St. Louis Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed

[twoskinsonemanns]

My apologies if you've already covered this. I saw this claim in their press release. Would this not make their ban lawful?

"The Zoo also falls into the educational institution exemption because it operates a licensed child care facility—a preschool that uses the entire 90-acre campus of the Zoo as its classroom. The Zoo also conducts camps for adults and children from preschool to Grade 12, and these camps use the entire campus of the Zoo. School field trips and scout and youth group outings bring thousands of children to all parts of the Zoo on a daily basis for educational purposes."

 

[BB62]

Yes, please post donation options.

Thanks to Nightmare, logunowner, and OC4me for your offers.

I'm currently trying to find an attorney and simultaneously evaluate the best way to proceed: least money, biggest results. You'll understand if I don't spell things out completely on a public forum.

When I have more clarity, you can count a course of action, as well as donation avenues, being spelled out.

Thanks again.

 

[kcgunfan]

I'm happy to help donate. How did your talk with Kevin go?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

I'm happy to help donate. How did your talk with Kevin go?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Thank you, and please check your PM's.

 

[Maverick9]

Why not do a test run with a blue gun?

At any rate, good luck!

 

[kcgunfan]

I'm not sure what using a blue gun will prove, would you mind explaining?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick9]

You show up with a blue gun and it allows you to tell the authorities to go pound sand, while they might be fooled into accosting you, not recognizing the blue gun is plastic.

As a side benefit you get to go home, yet you also 'carry' into the park.

If the test excursion is uneventful, return with an actual handgun. Prior to that, email everyone above and say 'thanks for not being hysterical and following state law'.

 

[kcgunfan]

Unfortunately, I think we're past the point where that might be useful. If they leave you alone, it means they've either recognized that the blue gun is not a real gun. Or they've decided that they take can't take any action against someone that is armed. In either case, we haven't learned anything new.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

You show up with a blue gun and it allows you to tell the authorities to go pound sand, while they might be fooled into accosting you, not recognizing the blue gun is plastic.

As a side benefit you get to go home, yet you also 'carry' into the park.

If the test excursion is uneventful, return with an actual handgun. Prior to that, email everyone above and say 'thanks for not being hysterical and following state law'.

Have you not read anything in this thread? Really??

The event this thread was constructed about is done and over. Legally, a temporary restraining order has been filed against me by the St. Louis Zoo, and has been issued by a judge.

Blue guns have nothing to do with anything at this point.

 

[redhawk44]

Thanks to Nightmare, logunowner, and OC4me for your offers.

I'm currently trying to find an attorney and simultaneously evaluate the best way to proceed: least money, biggest results. You'll understand if I don't spell things out completely on a public forum.

When I have more clarity, you can count a course of action, as well as donation avenues, being spelled out.

Thanks again.

Jeffry

PM sent

Larry

 

[Ezek]

Have you not read anything in this thread? Really??

The event this thread was constructed about is done and over. Legally, a temporary restraining order has been filed against me by the St. Louis Zoo, and has been issued by a judge.

Blue guns have nothing to do with anything at this point.

Why no response to the question posed earlier about the zoo acting under an educational entity??

It may be wise to give any legal counsel this info to review for possibility and have the best defense against it.


Just a thought. Good luck with your course of action, if I know where to donate I will give what I can but don't expect much.. Not that rich unfortunately.

 

[BB62]

A few minutes ago I got off the phone with the judge (who, btw is going to be the judge for the foreseeable future) and the attorney for the Zoo, Adam Hirtz, of the Lowenbaum Partnership LLC.

Of course the Zoo felt is was imperative that the TRO be continued in the meanwhile (because it was important to his client, dontcha know), but said that I could agree to a permanent restraining order if liked. How generous.

The judge granted a 60 day extension so I can find an attorney. (of course, in the meanwhile I will also see what I can do to solicit funds for a legal challenge, find out how best to challenge things, etc.)

In response to my question, the judge said if I were to find an attorney prior to then, and if everyone's schedule was open, the preliminary injunction hearing could be held prior to then.

In response to my question, the judge refused to describe what I'm expected to do at/bring to a preliminary injunction hearing.

In response to a later question, in the event that I was unable or unable/unwilling to bear the cost of legal counsel, I repeated the question about what would I need to do/bring to a preliminary injunction hearing - the judge said to contact the Zoo's attorney and suggested (as I recall) that there would be another tele-conference held.

 

[deepdiver]

My apologies if you've already covered this. I saw this claim in their press release. Would this not make their ban lawful?

"The Zoo also falls into the educational institution exemption because it operates a licensed child care facility—a preschool that uses the entire 90-acre campus of the Zoo as its classroom. The Zoo also conducts camps for adults and children from preschool to Grade 12, and these camps use the entire campus of the Zoo. School field trips and scout and youth group outings bring thousands of children to all parts of the Zoo on a daily basis for educational purposes."

All emphasis below are mine:

The zoo claims it is a educational institution – it is not: Per RSMo 169.0010 defining public school (the zoo would have to be a public school since it exists as permanent public entity under RSMo 184.362 as quoted in part below - the St. Louis Zoo is a Zoological Park Subdistrict of a Municipal Zoological Park and Museum District created under 184.350-184.284) - (12) "Public school" shall mean any school conducted within the state under the authority and supervision of a duly elected district or city or town board of directors or board of education and the board of regents of the several state teachers' colleges, or state colleges, board of trustees of the public school retirement system of Missouri, and also the state of Missouri and each county thereof, to the extent that the state and the several counties are employers of teachers as herein designated;

The zoo claims it is a daycare – the zoo claims a daycare exists somewhere at the zoo but RSMo 571.107(11) is ONLY applicable as to concealed carry in “Any portion of a building used as a child care facility” Therefore, any exception to the carrying of firearms in the zoo under this argument would be very limited, but the zoo argues that somehow, this would prohibit firearms in the entirety of the mostly outdoor zoo. Somehow the zoo thinks “any portion of a building” means a 90 acre mostly outdoor space.

184.362. The use and enjoyment of such institutions and places, museums and parks of any and all of the subdistricts established under sections 184.350 to 184.384 shall be forever free and open to the public at such times as may be provided by the reasonable rules and regulations adopted by the respective commissions in order to render the use of the said subdistrict's facilities of the greatest benefit and efficiently to the greatest number. The respective commissions may exclude from the use of the said facilities any and all persons who willfully violate such rules. In addition said commission shall make and adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations for its own guidance and for the election of its members and for the administration of the subdistrict as it* may deem expedient and as may not be inconsistent with the provisions of the law....


As I have written previously, the zoo is attempting to reinterpret everything about Missouri firearm law in a manner that makes no sense or reason under any reasonable and common reading of RSMo 21.750 (preemption) and RSMo 571 (concealed carry).

Section 184: http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText184.html
Section 21.750: http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/02100007501.html
Section 571: http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText571.html
Section 571.107 (off limits for concealed carry): http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57100001071.html

 

[deepdiver]

Why no response to the question posed earlier about the zoo acting under an educational entity??

It may be wise to give any legal counsel this info to review for possibility and have the best defense against it.


Just a thought. Good luck with your course of action, if I know where to donate I will give what I can but don't expect much.. Not that rich unfortunately.

I did not see that post until this morning and was not in a position at the time to properly cite in a response. It has been a crazy day and only had time a little while ago to fully respond.

I think there is an important issue about the public nature of the zoo to keep in mind: From 1916 the zoo was operated and funded on a "mill tax" or real property tax and the St. Louis Park Department set aside lands on which to create the zoo. So at that point it was certainly a municipal zoo funded by local residents. If that was still the case there are aspects of this matter that would be different as certain statutes allow municipalities to do certain things that other political subdivisions are specifically barred from doing (RSMo 571.107.1(6) The general assembly, supreme court, county or municipality may by rule, administrative regulation, or ordinance prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed firearms by permit or endorsement holders in that portion of a building owned, leased or controlled by that unit of government. Any portion of a building in which the carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited or limited shall be clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the restricted area...The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any other unit of government;")

But then in 1972 (according to the Zoo's wiki) the zoo became an RSMo 184 subdistrict and therefore permanently public in exchange for which they began receiving sales tax revenue. They gave up being a municipal entity run by a quasi-private board and became its own political subdivision, i.e. "unit of government". Further, under the requirements of RSMo 184.360.2. "All buildings, property and facilities of existing publicly owned and operated zoological parks and museums established pursuant to the constitution or laws of this state or museum of science and natural history upon which a majority of the voters of both the city and county have passed upon as provided for in section 184.350 shall become the property of and vest in the respective and applicable subdistrict on the date such subdistrict shall be established as provided in section 184.350."

So all the zoo lands are the property of a political subdivision, i.e. the Zoological Park Subdivision, which entity under its creation statute "is forever free and open to the public". This is NOT in any way, shape or form a private entity nor are the lands on which it is situated private as they are all vested in the zoo per statute.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

All emphasis below are mine:

The zoo claims it is a educational institution – it is not

Thank you for your explanation. The question was legal only. Your explanation sounds...sound. In any case I despise the government suspending civil rights on it's property and will donate if possible.

 

[Maverick9]

Have you not read anything in this thread? Really??

The event this thread was constructed about is done and over. Legally, a temporary restraining order has been filed against me by the St. Louis Zoo, and has been issued by a judge.

Blue guns have nothing to do with anything at this point.

It's a long thread. I didn't see that it was 'over'. Besides my comment was conjecture, not a suggestion.

 

[Ezek]

I say give them hell!.. of course that requires a damn good attorney.. so good luck on that part.

and P.S. when you gonna get the donation thigny up so we can stuff dollar bills in said attorneys pocket..

 

[BB62]

Thanks for the well-wishes and offers of financial assistance. I've been quite busy with reporters and trying to find out more about the TRO process, as well as speaking with and trying to find attorneys.

I hope to start the process of constructing a way for interested people to contribute, maybe over the weekend, and maybe not - it all depends on what THE BOSS demands I do this weekend.

 

[kcgunfan]

I'll just leave this here: FOIA everything from the Zoo and StLPD...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[deepdiver]

I'll just leave this here: FOIA everything from the Zoo and StLPD...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Well, the St. Louis Zoo, being a public commercial educational institution daycare operation political subdivision unit of ordinance passing government private organization amusement park (according to their TRO filing and Petition for Permanent Injunction filing), it may not be subject to any FOIA requests either.

I did a search in RSMO for public commercial educational institution daycare operation political subdivision unit of ordinance passing government private organization amusement parks and do not find that they are subject to FOIA, firearm preemption, concealed carry statutes, open carry exemptions or, as far as I can tell, even have to do anything that they don't just feel like doing which fits with the zoo's positions.

In fact, there is a rumor but I cannot confirm, that there is a super-secret Public Commercial Educational Institution Daycare Operation Political Subdivision Unit of Ordinance Passing Government Private Organization Amusement Parks District Board that is really running things behind the scenes and this Board apparently entirely preempts the areas of plain-reading, reason and common sense.

But yeah, if you think we can get a response, let's go for it.