Philadelphia Zoo

[LM4300]

There are no metal detectors. I've been there twice in the last 2 summers. There are no "pat downs" either (in case anyone wondered that too). I think our cooler got a cursory check the one time, and that was it.

[Exbiker]

Originally Posted by dgg9

After a while, I just stop worrying about that. I decide where I go, and if I carry, based on my own criteria, not some lawyer's.

Exactly. We`ve already had the discussion and legal opinion on sign postings as opposed to actual notice by the property manager/owner. I`ve carried in almost every state, sometimes legal and sometimes not.
There is though a big difference between laws and rules.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

Let me get this straight here.

1. Your rights are sacrosanct (sp?)

My right to life is. Certainly it's higher in the priority queue than some lawyer's CYA regulation.

2. Your rights are more valid than some CYA-motivated corporate lawyer - because he or she is not a US citizen with the same rights as you

No, sadly you didn't get it straight after all. Who said anything about citizenship? Where did you make that left turn?

3. Rules made by a private entity are only to be followed by you regardless of the rights of a private property owner

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to say. As I said: every choice has consequences. You should make your choices and be willing to live with the consequences.

As I said, if this is city or state owned I would argue the policy is wrong and violates the state and federal constitution, but that would not justify disregarding those policies whether it is blatant or discrete.

The problem with your argument is you are putting every policy and rule that anyone can come up with on the same plane of importance. In your mind, some petty sign with no legal weight is paramount to a legislatively passed actual law.

Extrapolate that logic to the extreme and as long as you don't get caught you are doing nothing wrong.

I AM doing nothing wrong since the CCW ban is neither morally correct nor legal. Hence there is no moral or legal imperative I am breaking. All I am flouting is some non-legal CYA regulation. There is nothing wrong with that.

I want my gun rights, but I do not feel that disregarding policies because I don't agree with them is the way to further that cause.

That's just it -- this has nothing to do with any "cause." My primary concern in this discussion is protecting my life, not advancing some cause.

[Poonie]

The Philthadelphia zoo is a dump! I was there last year or so ago with my kids and I'll never go back. From the rude workers, to the giraffe with the giant goiter on its neck, to the filthy conditions, and it couldn't be located in a worse area. Its an all around dump and not worth the money spent to get in.

If you have the time go to the Cape May Zoo. Its small, but its clean, the people are friendly and best of all it runs on donations, so you can get in for nothing if you are so inclined. Although they are pretty heavy into getting a donation (as in the old guy practially shoving the bucket in your car window when you pull up). So you toss in three bucks and you're good to go.....

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by SharpShooter88

Let me tell you...The day I get mugged there better be 2 or three of them and they better have guns or hand grenades. Otherwise they are in a world of trouble!!!!!!!!!!

Well, bully for you, but not everyone has the same physical wherewithal. That's why this is a personal decision.

But by disregarding rules whether discrete or blatant. You are no better than the people who are fighting to have our guns taken away.

Huh? Where does this utterly bogus bit of moral equivalence come from? Not all rules are inherently morally proper just because they're "rules." Keep in mind, we're not talking about laws passed in a democracy -- though even those are not "moral" -- we're talking about a no-legal-weight sign hanging on some door.

If disregarding rules were always and everywhere inherently wrong, then the Nazi Resistance was immoral and the Nazis were moral.

[Elmar]

My rights to my property and its use are as important as any of my other rights including my 2nd amendment ones. That goes the same for everyone else. If you don't respect the rights of others it is insanity for you to expect them to respect any of your own. If you don't want to go anywhere you can't carry your gun, don't go anywhere you can't carry it. Not that hard - you don't have a right to be in the zoo, that is a privilege extended to you by the zoo.

[reverserboy]

In a situation like that just keep it concealed & be discreet. The owner's signs have no legal weight. All they can do is tell you to leave. The safety of you & your family is more important.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Huh? Where does this utterly bogus bit of moral equivalence come from? Not all rules are inherently morally proper just because they're "rules." Keep in mind, we're not talking about laws passed in a democracy -- though even those are not "moral" -- we're talking about a no-legal-weight sign hanging on some door.

Its called you ignoring someone else's right to do as you please which is exactly what anti's do - ignore your rights so they can do as they please. Absolutely no moral difference between the two ideas that one's own wants are more important than any other's rights.

[adymond]

The point is that the zoo is private property. If they say no weapons you should respect that just as you should respect my right to say I don't want anyone in my house carrying a gun while they are getting drunk. The rule is backed by the right of private property. If the property is private you do not have a right to disregard the wishes of the property owner. The point of citizenship (left turn?) is that as a private property owned by a citizen their right to say no weapons is just as valid as your right as a citizen to bear arms. Both rights should be respected regardless of your opinion on the owner of the private property. Has nothing to do with law vs. rule. Has to do with you acting as though your right is more important than the property owner. Your right to life is top priority. If you are in fear of your life at the Zoo without your CCW and the property owner does not want you there with your CCW DO NOT GO TO THE ZOO. I don't think you have the right to trample on their right to say "No weapons." Regardless of if you do it discretely. At the end of the day this may not even be an issue if they do NOT have any policy against CCW. We don't know. To use the morally right argument is just foolish. The issue I have and you have not addressed is your right to bear arms vs a property owner's right to determine what behavior is tolerated on their property. It does not make a difference if they know you are breaking the policy or not. "If I don't get caught I am not wrong" is just plain funny. Private property owners have a legal right to tell you what to do on their property. If you don't like the rules don't go. Just cause you don't like the rules does not make it okay for you to make some absurd argument about how it infringes on your right to life.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Elmar

My rights to my property and its use are as important as any of my other rights including my 2nd amendment ones. That goes the same for everyone else. If you don't respect the rights of others it is insanity for you to expect them to respect any of your own. If you don't want to go anywhere you can't carry your gun, don't go anywhere you can't carry it. Not that hard - you don't have a right to be in the zoo, that is a privilege extended to you by the zoo.

A-fuckin-men. Can I do the +1 rep thing? I don't know how that works, but that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. The argument against a private property's rights to impose restrictions of admitance is just as bogus as the anti-gun nuts argument against our right to bear arms.