Memphis Zoo Still Banning Guns

[phil1979]

So, didn't the Guns in Parks law a few years ago take care of this?

They can legally ban weapons only if they have metal detector screening.

Do they? If not, what is being done to get them into compliance with the law?

https://www.memphiszoo.org/help-rules

"The Memphis Zoo prohibits firearms and weapons of any kind from being on-premises.

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE."

[Garufa]

9 minutes ago, phil1979 said:

Do they? If not, what is being done to get them into compliance with the law?

Why don’t you go find out and let the rest of us know?

[maroonandwhite]

They do. And they don’t have metal detectors………

[Pain103]

Is it a private entity?

[peejman]

57 minutes ago, phil1979 said:

So, didn't the Guns in Parks law a few years ago take care of this?

They can legally ban weapons only if they have metal detector screening.

Do they? If not, what is being done to get them into compliance with the law?

https://www.memphiszoo.org/help-rules

"The Memphis Zoo prohibits firearms and weapons of any kind from being on-premises.

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE."

Zoos typically aren't public parks. 

[papa61]

WIKI says it is owned by the city and the primary tenant of the park. They are probably using the children gathering clause. A part that needs to be struck down or eliminated since we can't k ow if there is a school function in a park at any given time or day. (burden of proof)

[phil1979]

According to Tennessee law (if I understand correctly), is that private entities leasing publicly owned recreational property cannot ban guns unless they use metal detectors.

There were two bills that brought this together. One was the Guns In Parks law (sorry, I do not have the bill info), and then right after that was the bill passed to allow banning of guns on public recreational property by private entities who control it for an event or as a tenant, but only when using metal detectors.

The Zoo is on public park property. The Zoo itself is "recreational" property. Without metal detectors they are violating the law by banning weapons. The current laws on this do not permit them to sidestep by posting signs, as they are mistaken about that.

This was all in the news some years back, so I am shocked that violations of state law are still occurring after all this time. Is there no appetite to hold them accountable? Or do you just conceal and take your chances?

I did visit the Zoo before these two laws were enacted. The reason they were enacted was to prevent these entities from violating our rights on public property as they continue to do today.

I would like to visit again and not worry if my shirt blows open. 

I had been a paying member of TFA in the past, but my membership is probably expired. Are there any members here who are still active in the org? If so, what is the plan going forward to address this violation as well as the others that probably exist?

 

[phil1979]

48 minutes ago, papa61 said:

WIKI says it is owned by the city and the primary tenant of the park. They are probably using the children gathering clause. A part that needs to be struck down or eliminated since we can't k ow if there is a school function in a park at any given time or day. (burden of proof)

There is no children gathering clause. It is a school event clause such as a field trip. And you're right, that should be eliminated. Does a small field trip on one side of a 100-acre park make the entire place off limits?

That does not jive with the standard set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision.

[phil1979]

1 hour ago, Garufa said:

Why don’t you go find out and let the rest of us know?

I did go before the new laws were enacted, and would like to go again. When I went, they did not use metal detectors. The reason for my inquiry was to see if they are now in compliance with the laws passed since my last visit, to see if they are in compliance, as I would like to go again. I have learned here that they are not. 

They should be made to come into compliance. Do you agree?

[maroonandwhite]

Honestly, I’d rather just continue on as is at this point. My guess is that they likely won’t react favorably and take signs down. They’d probably be more likely to add metal detectors if that’s what is required to comply. 

It’s a great zoo and my boy loves to go. Memberships are cheap and concealed is concealed. Totally get where you are coming from but I’ve lost faith in many of those in positions of decision making and power. 

[Thearmededucator]

Outside of the box answer, TCA 39.17.1322

• (a) A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

• (b) A person who discharges a firearm within the geographical limits of a municipality shall not be deemed to have violated any ordinance in effect or be subject to any citation or fine the municipality may impose for discharging a firearm within the limits of the municipality if it is determined that when the firearm was discharged the person was acting in justifiable self-defense, defense of property, defense of another, or to prevent a criminal offense from occurring.

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-39/chapter-17/part-13/section-39-17-1322/

So basically, if the only reason they find out about it is after you need to use it, you’re still covered (in theory)

[dawgdoc]

The last time I went to the Chattanooga Zoo and the Knoxville Zoo, both were posted, and both exist within a larger public park.  

I have not been to either in awhile, and I can't remember if I went before or after the parks law changed.  I probably posted in the prohibited locations forum thread, but that has disappeared.

So in summary, I think it is common for entities like zoos that lease public property and post rules that may not comply with the law, and there does not seem to be any movement to sue them into compliance.

Tennessee has been living with the "signs carry weight" law that is rarely enforced for so long, coupled with what appears to be much less open carry, that there are doldrums when it comes to change.

Also, as pointed out by maroonandwhite above, they might just go through the trouble of adding metal detectors if forced.  A local Chattanooga example is Riverbend, a music festival that takes place in a large public park.  For years, the park was a prohibited location under the old law, then parks were essentially removed from the list (with those pesky school children caveats).  My memory may be fuzzy, but I believe Riverbend only had to operate for one year under the changed law before the law was changed again, giving them the ability to ban weapons with metal detectors.  The next year, and every year since, they have had metal detectors.  (As a side note, their screening is easily defeated, according to multiple attendees who have carried "stuff" in through the screening).

Also doesn't help that a good gun rights bill can be introduced and then inevitably is swallowed by a committee, never to be seen again (usually due to the direct actions of Republicans).

[deerslayer]

10 hours ago, maroonandwhite said:

Honestly, I’d rather just continue on as is at this point. My guess is that they likely won’t react favorably and take signs down. They’d probably be more likely to add metal detectors if that’s what is required to comply. 

This.  
The result of “holding them accountable” will be either metal detectors or more likely, security guards with hand wands.  Either way, not a favorable result.  

[phil1979]

Lots of good points made by folks wanting to keep things as they are. 

There are a couple of drawbacks as well:

1. When a law is changed to further your rights, it may be prone to being ignored by local authorities, as they are now used to ignoring the law.

2. "Concealed means concealed" is fine until it becomes exposed by the wind blowing your outer shirt, or if you reach or bend. Now you are looked at as a "lawbreaker", put on the ground perhaps roughly, cuffed and stuffed in a patrol car, taken to jail and probed all over.

There are pros and cons to everything I suppose. But weighed in the balance it's probably best that local authorities recognize state law, especially when that law is in your favor.

[chances R]

If classified as a park, one must still possess an ECP or CCP.  Signs may be posted but knowing your laws is important.

[Pain103]

On 2/27/2025 at 5:01 PM, phil1979 said:

Lots of good points made by folks wanting to keep things as they are. 

There are a couple of drawbacks as well:

1. When a law is changed to further your rights, it may be prone to being ignored by local authorities, as they are now used to ignoring the law.

2. "Concealed means concealed" is fine until it becomes exposed by the wind blowing your outer shirt, or if you reach or bend. Now you are looked at as a "lawbreaker", put on the ground perhaps roughly, cuffed and stuffed in a patrol car, taken to jail and probed all over.

There are pros and cons to everything I suppose. But weighed in the balance it's probably best that local authorities recognize state law, especially when that law is in your favor.

Well, if you seem so inclined go get a Hello Kitty Hi-Point carbine and take a stroll.