TexasCHLforum.com

J.R.@A&M

The process will eventually turn into a fight over the interpretation of the law.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/31/ ... ov-abbott/

"[Birdwell] said his intent was that public college campuses would be as “permissive and accessible” as possible to handgun license holders and that universities would be as “specific and as minimalistic as possible” in defining restricted areas. The bill would not, Birdwell said, allow for universities to exempt entire dormitories or buildings from the requirement based on a technicality.

During the House’s debate on the measure Sunday, state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who participated in the negotiations, contradicted Birdwell’s interpretation.

The San Antonio Democrat, who participated in negotiations between the two chambers on the bill, suggested the language of the bill allowed for more latitude than the comments of Birdwell, as well as those of Republican state Sen. Van Taylor, R-Plano, indicated.

“The words in the conference committee report that exist in various sections completely disagree with those remarks and sentiments made by Senator Birdwell and Taylor,” he said."

The way I read it, the words of the conference committee report show the intent very clearly: "...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."

J.R.@A&M

Yes!!

J.R.@A&M

AJSully421 wrote:I can see these liberal "educators" overreaching at first... making regulations that in the dorms, guns must be unloaded, disassembled, and locked in multiple, separate lock boxes, and you have to turn in your ammo every night to a security guard... you might have professors who want for their individual classrooms and/or offices to be marked with 30.06, entire buildings like the student union, main office, library, rec center be prohibited and so on.

I can see future sessions addressing this by making it clear that only certain "sensitive facilities" such as a bio or chemical lab, chemical or fuel storage facilities, a place like A&M's nuclear reactor, and maybe places where electromagnets or other high voltage or explosive things may be going on are the only places where any college may enact these regulations. And then make it that they may only have regulations in the dorms that are along the lines of: if the pistol is not on a student's hip, then it needs to be in some sort of a locked container.

That will work much better.

Indeed, there will be a firestorm of commentary, fearmongering, and demands from most of the faculty. But as somebody earlier noted, school administrators will be paying most attention to what their general counsel tell them. And administrators are used to ignoring the shrill demands of the faculty.

J.R.@A&M

The Wall wrote:It's on the House schedule for tomorrow. Eligible for Consideration calender. Eligible at 12:40am

As in about twelve hours from now?

J.R.@A&M

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'll take it in 15 so that we have a better chance to fix it in 17...

J.R.@A&M

mloamiller wrote:http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11

It looks like SB 11 has passed all committees and is on to the governor's desk for signature. Same as HB910

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=hb910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conference report needs to be voted on today by both full House and full Senate. (That diagram is a little incomplete).

J.R.@A&M

TexasJohnBoy wrote:
Bladed wrote:The conference committee has filed their report on SB 11:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That quite literally JUST happened. I was refreshing that page all night. Ohhhh man please come up for debate and vote tomorrow.

For once I agree with Sen. West. I will be praying.

J.R.@A&M

So then my obligatory daily free Faxzero has been allocated to Sen. Birdwell:

Senator Birdwell, I remember your eloquent and principled stand during the Senate debate on SB 11 in favor of property rights and letting private universities opt out.

Because of the democrats' amendment (No. 6), that total opt out provision is no longer there. In the interests of time, I urge you to accept the House version and lead your Senate colleagues to vote to concur with it.

The House version still represents significant progress. It would finally allow campus carry in university buildings -- quite probably a lot of university buildings. It would shatter all the specious arguments that the opposition has been making about campus carry leading to violence, etc.

I say call the democrats' bluff. It is their amendment -- let them live with the legacy of it. In the meantime, do an end run around Straus and simply concur with the House version. Future sessions can fix the current weaknesses, especially after everybody gets a chance to see that (partial) campus carry turns out to be what we all expect it to be.

J.R.@A&M

C-dub wrote:
txpilot wrote:In case you may not have noticed, one of the amendments changed the effective date to 9/1/2016. Here's a link to the amendment http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 011H21.PDF
If it does make it all the way through and becomes law, that effective date stinks! In addition to the ability of schools to make some buildings off-limits, it gives them an entire year to do it. I saw the date change earlier, but didn't notice the year. I thought they moved it up from the 1.1.16 date.

Yes, it stinks. But I would take a more limited (i.e., Amendment 1) version of campus carry on 9/1/16 than having nothing until 2017 at which time we can go through all this again. The House version is still progress, and at this point I am for progress.

In fact, if the Senate has enough votes to concur (even with private university push-back because of Amendment 1), I would rather they call the democrat's bluff and vote to concur. Let the democrats live with the legacy of Amendment 1. If some future session or special session wants to deal with Amendment 1, so be it. The greater value is in shattering this arbitrary restriction on the "sanctity" of some/many/most classroom buildings. Do that and we take the wind out of their sails.

J.R.@A&M

Ok then, so my free faxzero this morning is allocated to Straus, asking for supportive conferees and to strip out the private university amendment. Will call Dan Patrick's comment line on my way to work... assuming 290 isn't flooded.

J.R.@A&M

Reposted from Chron.com comments on the McRaven article. (Edited to say I didn't mean to exclude younger, older, and/or female CHLs in my general characterization of our population).

What relevant experience does McRaven have with the defensive carrying of handguns by private citizens? Citizens who concealed carriers are middle aged, risk averse dudes who are into avoiding danger -- quite the opposite of Navy Seals, or law enforcement. Texas licensees have been successfully vetted for two decades (based on DPS criminal conviction data).

Campus carry poses no more risk than the longstanding policy of concealed carry in this State. As it is, the arbitrary restriction to legal concealed carry is at the door to campus buildings like the one I work in. Neither McRaven nor Acevedo nor the Whitman survivors nor the Va Tech survivors nor anybody else can say what my defensive situational needs might be in an extremely unlikely, but potentially catastrophic, act of violence in my building. I prefer to have the same choices inside the building that I currently have right outside the door.

J.R.@A&M

""The intuitive answer is that the presence of concealed weapons will make us less competitive."

Oh, bull. No budding or experienced academic is going to turn down an otherwise good offer to UT because of campus carry. Are the Univ. of Chicago, or Columbia, or any host of other tier one schools uncompetitive because they happen to be located in crime ridden urban centers? Of course not. People take their chances and go for the places that will advance their careers.

J.R.@A&M

Well, this certainly looks like progress.

Since Fletcher is my representative, I guess I'll allocate my free Faxzero fax to Speaker Straus.

J.R.@A&M

MeMelYup wrote:Sounds to me like the House is going to amend the bill and send it back to the Senate for approval as late as they can, so the bill will be killed in the Senate. Or passed with an opt out clause.

I can only hope that whatever deal was made was acceptable to Sen. Birdwell (who was adamant in March about not having an opt out clause for state universities).

J.R.@A&M

OK, now I can go take a kid to soccer.

Dear j,

Your fax to Hon. Todd Hunter at 3619494634 has been sent successfully!
Successful delivery of your fax was confirmed at 9:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time on May 23rd, 2015.
Your fax included 1 page of coversheet with your text.

Thank you,
FaxZero.com

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 16 matches

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

Re: Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?