035. Texas Penal Code §30.06 does not apply to property that is owned by the City of Dallas. Specifically, Texas Penal Code §30.06(e) states, “It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or Jeased by a governmental entity...” Therefore, the posting of “30.06” signs on this property is prohibited. ‘The fact that the real property that the Dallas Zoo occupies is owned by the City of Dallas, astate agency or political subdivision, brings it under the purview of Texas Penal Code §30.06(c). Additionally, the City of Dallas has leased the 200 property|to Dallas Zoological Society, who in ‘tum has contracted with Dallas Zoo Management Corp., '501(c(3) corporation, to operate the zoo, The City of Dallas not only has ownership of the Dallas Zoo, it contributes substantial sums of millions of public tax dollars for the purposes of operating the Dallas Zoo. Therefore, DallasZoological Society and Dallas Zoo Management, In., in spite of their purported status as a private ‘ton-profit corporations, serves asthe paid contractual agent of the City of Dallas for the purposes of operating and managing City of Dallas property, thereby bringing it under the broad meaning of “political subdivision” for the purposes of Texas Government Code §411.209. The offending “30.06” sign is specifically located at the main entrance to the Datlas Zoo. T have enclosed photographs of the sign and the buildings as evidence of the violation, in accordance with Texas Govement Code §411.209(d). I am hereby requesting that you remove this sign and any other “30.06” signs from the property. Tam aware that the Dallas Zoo on its website attempts to justify its use of the “30.06” criminal trespass waming by stating that it is an “educational institution” and an “amusement park.” However, there is no definition of “educational institution” contained in the Texas Codes and Statutes under which the Dallas Zoo could possibly fit. The Dallas Zoo does not offer any degrees, have any standardized course of study, nor is it certified or overseen by any state educational agency. Further, the Dallas Zoo does not mect the definition of “amusement park” as stated in Texas Penal Code 46.035(f)(1), in that it does ndt have amusement rides. The Dallas Zoo's attempt to characterize the monorail used for the purpose of transporting visitors around the park as an amusement ride is specious at best. Additionally, the penal code definition of “amusement park” specifically excludes any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. If the illegally posted “30.06” signs are not removell from the property before the end of the third business day after the receipt of this notice, this complaint will be filed with the Office of the Texas Attorney General. In the event that the Texas Attomey General determines that this property has been improperly posted with “30.06” signs and they are not removed, Dallas Zoo Management, Inc., Dallas Zoological Society, and/or the City of Dallas, faces q fine of up to $1,500.00 a day for the first violation and $10,500.00 a day for the second or subsequent violations. Further, sovereign immunity for this conduct by a state agency or political subjiivision has been abolished by Texas Government Code §411.209(h), subjecting it to possible litigation to collect any assessed fines, ‘court costs, reasonable attomey’s fees, investigative costs, witness fees, and deposition costs. At the expiration of three business days, I will revisit the Dallas Zoo, to determine if the corrective action of removing all unlawful “30.06” signs has occurred. In the event the signs have not been removed I will proceed with requesting that the Office of the Texas Attomey General enforce all remedies available under the law. ‘Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerel; ce T. Edwin Walker Attomey at Law Encl, co: The Office of the Texas Attorney General