TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

CJD wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

I think that if A&M wanted guns they would already allow them. They have denied every application to carry from CHLers.

I based what I said on the TAMU Chancellor's statements about campus carry:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... and-staff/

Texas A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp told Lt. Governor Dan Patrick he has no objection to the Campus Carry Bill now pending in the State Senate. In a letter to the Lt. Governor, Sharp wrote, “I have complete trust and faith in our students.”

{——SNIP——}

“Having licensed gun owners in possession of legal weapons on our campuses does not raise safety concerns for me personally,” Sharp wrote in the letter. “The real question is this: ‘Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home?’ Of course I do!”

Sharp stated he has encouraged his university presidents not to become involved in this issue. He urged them to focus on funding issues ......

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

CrimsonSoul wrote:

ELB wrote:From the House Calendar of Items Eligible for Consideration:

ELIGIBLE AT 12:40 AM MAY 31, 2015:
SB 11 Birdwell / et al.
SP: Fletcher
Relating to the carrying of handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education; providing a criminal penalty.

I don't find it listed in the Senate calendar available for today, and there is no Senate calendar up for tomorrow.

The Senate also voted to suspend the rules for hb910 they might do the same here

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

v7a wrote:The bill author already said he will not oppose the partial-opt-out amendment. I have a feeling that's because a deal has been struck whereby Democrats will not filibuster the bill. Or maybe that's just my imagination running wild... In any case, I think passing SB11 as amended is better than not passing SB11 at all (go read the language of the partial-opt-out amendment, it's not as bad as you may think at first).

I agree, the only system that will have enough votes to ban guns in any meaningful way will be the UT system. The rest will have campus carry, with maybe a few restrictions in only a few locations on campus.

Never forget: Concealed means concealed.

Don't underestimate boards of regents. I bet we will see large opt outs at ALL Texas public universities.

Yes but they wouldn't be able to opt out the entire campus, only certain areas with "justification"

I know, and I'm sure that will be abused, and can't be remedied until 2017. I agree, though, that it's better than nothing. To me, decriminalization is more important than preemption on "rules and regulations."

I'm not sure what you mean about decriminalization versus preemption of "rules and regulations." Under the Zerwas amendment, colleges would still be allowed to criminalize concealed carry in regent-approved zones, and they'd still be prohibited from regulating concealed carry everywhere else.

You are right. I saw a post where Charles said it was decriminalized, but I must have misunderstood what he meant. So would a violation be an offense under 30.06 or 46.03? Big difference.

Neither--it would be a violation of 46.035(a-3), a Class A misdemeanor.

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

v7a wrote:The bill author already said he will not oppose the partial-opt-out amendment. I have a feeling that's because a deal has been struck whereby Democrats will not filibuster the bill. Or maybe that's just my imagination running wild... In any case, I think passing SB11 as amended is better than not passing SB11 at all (go read the language of the partial-opt-out amendment, it's not as bad as you may think at first).

I agree, the only system that will have enough votes to ban guns in any meaningful way will be the UT system. The rest will have campus carry, with maybe a few restrictions in only a few locations on campus.

Never forget: Concealed means concealed.

Don't underestimate boards of regents. I bet we will see large opt outs at ALL Texas public universities.

Yes but they wouldn't be able to opt out the entire campus, only certain areas with "justification"

I know, and I'm sure that will be abused, and can't be remedied until 2017. I agree, though, that it's better than nothing. To me, decriminalization is more important than preemption on "rules and regulations."

I'm not sure what you mean about decriminalization versus preemption of "rules and regulations." Under the Zerwas amendment, colleges would still be allowed to criminalize concealed carry in regent-approved zones, and they'd still be prohibited from regulating concealed carry everywhere else.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

v7a wrote:The bill author already said he will not oppose the partial-opt-out amendment. I have a feeling that's because a deal has been struck whereby Democrats will not filibuster the bill. Or maybe that's just my imagination running wild... In any case, I think passing SB11 as amended is better than not passing SB11 at all (go read the language of the partial-opt-out amendment, it's not as bad as you may think at first).

I agree, the only system that will have enough votes to ban guns in any meaningful way will be the UT system. The rest will have campus carry, with maybe a few restrictions in only a few locations on campus.

Never forget: Concealed means concealed.

Don't underestimate boards of regents. I bet we will see large opt outs at ALL Texas public universities.

Yes but they wouldn't be able to opt out the entire campus, only certain areas with "justification"

AJSully421 wrote:

v7a wrote:The bill author already said he will not oppose the partial-opt-out amendment. I have a feeling that's because a deal has been struck whereby Democrats will not filibuster the bill. Or maybe that's just my imagination running wild... In any case, I think passing SB11 as amended is better than not passing SB11 at all (go read the language of the partial-opt-out amendment, it's not as bad as you may think at first).

I agree, the only system that will have enough votes to ban guns in any meaningful way will be the UT system. The rest will have campus carry, with maybe a few restrictions in only a few locations on campus.

Never forget: Concealed means concealed.

jmra wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Now that HB910 has passed both chambers, chances we get campus carry done get better?? Will the committee be able to meet in time to hash it out???

I'm afraid the Ellis' of the legislature may redouble their efforts since they got caught off guard with HB910 coming up so quickly. They need something to claim as a Victory.

safety1 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

safety1 wrote:

bauerdj wrote:When can we expect a vote on concurrence? I no longer have much interest in who is responsible for the delays etc. My interest for the immediate time period is directed at the status of the different bills that are still alive (especially OC and Campus Carry). After the sessions are over there will be plenty of time who did what on 2A items and react appropriatley.

Amen!
SB11 should be heard on the House floor tomorrow.
HB910 concurrence vote is thought to be mid week. Not yet scheduled

The concurrence vote won't be scheduled the way a vote on a bill is. The bill will become eligible 24 hours after the report was issued. After that, the vote could happen any time.

Bladed, isn't a day set aside for just concurrence votes? I'd be leaning towards that day. I guess we will see.

Tracker wrote:In the committee and floor debates on open carry, not one democrat voice an opinion against conceal carry for the general public. The one's who did mention conceal carry when arguing against the open carry bills acknowledged they believed in the success of the conceal carry program, that the original fears had proved to be false.

Ooookay.....so if they believe the conceal carry program works off campus why would they oppose conceal carry on campus? What do they think is so different? If they believe it's not a good program to have on campus what do they expect to happen that's different from being out in the general population? What rational argument could they present against campus carry? What stats can they pull from states like Colorado, Utah, and Idaho to argue campus conceal carry isn't working in those states?

http://www.armedcampuses.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

safety1 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

safety1 wrote:This is good, but it must pass clean or it will have to go back to the senate, where it will die via filibuster or otherwise.

Texas legislators can't filibuster a concurrence vote. Please don't spread misinformation.

It has been stated on this forum more than once by those with much more knowledge than my own that
a few in the Senate have stated they would.
If I'm wrong I stand corrected. I'm not spreading misinformation with any intent.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'm really hoping the quiet that I am hearing here means that SB11 is going to make it onto a calendar today. I would be really disappointed if all we get this session is the ability to wear OWB without a jacket...