TexasCHLforum.com

TrueFlog wrote:That said, I would like to see a provision that would allow students, faculty, guests, etc. to keep a firearm concealed in a vehicle without fear of disciple, expulsion, etc. (That is, something similar to the Parking Lot Bill.)

That would be an effect of the current version of the bill since it prohibits any institution of higher education from adopting any "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," with the exception that private institutions can prohibit carry only on their premises. Parking lots are explicitly not premises per Section 46.035.

austin-tatious wrote:I thought the current law allowed us to carry concealed on a campus as long as we do not carry on the premises. That is not so?

That is correct, but institutions can still expell students or fire employees for carrying, even if it is just in the parking lot or other, non-premises, locations. I'm also not aware of any higher education institutions doing this, but Section 30.06 does not just apply to buildings--it could be expanded to the entire campus by posting signs or giving other valid notice (including it in the employee orientation handbook for instance) and all CHL holders who had been notified could not carry in their car without risking arrest (a remote possibility, but still real). This bill would avoid that problem.

cowtown wrote:I don't see wording that exempts parking lots from this prohibition. Am I missing something?

It's in there, but not very obvious:

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an institution of
higher education or private or independent institution of higher
education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other
provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the
campus of the institution.
(e) A private or independent institution of higher
education in this state may, after consulting with students, staff,
and faculty of the institution, establish rules, regulations, or
other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying
handguns on premises that are owned or operated by the institution
and located on the campus of the institution. For purposes of this
subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035,
Penal Code.

So the current version of the bill still prohibits all institutions from prohibiting carry on their campuses but allows private institutions to prohibit carry only on their premises, defined in Penal Code Section 46.035 as:

"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.

gemini wrote:I'm reading, nothing changes on private college campuses, providing they consult students, staff and officials to form policy AND they post legal signs barring concealed carry.

As I understand it, the bill basically takes away the special status institutions of higher education have under the CHL laws.

Public institutions become like any other government facility--they cannot prohibit carry.

Private institutions become like any other private business--it is only against the law to carry there if they give proper 30.06 notice, but they can still fire (or expell) employees and students for carrying on their premises if they do not post (or give other 30.06 notice).

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I trust someone at every opt-out hearing at every private school will ask if the school is willing to guarantee the safety of every student while on campus. Since they aren't governmental entities, then they don't enjoy sovereign immunity, so their answers to those questions could cost them a great deal of money down the road.

Mr. Cotton, can you expound on this a bit?

It had been my impression that there was not a significant liability for entities designating a gun-free zone. Also, is there any significant liability potential in not allowing concealed carry?

If it has the possibility of coming back to hurt the colleges where they really care--in the pocketbook--I think they are more likely to listen.

Keith B wrote:I believe it had no amendments, so that is a good thing!

The page on the Legislature website says it was "Reported favorably as substituted," which leads me to think something was changed.

Hopefully it wasn't changed to allow only faculty and staff to carry.