TexasCHLforum.com

Bladed wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

Bladed wrote:All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before.

Except that posting 30.06 on every building would "...generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." Most students, staff, and faculty are required to be inside a building. If that building, or if most buildings, are posted 30.06, then these CHLs are effectively prohibited. And that is expressly disallowed by Sec. 411.2031.3.d1.

Granted, it would have been better if Sec. 411.2031.3.d1 had used the word "buildings". And it would have been better if some standard had been specified (e.g., "no less than 80% of the buildings"). Still, if they post every building 30.06 they are clearly breaking the letter of the law.

Short of a lawsuit, I am not sure how to enforce it except with saber rattling by the Attorney General and supportive Legislators.

What the bill says is that they can make regulations regarding concealed carry on the campus, including posting 30.06 on buildings, but can't prohibit concealed carry on the entire campus. Therefore, a college might need to bring its policy more into line with the prior state law (concealed carry allowed on the grounds but not in buildings), but there is nothing to stop them from prohibiting it in all of the buildings.

I agree with Charles that keeping a record of the colleges that ban concealed carry in all buildings will help make a strong case to the 2017 Texas Legislature, but that's not the same as having campus carry now.

The president or officer may not establish provisions
that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting
license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of
the institution.

NotRPB wrote:
Personally ... as long as it is decriminalized everywhere, I don't care.
They can just make "Rules" like Virginia Tech had
see & notice Bradford's reasoning in the true event 1 year before the massacre at Virginia Tech, where carrying was legal, but rules against it
http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/opinion/u ... e526f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just get it passed decriminalizing campus carry on campuses, they can opt out by making "rules" and I'm fine with that, Rules make people feel good like those gunbuster signs which ostensibly don't allow Beretta M9s,If we have to go slow, ok, but

for goodness sakes get the right to defend yourself decriminalized,

it's ridiculous that it is a criminal offense to try to keep your life no matter where you are.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

JollyHappyDad wrote:Where do I find the list of committee members?

EDIT: Check that, I found it.

zajones08 wrote:I dont get it, didnt the house vote in favor of a VERY similiar amendment before it went to the Senate? Why would they not concur!?!?

ScooterSissy wrote:I have to admit, when Dutton reached for his cell phone, I was thinking he was about to pull out his carry.

ScooterSissy wrote:"The fourth amendment was not passed to protect policemen", well put statement. "This amendment protects people's rights"

Jasonw560 wrote:

extremist wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Tracker wrote:huh. you can walk up and down your own property open carrying without a license right now.

If I understand the law, as long as nobody in a public area can see the weapon, you're correct.

That is incorrect.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or[/b]

PERIOD. It doesn't say if Nancy Worrywort sees it and calls the police.

James

Should be "location restricted".

twomillenium wrote:This bill is going to conference.

Robert91RS wrote:

v7a wrote:It's blatantly dishonest to claim that police cannot ask. Police can ask whatever they want. They can try to engage in conversation with a potential suspect. Just because Open Carriers aren't obligated to display the license doesn't mean police cannot engage in different ways (including small talk).

EXACTLY!!

If an officer chose to politely strike up a conversation the majority of License holders would not refuse to answer any reasonable questions.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Before anyone starts condemning long-term pro-gun Representatives, you need to first recognize that everything that we have been warning about the Dutton/Huffines amendment is absolutely true.

Chas.