Zoo Atlanta To Demand Your Weapons Carry License? © 2022 Phillip Evans

Zoo Atlanta spokesperson Rachel Davis said, “Our statement ‘permitted by law’ means that guests may carry only with a legal permit.”

Atlanta Cyclorama Building at Zoo Atlanta, Photo by "London looks"

I continue to be astonished at the incorrect information Zoo Officials continue to make public. They should be ashamed of embarrassing Ms. Davis with the task of repeating such drivel.

First of all, Georgia does not have a "permit", it is a "weapons carry license".

More importantly, Georgia now defines a lawful carrier as anyone who can qualify to receive a weapons carry license whether or not they have applied for one.

Finally, even if a license were still required to carry a handgun in public, the Zoo would still lack the legal authority to demand to see anyone's license.

They certainly may politely ask to view your weapons license if you happen to carry openly, and you may politely decline to answer, with no actionable consequences against you for your refusal, such as kicking you off the property, or anything else.

So just wish them a nice day and go on about your visit. You don't have to show them anything other than your ticket or membership card.

The irony in all this flip-flop saga of banning, allowing, then banning again and once again allowing weapons, is that the Zoo has never effectively banned weapons in the first place. Never any metal detectors to my knowledge, although they might have used them in the past for special events, I don't know. But in general weapons have always been on Zoo property carried by lawful and sometimes unlawful carriers, and they know that.

Neither a paper policy nor a prohibition on a website can keep anyone safe. Real safety lies in the ability of people to keep themselves safe from armed criminals, not in virtue signaling or in giving lip service to safety. Feel-goods for the sheep do not a reality make.

Banning Weapons - Mystery Of The Public or Private Property Question © 2022 Phillip Evans

Like most anyone, I love a good mystery, but only on TV as I don't have much time or patience for reading a large novel. 

However, when it comes to where I can carry a firearm or other lawful weapon on privately leased, but publicly owned property used by the public, I want it cut and dry every time.

Open Clipart Image of Detective Used, Text Mine

Georgia's HB60 that became law July 1st, 2014 was intended to be the cure for this mystery. The Georgia General Assembly logically inserted the word "private" into the law to clarify that only privately owned property owners could blanket-wise ban all weapons from their property.

When the Atlanta Botanical Garden (publicly owned property, but privately leased) raised its hackles at this provision and refused to follow it, Georgia Carry (now GA2A.org) and I filed suit against the Garden.

What followed was a mixed bag of legal goods.

The Georgia Supreme Court gave us a general victory of sorts in Oct. 2019 when it ruled that those in control of privately leased public property could not ban weapons IF it merely held a "usufruct" (to use and enjoy) type lease, but that they could if they held an "estate for years" (ownership rights during the lease term) type lease.

The Garden's lease type was litigated and determined to be an "estate for years" on Jan. 31st, 2022 by the Georgia Court of Appeals. But being a property owner now means you get to pay property tax. Be careful what you wish for!

Now another entity, Zoo Atlanta (located on public property), wants on the Garden bandwagon and Sept. 1st, 2022 reinstated its blanket weapons ban (except for law enforcement), after following state law for the last few years. However, the Zoo is not in possession of the property's leasehold interest. The Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority (a government entity) holds it, so this should be a slam-dunk for us hopefully not requiring court action.

Although a lease with a length term exceeding five years is presumed to be an "estate for years", that is not the only factor to consider. Conditions in the lease may determine even a 50 year lease to be a "usufruct".

So do we need to litigate potentially hundreds or even more leases around the state to get to the bottom of whether those publicly owned properties used by the public, but privately leased, can ban legally carried weapons? What a chore that would be!

Here's the fix: REQUIRE by law that any government entity that leases public property to a private entity explicitly specifies in the lease whether the lease grants an estate for years or is merely a usufruct.

Not only would this benefit citizens who wish to protect their right to carry on their tax-payer owned public property, but it would also benefit government in determining whether these large private entities should be paying their fair share of property tax.

It's notable that the City of Atlanta specified in their lease contract with the Garden that the Garden was not to pay property tax. One would think that meant the City was signaling the lease was merely a usufruct, as those by law are not taxable.

The Georgia Court of Appeals, beyond belief, instead took this to mean that even if the City unlawfully granted the Garden a tax exemption, it still had an estate for years. Talk about upside down logic, or total lack thereof.

Hopefully, our Georgia General Assembly will once again take action and put final closure to this issue once and for all. 

Our right to be armed to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from criminals on public, tax-payer owned property should not be held hostage by lease documents of a type we do not clearly know, that we should be burdened with the task of suing in order to find out.

Government shenanigans where leases are written with a wink and a nod letting the lessees assumedly get to have "private property" rights to ban weapons carried by lawful citizens, but not have to pay property tax is unfair and immoral, and should be immediately stopped.

Regardless of how one feels about citizens carrying guns in public, at least we can all agree that businesses should pay their fair share of the tax burden. How many millions of dollars have you and I had to pay in property tax because certain businesses got an unlawful free ride out of paying their property taxes?

Atlanta Botanical Garden - Tax Man Cometh? © 2022 Phillip Evans

The Atlanta Botanical Garden won a court case Jan. 1st, 2022 which allows it to ban weapons on its property that is leased from the City of Atlanta. Georgia Carry (now GA2A) and I were plaintiffs in the case. 

Photo by David Berkowitz

The Court's ruling means that the Garden is and has been a property owner for several years, and like all other property owners in the State of Georgia per the Georgia Constitution, it is required to pay property tax unless it receives an exception granted in accordance with state law. And there is a new case over taxes filed by a resident of Atlanta and a resident of Fulton County for these governments' failures to collect property tax from the Garden. (1)

Has the Garden made application for any exemption? 

I'm guessing not, since during the lawsuit originally filed in 2014, they relied on the City of Atlanta's stipulation in their lease agreement that they do not have to pay property tax. 

To date, neither the City nor Fulton County has ever collected property tax from the Garden, and the Fulton County Tax Assessor website continues to list the Garden as PUBLIC, not private property, in spite of the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling making it private property.

Fulton County Property Classification: E1 = Public Property, with Land Use Code 610 (Recreation/Health)

One cannot imagine the hubris of the City of Atlanta intending to grant an estate for years (2) to the Garden with a lease contract containing a provision that exempts it from paying property tax contrary to statute and the Georgia Constitution. But corruption with a sizable dish of arrogance seems to come naturally to Democrat run cities.

The Georgia Department of Revenue's 2022 Opening Session PowerPoint Presentation highlights some of the facts of the case starting at slide 75:

https://dor.georgia.gov/document/document/caveat-2022-opening-session/download

While not giving an opinion whether the Garden should pay AVT (ad valorem tax) on the property, the report is indicative that the GA DOR is keenly aware of the issue, as it should be. And I'm sure they are keeping a sharp eye on further developments.

Additionally, will the fact that the Garden is now a private property owner have any impact on its tax filings with the IRS? Very possibly, especially if the IRS views the non-payment of property tax on private property as taxable income.

Were the Garden to be billed for all the back property taxes it owes, it could amount to over $100 million dollars - money which other property owners in Atlanta and Fulton County have had to pay to make up for the difference while the Garden has not been paying its share of the government mandated burden.

The City of Atlanta continues to pour millions of tax-payer dollars into the Garden property, and yet the property which is part of Piedmont Park is supposedly "private property"? Unreal.

The GA Court of Appeals mind-boggedly did not view it as a troublesome issue to rule that the Garden possessed an estate for years and at the same time not pay property tax, so it would not surprise me if it were to rule in favor of the Garden in regard to property taxes in the new lawsuit if it gets to that level.

However, the Georgia Supreme Court may not look kindly on such a flagrant violation of the Georgia Constitution. Were the Garden to be allowed an unfair pass on paying its fair share, other large property owners would come forward wanting the same treatment, with the mom and pop businesses and homeowners stuck with the shaft to make up the shortfall.

Should the Garden see the writing on the wall, it may quickly work with the City of Atlanta to rewrite their lease contract to convert it to a "usufruct" (a license to use and enjoy), which by law is not subject to property tax, but then the Garden could not ban lawfully carried weapons. 

Would doing that shield the Garden from back property taxes? I don't see how, as it would be a new contract going forward. 

The Garden, in its zeal to ban lawful carriers being armed while visiting, may have gotten itself wedged between a rock and a hard place in the sense that it may have to pay millions of dollars in tax arrears regardless if its lease is changed or not. The irony is that firearms and other weapons are still getting into the Garden every single day, as good citizens primarily carry concealed, and there are no metal detectors or searches upon entry.

So the reality is that all this time and expense the Garden has involved itself with, has been to ban a fraction of lawful carriers who choose to openly carry a visibly holstered pistol on their side.

The issue isn't about safety from the Garden's point of view - they KNOW guns get in on a regular basis. It is about appearance only. And even that is for nothing. Other public venues such as Stone Mountain Park, with many more visitors and from all over the world, has virtually daily sightings of citizens openly carrying a handgun, with no impact on revenue and no other issues as a result.

If you value your Second Amendment Rights and desire that laws are passed which honor and promote the right to keep and bear arms, then become a member of GA2A, the only statewide organization with a proven track record of success in working with the Georgia General Assembly to further our self-defense liberties.

------------------------------------------

(1) The City of Atlanta and Fulton County are being sued by two private citizens over the Atlanta Botanical Garden getting an unlawful pass to not pay property taxes as a property owner, as the Court of Appeals ruled this year that the Garden has an "estate for years" type lease, meaning certain property ownership rights, such as the ability to ban weapons. Fulton Superior Court Case Number: 2022cv368333. Create an account on their website to search for the case.

(2) An Estate for Years is a grant of “the right to use the property in as absolute a manner as may be done with a greater estate, provided that the property or the person who is entitled to the remainder or reversion interest is not injured by such use.” O.C.G.A. § 44-6-103.

Zoo Atlanta Weapons Policy Flip-Flop © 2022 Phillip Evans

Major Updates Below!

As recently as June 23rd, 2022 (per the Wayback Machine Archive) the page at https://zooatlanta.org/visit/rules/ stated with regards to prohibited items: 

"Weapons of any kind except as permitted by law", meaning that lawfully carried weapons were permitted, which aligns with state law. This wording had been used since 2014, after HB60 took effect.

Image by Author using Public Domain Material

That same page now reads:

"Weapons of all types are prohibited inside Zoo Atlanta", a blanket prohibition, which goes back to the pre-2014 language.

Yesterday I spoke with a member of their security office who told me the policy change was a result of a change in the law, and when I questioned further, the gentleman told me it was a "city law". Searching for a new city ordinance did not turn up anything.

Oddly enough, a different page on the Zoo's site currently has wording similar to the first one above:

https://zooatlanta.org/visit/  "Weapons, except as permitted by law"

So now there seems to be conflicting messages on the site.

Regardless, the gentleman at the Zoo's security office was clear that they intend to enforce a no-weapons policy for everyone except law-enforcement.

Fast forward to today, Oct. 20th, 2022 - A Mr. Gray (if I heard his name correctly) phoned me from the Zoo. He confirmed the policy change occurred Sept. 1st.

Mr. Gray stated that a group of Zoo officials determined that the Court of Appeals ruling from Jan. 1st, 2022, which granted the Atlanta Botanical Garden the right to ban guns applied to the Zoo.

I explained to him that the ruling applied to the entire state, in the sense that any property determined to have ownership rights via an "estate for years" type lease can ban weapons, but that the Zoo could only ban weapons if they had such a lease, and asked him if the Zoo Officials has made that claim. He side-stepped that question and promised to have someone else call me back.

Either that is the Zoo's position, that they claim to have an "estate for years" type lease, or they simply misunderstood the Court's ruling entirely and believe that they can do what the Atlanta Botanical Garden can, just because.

This blog article will be updated as more information is gathered.

UPDATE!!!

Thanks to Dawgdoc over at GeorgiaPacking.org, I have obtained info that is ruinous to the Zoo's position and have sent the Zoo an email with a copy to the Atlanta Police Department.

Here is the complete email:

Dear Zoo Officials,

I've learned that on Sept. 1st this year, you implemented a blanket policy banning all weapons carry, except by law enforcement.

Is it your position that your lease with the Fulton County Government (removed City of Atlanta for the pasted text here, misspoke in the email) is of the type known as an "estate for years", which grants you certain ownership rights, such as the right to ban weapons? Are you sure you'd like to be a property owner subject to paying property taxes?

Are you aware that the leasehold interest of the Zoo Property is assigned to the Atlanta Fulton County Recreation Authority? AFCRA has oversight over Zoo operations, including a vote on major Zoo contracts.

What all does this mean? It means your interest in the property is merely a "usufruct", and not an "estate for years", meaning you lack the authority to ban legally carried weapons by any lawful citizen, per your lease and per the Oct. 2019 ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia Carry v. Atlanta Botanical Garden regarding usufructs and estate for years pertaining to the banning of weapons on publicly owned property.

The Atlanta Botanical Garden can ban guns because their lease was determined this year to be an "estate for years". Your lease is not possible to be ruled as such, due to the facts I outlined above. Therefore, you do not get to do what the Garden can, just because you want to. There has to be a legal basis for it, and there is none.

I suggest you check with your attorneys quickly on this matter, for if you violate the rights of a lawful citizen carrying a legal weapon at the Zoo you risk a costly lawsuit.

The Atlanta Police Department is well aware of state law on this, and they carefully follow it. They will not enforce your weapons ban. Ask them if you do not believe me.

It seems that you all did not think this through very well, nor had a clear understanding of the surrounding court cases. You simply knee-jerked latched onto what you saw as an opportunity (in your own minds) to go back to the pre-2014 blanket policy banning weapons. 

This makes it clear you do not respect the Second Amendment nor do you regard the ability of moms and dads to be armed for the safety of their families when traveling to and from the Zoo or walking from or to their vehicles at the Zoo in a neighborhood beset with crime. You should be ashamed of your liberty hating agenda.

Best regards,

Phillip Evans

-------------------------

For verification of the Zoo's leasehold info I posted above see: https://saportareport.com/vote-clears-path-between-zoo-atlanta-and-federal-tax-credits/sections/reports/maggie/

Also, see the City of Atlanta's 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Second Update: The Zoo is not even a party to the Grant Park property lease, which is specified as a "usufruct" according the Zoo's operating agreement in section 3(b).

Third Update: The Zoo once again allows weapons, "as permitted by law". Their spokesperson unfortunately misunderstands this to mean you have to have a "permit", but that is wrong on two levels. 

We do not have a "permit", it is a carry license, and with recent legislation no longer needed for a lawful carrier to carry a weapon in public.

Guns at Pride Festival in Piedmont Park Atlanta © 2022 Phillip Evans

Atlanta Pride Executive Director, Jamie Fergerson,  requests  that festival goers leave their guns at home when attending the Atlanta Pride Festival in Piedmont Park.

Photo by SumOfUs

Executive Director Fergerson correctly stated, "People are allowed to lawfully carry." So kudos to her for knowing and being willing to follow state law.

She gave a reasonable-sounding argument for her disarmament request: "We don't believe that crowds, especially when there's drinking and celebrating, mix with a lot of guns so we'd like everybody to leave them at home." Notwithstanding guns have been lawfully carried at the festival for years with no issues.

The website also states, "We respectfully request that you leave your weapons, including firearms, at home."

Security is to be provided by unarmed volunteers, unarmed private security, and Atlanta Police (with help from other agencies). 

So if no one is armed except police and bad guys, who will ignore any disarmament requests, is this the perfect picture of safety?

Let's think about this for a moment. What about folks traveling to and from the festival, whether in their vehicle, on MARTA, or on foot? Will festival security measures keep them safe while traveling? Will a gun left at home protect them while traveling? The Captain Obvious answer is NO to both.

And why the complete trust and reliance on the police? Does Atlanta Police have a stellar record in the Gay community? Anyone recall the 2009 Eagle Bar incident? Is all forgiven now? Don't get me wrong, most police are good people, but things don't always work out for the best when police and criminals are the only ones armed.

Why does Ms. Fergerson not trust gay people to be responsibly armed in the presence of alcohol and crowds? Is there an epidemic of gay folks drunkenly shooting into crowds? If not, then why the need for any such polite request?

Though I don't speak for GA2A in my article here, GA2A (formerly Georgia Carry) apparently trusts gay people to carry guns in festivals at Piedmont Park. In fact, for years they've had a booth there for the festival to give attendees information on their organization which fights for their right of armed self-protection.

And why shouldn't gays be armed? They are often victimized by criminals who beat, rape, rob, and murder them. It's high time that they get armed, trained, and prepared to defend themselves. And they should be armed for their safety even at festivals. 

If a straight person such as myself can advocate for gays to be lawfully armed wherever they go, why can't the Executive Director of the Atlanta Pride Festival do the same?

The Black community also has a similar issue in that most Black leaders and politicians consistently side with White Democrats to push for gun bans in as many public areas as possible, as well as banning the possession of certain types of guns. Apparently, they don't trust Blacks to be responsibly armed either, in public places.

Perhaps both of these cases is an example of where the leadership doesn't speak for the majority makeup of the membership?

Are Blacks and Gays to be unarmed sheep because the police do such a great job protecting them?

According to straight, White Democrats, Gays and Blacks shouldn't be armed in public. Where do the elites even in these same demographics obtain the gall to demand that they disarm themselves and only trust the police for their safety? Cognitive Dissonance?