TexasCHLforum.com

TinaMiB wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:

TinaMiB wrote:This went out to UT Faculty and Staff this afternoon. I am sure they are receiving a few phone calls.

Hmmm doesn't sound too promising for tu students...

Have you seen anything on the Aggie side of higher ed? I have family and a lot of friends that I train with over there.

Tina

Bladed wrote:
You need to read the entire bill.

From Senate Bill 11:

(1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.

(3) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.

From Penal Code Section 46.035:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Because a campus encompasses more than just the buildings, it would be possible to prohibit concealed carry in all campus buildings, without violating the letter of Government Code Section 411.2031(a)(3)(d-1), which says that a public college or university cannot prohibit concealed carry on the entire campus. Whether that would violate the spirit of that section is a question for the courts, but it's not unreasonable to assume that colleges and universities will walk as close to the line as the courts will allow, and I doubt it would surprise anyone here to see colleges and universities push that boundary until the courts pull them back.

As Charles explained, this bill lays a solid cornerstone, but the structure that will protect CHL holders on college campuses remains to be built.

mr1337 wrote:

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.

From the bill:

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.

Prohibiting it from all of the buildings has the effect of generally prohibiting from the campus.

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.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

Bladed wrote:... come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities...

I need to read it again, but is it your interpretation that the rules development and potential 90-day window for Regent disapproval is before the implementation date or merely starts on the implementation date. Obviously, we want it to be the former.

Bladed wrote:... come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities...

ScooterSissy wrote:

ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

ELB wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:Here's a conflicting/confusing tweet: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#Campuscarry compromise allows colleges to denote gun free zones but not totally opt out. Vote possible today #txlege http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011H.htm

The tweet says colleges can opt-out, put the link she provided has the same text as 74novaman posted - and that text does not include an opt-out provision. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

When I first read it quickly, I thought the opt-out provision applied to all, it took me a second close reading to realize the opt-out provision is for private/independent institutions only (assuming that link has an accurate copy of the report).

I no longer see the language about partial opt out of specific buildings (with 2/3 of the regents approving, subject to legislative oversight, etc. etc.).

ELB wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:Here's a conflicting/confusing tweet: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#Campuscarry compromise allows colleges to denote gun free zones but not totally opt out. Vote possible today #txlege http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011H.htm

The tweet says colleges can opt-out, put the link she provided has the same text as 74novaman posted - and that text does not include an opt-out provision. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

When I first read it quickly, I thought the opt-out provision applied to all, it took me a second close reading to realize the opt-out provision is for private/independent institutions only (assuming that link has an accurate copy of the report).

Ruark wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I think it is important to get beyond decriminalizing campus carry. It actually needs to be implemented in enough buildings with classrooms in order to give the lie to the opponents' wild claims about frat boy shoot-outs during finals week.

Yes, but I think a BIG factor here, psychologically, is that it's stuck with the label "campus carry" which logically means, to most people "carrying on campus." This is NOT the case; it's ALREADY legal to carry on campus. SB11 simply expands this to allow CHL holders to carry inside buildings ("premises"). So if, say, a graduate student wants to CCW for protection when walking to that dark, distant parking lot or garage after a night class (and many graduate classes are at night), he can do so. But the erroneous perception that it means "carrying on campus" has led to all kinds of silly, irrelevant speechmaking about "our children running around campus with guns," etc. It probably would be an enormous help if this bill had evolved using some word besides "campus."

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:What are the chances of a committee on SB11 working just as quickly? I guess the House has to appoint their conferees first....

Very good.

Chas.

You make me so happy with those words. Thank you sir and keep up the good work!

ScooterSissy wrote:So this lady is listing names of victims of violence so they can be "remembered", but she can't pronounce their names. What an honor, I'm sure.