Gun rights advocate challenges St. Louis Zoo policy barring weapons
Source: STL Post Dispatch
Jeffry Smith, 56, who in October led a march of about 40 people through downtown St. Louis to assert their right to carry guns openly in public, said he might defy the zoo’s signs that say no firearms or weapons are allowed on the property. State law does prohibit guns in gated areas of amusement parks, but Smith questions whether the zoo fits that description because it is a public, taxpayer-supported attraction.
“That signage, unless it’s backed up by case law or statutory law, is nothing more than the zoo’s attempt to reinforce their biases and to deceive people into not exercising their rights,” said Smith, of Cincinnati. “This is not about protecting oneself from the wildebeests in the zoo. This is about the zoo deceiving people into thinking they don’t have that choice” of whether to bring a gun in or leave it in a car.
Zoo spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said she could not answer questions about the issue but provided a statement saying, “It is the St. Louis Zoo’s position that all weapons, including concealed firearms, are prohibited within the gated area of the zoo.”
The statement said the zoo’s weapons ban also relied on “numerous state statues” including several provisions of state statute 571.107 “that support our position that weapons are prohibited.” The statement did not specify which parts of the law applies to the zoo.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gun-rights-advocate-challenges-st-louis-zoo-policy-barring-weapons/article_4dcdc258-822a-5187-847a-590e9634b65f.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
> "self-defense within the home"
Maybe that dumb fuck actually *lives* at the zoo (in a cage marked homo nonsapiens?)?
If not, then the 2nd Amendment *still* doesn't give him the "right" to carry a gun at the zoo,
just in his home.
You ask: "Besides that, why the fuck would you want to carry a gun at the zoo? Its not a fucking game park!"
Obviously you don't understand the mind of the gunnut -- don't ask them logical, reasonable questions. 
There's nothing logical or reasonable about these people. I know -- my son is a raving rightwinger, gunnut, tattooed biker who will not visit me because I don't allow him to carry a pistol on his hip when he comes into my home. We talk on the phone once a week -- for about one minute then he starts raving about guns, Obama about to declare martial law, liberals are racists -- I thank him for his views and hang up. Sad, but that's what a steady diet of Fox, Drudge, Coulter, Malkin, Pajamas Media, and the like will do to a person who was once a happy, smart, friendly person.
And we could all stand outside laughing at the morons. Micro-penises?
Maybe you'd be better off staying at home polishing your barrel.
Check out the top photo in the linked St. Louis Dispatch article - 'ol Jeffrey has a big bulge in his shorts.
> “This is not about protecting oneself from the wildebeests in the zoo."
Like your itsy bitsy handgun is going to stop a 270kg, 1.5m tall wildebeest if it takes
a dislike to you?
Or, maybe, just maybe, your illiteracy was showing through (as well as your cowardice)
and you actually meant that you were so scared of the caged "wild beasts" in the zoo
that you needed your comforter to let you pretend that that "right" was truly protecting you?
What is this bullshit "exercising their rights"? If you have a right to own a firearm, you "exercise" that right simply by purchasing or possessing a firearm. Why do they need to exercise the right to piss ordinary citizens off and make them so nervous they want to leave the zoo, with their kids crying, "Mommy and Daddy, we just got here!!".
