Explicitly mandating either CHL or real security measures

[J.R.@A&M]

I am posting this here (could have been under Campus Carry and other places) to hear views about the approach recently taken in Kansas ( viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34575 ) . They have implemented a new law that requires many state offices to now either allow CHLs or provide "adequate security measures" in the form of metal detectors, screeners and secure lockers. I cannot tell whether the final Kansas legislation included their state universities or not, but it definitely h as me thinking about this as a model for proposing campus carry. To me, it gets to the heart of the fallacy about "gun free zones" and would force a public university like the one I work at to either really secure my office building or not prohibit me from carrying inside. It gets to the heart of the matter.

However, posing the question of either CHL or "adequate security measures" maybe will strike some as an impediment. After all, at the State Capitol we currently have both, not either/or. Anyway, I am interested to hear any thoughts about this as a potential tactic within campus carry proposals for the 2011 session. Thanks, and Happy Independence Day weekend.

[jester]

Does that allow a government entity to put metal detectors at a library and make it off limits? If so, that would be a step backward for Texas.

A better approach for Texas would be to make the 46.03 and 46.035 restrictions non-applicable to all CHL (not just those with certain jobs) if the premises doesn't have metal detectors, etc. That would put no additional burden on airports, prisons, and most courts, while freeing up places that should never have been off limits in the first place.

Ideally I would prefer our elected representatives make 46.03 and 46.035 restrictions non-applicable to all CHL, period, but I don't think Texas is comfortable enough with civil rights for that yet.

[J.R.@A&M]

Does that allow a government entity to put metal detectors at a library and make it off limits? If so, that would be a step backward for Texas.

Again, if I understand the Kansas law correctly, it would be metal detectors AND screener AND lockers to store your weapon. Probably too expensive for most libraries, and dang sure for most universities.

[Fangs]

Thus for forcing them to allow CHL carry as the lesser of two evils?

[J.R.@A&M]

Thus for forcing them to allow CHL carry as the lesser of two evils?

Well, at least as the less expensive option.

[Bart]

It sounds like a good modification to the CHL limitations if they can't be repealed or made impotent by exempting someone with a CHL from the rules, same as off duty postal inspectors and fire marshals.