TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:

poppo wrote:

suthdj wrote:so why do community colleges have to wait until 2017?

Because apparently there are some community colleges that also have high school students attending some classes. So they wanted the extra time to figure out how to deal with it. I'm assuming (but could be wrong) that it has something to do with the GFSZA.

My co-worker had his 16-17yo son attending UTD for final 2 years of HS, living in a dorm and attending classes, getting his HS degree and earning credit towards college so how is that any different?

I really don't know. That was just my understanding of the delay for community colleges.

suthdj wrote:so why do community colleges have to wait until 2017?

Because apparently there are some community colleges that also have high school students attending some classes. So they wanted the extra time to figure out how to deal with it. I'm assuming (but could be wrong) that it has something to do with the GFSZA.

TVGuy wrote: With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

I think that argument was full of holes. If they went through the metal detector, setting it off would be grounds to ask to see it just as if you were conceal carrying. If they went through the CHL line without swiping, that would also be grounds to ask. Isn't the CHL line ONLY for CHL holders? If so, not swiping would be grounds to at a minimum ask you to go through the detector line where you are back to setting off the detector.

Ruark wrote:Exactly. I'm kinda surprised that during the SB 11 debate, at least one supporter didn't step up to the podium and say, "look, everybody, this is NOT ABOUT CARRYING ON CAMPUS!!!!!" Instead, we heard speech after speech after speech about "guns on campus."

It was brought up. I don't recall by who, but it was mentioned several times that people can already carry outside of the buildings.

arthurcw wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Or trying to get SOMETHING passed so we can move forward instead of losing OC indefinitely.

Exactly. And IF wrongful stops actually turned out to be a problem, it could be addressed later as a "See, we told you this would happen".