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.