TexasCHLforum.com

We know (as I just found out) that,in fact, essentially any higher education institution must notify by 30.06 if they create rules prohibiting campus carry. That clearly is meant for the cc public, indeed, required for the cc public.

But the question has been put...do students have to be notified by 30.06 or are they obligated by contract to abide by school policy. By contract in that they agree to pay the school in return for an education on the schools private property and agree that the consent to be on that property comes at the price of the students right to carry.

This is not a forced loss of freedom. This is a self abandoned freedom by the student by voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the institution/student relationship. So I think in that case the student is simply notified by the policies handbook to which he submits in exchange for the promise of an education. Not so with a public citizen who is not engaged in a relationship with the school or bound by student policies and must be notified by 30.06. So in that respect it is similar to an employer/employee relationship.

tex

casp625 wrote:Private institutions must still give notice per Texas PC 46.035:

(a-2) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) or Section 46.03(a), a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on the campus of a private or independent institution of higher education in this state that has established rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns pursuant to Section 411.2031(e), Government Code, or on the grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by such an institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of such an institution, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, provided the institution gives effective notice under Section 30.06

Excellent answer! I didn't make the connection but that says it all.

Thanks,

tex

Paragraph e and d2 refer to two different types of school. Under d-2 Institutes of higher education must notify under 30.06 and private or independent institutions under paragraph e does not state that requirement.

So I agree, there is an opt out and there does not seem to be a notify requirement specifically mandated UNDER PARA E. However, being a private institution it would seem that they have the same duty to notify under 30.06 as any other private property owner. 2031 does not supersede 30.06 simply by virtue that the .06 notification is absent in it, I would think. To supersede I believe it would need to specify that with something similar to ..."private or independent instiitutions do not need to provide notification under 30.06".

They may opt out under e but I see nothing that allows them to not notify under 30.06 that they have opted out. The general rule, and again I see nothing here to be an exception, is that any location (which now includes campi) that is not one of the sacred 13 prohibited areas falls into the general location category and therefore comes under 30.06 and 30.07 statutes.

2031 simply stipulates how a education institution arrives at its rules and regulations and what those are allowed to be.

For example, I don't care what how Texas Road House is mandated to arrive at its rules and regulations, or if it is allowed to even opt out of being required to allow cc...that's an internal matter guided analogically by statutes governing restaraunts. Once they have properly arrived at those rules and regulations or a decision to opt out, they have a requirement to notify under 30.06 as a private entity. This seems to be reinforced by the requirement of other schools TO notify by 30.06 per d-2. In other words, opting out for certain buildings or opting out of all buildings (allowed under e, and without the reasonableness requirement for private institutions, by the way) is still a prohibition against cc in whole or in part. Albeit presumptive on my part, both would require 30.06 notification for paragraph e institutions.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the legislature distinguished between the two types of institutions. That distinction may be deliberate or an omission when writing para e. Why would a private higher institution of learning who has not been statutorily added to the list of prohibited location be exempted deliberately and set apart from all other Texas locations concerning the requirement to notify. Keep in mind that a private entity who decides internally to not allow carriage needs to somehow make that known. Under our current system that method of dissemination is either...1) notify under 30.06 or 2) make it statutorily off limits by making the private institution one of the sacred "14" and therefore making 30.06 unnecessary, as with polling places on the day of voting. Here we seem to have neither. It isn't off limits by statute...it is off limits by school decision (allowed by statute). It isn't off limits by notification because notification is not specified under paragraph e. So I guess we are just supposed to surmise the policy as private citizens. That can't be true either.

Nope. Off limits by statute or off limits by notification. Those are the only two choices I see.

How does that conversation go?...

private institution....We don't have to notify because we're a special school who has been given permission to completely rule out having to allow cc on our campus and in that paragraph that grants us that right there is no requirement to notify of that prohibition per 30.06 found in paragraph e.

judge...are you one of the 13 places the legislature has, by state statute, mandated a PROHIBITION against cc??

private institution....no

judge...were you given a statutory right to rule out cc?

private institution....yes.

judge...have you been given a statutory right to not comply with 30.06?

private institution....that requirement is not specified in paragraph e.

judge...I repeat my question...have you been given a statutory exemption to 30.06 as a private entity.

private institution...No. But there is no requirement under paragraph e.

judge...Does paragraph e deal specifically with your right to decide to rule or regulate out cc?

private institution....yes.

judge...does it deal with any other aspect of cc such as notification, explicitly or implicitly?

private institution...no.

judge...is not your contention that you have freedom from notification an assumed freedom based on the fact that there is no mention of notification in paragraph e?

private institution....yes.

judge...then, as a private institution, your contention is that because a requirement to notify is not found in paragraph e you are exempted from 30.06.

on and on....

That's my line of reasoning.

tex

casp625 wrote:At my private university right now and they have all the standard gun buster signs - haven't observed any 30.06 signs. However according to the campus trackers, my university has chosen to "opt out." The student handbook only states weapons are not allowed per state law and campus policy. This is last year's handbook so it may be updated before class start.

If nothing changes when classes start in a couple weeks, would you carry? With 3 classes costing $8,000 in tuition alone, getting expelled would be pretty expensive but I could still keep handgun stored in car, thoughts?

Yes as described. The school president may, after conferring with students and faculty over the unique situations of that school, may certainly opt out AS LONG AS THE RULES ARE REASONABLE AND NOT A GENERAL PROHIBITION. But to implement that policy the school has no choice but to notify as per 30.06.

A written policy in a school handbook is not enough, schools must make their prohibition intentions known ONLY by way of 30.06 notification.

If there is no 30.06 notification and there is no other federal or state statutory prohibition then concealed carry is permissible.

And as always, in Texas, gunbuster signs as well as other non 30.06 language or graphics, are meaningless and have no legal prohibitive authority.

tex