Why there is no bill to allow CCW in Texas schools?

[sebis]

I think is time to allow CCW in Texas schools, why there was no bill sent to the Texas congress? I think is time we all do something about this.

--Sebis

[Venus Pax]

It hasn't been a priority. I agree with you that it should be.

[TxFire]

Because schools are a "Gun free Zone" so you should be safer there than anywhere else you might be.

[carlson1]

It should be a priority.

[Thane]

I agree.

It's insane that we expect our children to be safe at any school as things stand, and high time for the government to stop preventing society from defending its future from predators.

"Gun Free Zones"? Don't make me laugh.

[txinvestigator]

Because your school boards are generally run by left-wing, Democrat gun grabbers. They think a gun in school held by a CHL holder is more dangerous than some lunatic entering campus and murdering 30+ of YOUR children.

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

[GreenGuy]

It is time. Eliminate all Gun Free Zones!

[Venus Pax]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

[NcongruNt]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

Agreed.

Does anyone know of any such request at all that has ever been approved? I know I don't.

[txinvestigator]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

I agree; therein, lies the problem. Even if carry at schools was NOT prohibited by penal code, every school would just post 30.06.

[NcongruNt]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

I agree; therein, lies the problem. Even if carry at schools was NOT prohibited by penal code, every school would just post 30.06.

But since most schools are government-owned, wouldn't those 30.06 signs not be legally binding, and improperly posted?

[sebis]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

I agree; therein, lies the problem. Even if carry at schools was NOT prohibited by penal code, every school would just post 30.06.

I would much rather deal with the 30.06 sign on individual basis, I bet a lot of administrators may fail to post the proper signage even if they wanted to.

Maybe we should follow the Utah example.

--Sebis

[frankie_the_yankee]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

I agree; therein, lies the problem. Even if carry at schools was NOT prohibited by penal code, every school would just post 30.06.

Nope. The law passed in 2005 prohibits government agencies from doing that. The only government places that can be posted or are inherently off limits are those expressly listed in the law. In the current law, schools are listed on the list of prohibited places, and there is no need for them to be posted.

If they were REMOVED from the list of prohibited places, it would be UNLAWFUL for any to be posted.

I believe (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong) that 30.06 signs are intended, since 2005 at least, for the use of PRIVATE property owners.

[txinvestigator]

There is a provision in the law NOW that with written permission a CHL holder CAN carry.

I don't know of any administrator that would touch that with a ten foot pole.

I agree; therein, lies the problem. Even if carry at schools was NOT prohibited by penal code, every school would just post 30.06.

Nope. The law passed in 2005 prohibits government agencies from doing that. The only government places that can be posted or are inherently off limits are those expressly listed in the law. In the current law, schools are listed on the list of prohibited places, and there is no need for them to be posted.

If they were REMOVED from the list of prohibited places, it would be UNLAWFUL for any to be posted.

I believe (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong) that 30.06 signs are intended, since 2005 at least, for the use of PRIVATE property owners.

You are completely wrong. There is no law prohibiting a government agency frim posting a 30.06 law. There is no penalty or crime if a government entity posts a 30.06.

30.06 simply makes it an exception to the application of 30.06 if the location is a placed owned or leased by a government entity.

The real point is (and one I missed in my previous post) that a 30.06 sign posted at a school could be ignored by a CHL holder.

[frankie_the_yankee]

You are completely wrong. There is no law prohibiting a government agency frim posting a 30.06 law. There is no penalty or crime if a government entity posts a 30.06.

30.06 simply makes it an exception to the application of 30.06 if the location is a placed owned or leased by a government entity.

The real point is (and one I missed in my previous post) that a 30.06 sign posted at a school could be ignored by a CHL holder.

I guess I didn't phrase my thought precisely. What I meant was that such a sign would not have the force of law for CHL holders, NOT that it would be a crime for a government agency to post it.