TexasCHLforum.com

I'll tell you its truly sad to lament over an 80% or 70.56% victory. The deal is this: when both sides of an issue present their argument to the legislature, who is elected to represent ALL the people, and Leg actually takes one side but tempers it, for all the people, then the "winning" side thinks, ok, but we'll take another run at it next session, because victory is only all or nothing, it disrespects the process and the institution. I'm not saying every law ever made was perfect out of the box, but 2A aside, there is a lot of opposition to particular aspects of the hard line 2A position, from good, intelligent, well meaning people (we have the OCT/OCTC albatross, they have MDA, et. al). Why shouldn't their concerns be addressed in the legislation? Some of those folks are terrified, unfounded of course, but legitimately terrified nonetheless.

But why does it work that way? Did you watch the process? Did you listen to Turner & Allen, et. al., articulate? Are you smarter than a 5th grader comes to mind. It begs the question, is the average legislator stupid because lobby is power, or is lobby power because the average legislator is stupid? I use the word stupid because ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, it can be cured, stupid is forever. The arguments put forth against in these debates were not thoughtful & intelligent, they were uninformed, intentional pandering, that is to say, stupid. Some majority somewhere elected these folks, so they are, by that fact, entitled to our respect, but I was humiliated by the (lack of) ability of most of the esteemed who (unfortunately) chose to take to the podium. If a majority of those elected were intelligent, respectable, & honorable, it wouldn't be necessary for us to "go at them again" even if we had truly lost.

You know why the LE contingent holds sway, even though they are a minority of citizens? Because 30% of eligible citizens actually bothered last go-round. Candidates don't care one wit about LE in particular, but LE organizations are a coveted endorsement, and that means more than my single vote or yours, because an endorsement means the uninformed sheep will follow their lead. I voted, so I'm including myself in the miserable 30%, but if its only us lowest common denominators that continue to decide, the lowest common denominator is all we are ever gonna get.

Thank you for your time, that is all.

So how did SB11 end up impacting "health-related institutions of higher education?" I recall an amendment originally cutting them out, but the bill passed from the committee doesn't appear to have that language and instead simply refers to 61.003 in the education code. So given that we see the following definitions in 61.003:

(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.

and

(5) "Medical and dental unit" means The Texas A&M University System Health Science Center and its component institutions, agencies, and programs; the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center; the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso; The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston; The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; The University of Texas Medical School at San Antonio; The University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston; The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center; The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston; The University of Texas Dental School at San Antonio; The University of Texas Medical School at Houston; The University of Texas Health Science Center--South Texas and its component institutions, if established under Subchapter N, Chapter 74; the nursing institutions of The Texas A&M University System and The University of Texas System; and The University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston; and such other medical or dental schools as may be established by statute or as provided in this chapter.

and there are no specific prohibitions listed in the text on medical and dental units, it appears that it applies everywhere August 1, 2016 except for JC which have to wait until August 1, 2017. Is that everyone's consensus?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I think when your platform is as narrow as SCCC is then it's difficult to accept the step forward even when it's much smaller than you were hoping for and smaller than what you expected at one point in the process.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad practice to declare defeat when you just got 80% of what you wanted.

I think the people calling this an 80% victory and talking about "legislative intent" either haven't read the bill or don't understand the impact of legislative intent. Legislative intent can be considered by a judge or jury when interpreting vague or ambiguous language, but legislative intent does not change the meaning of words or the interpretation of clearly phrased statutes. What Senator Birdwell intended for this law to accomplish does not change what the law says and will not dictate how it is implemented or enforced. If you honestly believes that, come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities or that, come the 2017 Texas Legislative Session, campus carry advocates will only have to work 20% as hard as they did this session, you're either kidding yourself or know something I don't know.

SCC's statement was a tad harsh, but they're right that this is a very minor victory at best. If the Texas Legislature doesn't further expand campus carry rights in 2017, the only thing that will change on most campuses is an influx of 30.06 signs.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/po ... er-premium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opponents such as Martinez Fischer and Rep. Joe Moody, an El Paso Democrat who drafted the compromise language giving more power to campus officials, disagreed.

“What SB11 ended up doing was allowing the president, with faculty, staff and students, to draft a very localized plan of where weapons would be allowed and wouldn’t be allowed on campus,” Moody said.

“It wasn’t an opt-out, but it was about as deferential to the local entities as you can be,” Moody said.

Bladed wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I think when your platform is as narrow as SCCC is then it's difficult to accept the step forward even when it's much smaller than you were hoping for and smaller than what you expected at one point in the process.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad practice to declare defeat when you just got 80% of what you wanted.

I think the people calling this an 80% victory and talking about "legislative intent" either haven't read the bill or don't understand the impact of legislative intent. Legislative intent can be considered by a judge or jury when interpreting vague or ambiguous language, but legislative intent does not change the meaning of words or the interpretation of clearly phrased statutes. What Senator Birdwell intended for this law to accomplish does not change what the law says and will not dictate how it is implemented or enforced. If you honestly believes that, come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities or that, come the 2017 Texas Legislative Session, campus carry advocates will only have to work 20% as hard as they did this session, you're either kidding yourself or know something I don't know.

SCC's statement was a tad harsh, but they're right that this is a very minor victory at best. If the Texas Legislature doesn't further expand campus carry rights in 2017, the only thing that will change on most campuses is an influx of 30.06 signs.

Minor victory? I disagree.
Let's look at the facts:
Presidents can not create a defacto ban on CC.
CHL holders will be able to carry in more places than they did before.
The board of regents are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature (at least that is my understanding).This is why Legislative intent is extremely important in this bill. Even if the Presidents are willing to defy the intent, there is no incentive for the board of regents to do so. http://www.tsus.edu/leadership/regents.html
Anyone who has observed several sessions of the Texas legislature understands that the legislature changes laws in incremental steps. The first step is always the most difficult.

One thing from the article that I posted previously concerns me. Did the legislation expand where concealed carry can be prohibited on campus? This seems to add campus instead of just premises.

“shall establish reasonable rules, regulations or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution.”

Where some people see defeat in SB11 I think I might see a touch of brilliance. As we all know you never get everything you want in a bill, especially in a bill that makes significant changes in what has been previously viewed as untouchable. In this case by giving some form of local control universities are given just enough rope to hang themselves. If presidents defy the legislative intent we may well see changes to the bill in 2017 that would not have been possible without that defiance.
I also believe that The board of regents are not going to be the rubber stamp that everyone assumes they will be. They are after all appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature.

Educators should not have the final word on whether anyone can exercise their 2A rights. They are unqualified to hold such sway. Their priorities do not align with protecting my rights, nor does their mindset (generally). As we can see in the real world, there are only a handful of places where educators have exercised their authority to allow license holders to carry in grade schools and even then I don't know of any place in Texas that permits non-employee license holders to carry. Handing this decision over to educators has, in the past, served only to maintain a de-facto ban. It has been a legislative cop-out. A way to say "see, we did our part but The Chancellor/Superintendent/School Board won't allow it". I understand the political and media realities behind it. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It took us a while to prevent government from infringing on concealed carry on government property, but the lessons learned there did not translate to schools and colleges.

We'll see how this Bill turns out in real life. It'll be a solid step forward, assuming the Legislature follows up their "intent" with action. I'm betting that until we put some clearer boundaries and teeth in the law, ala SB 273, the de-facto ban will linger.

Hopefully SB 11 is the crack in the dam.

RoyGBiv wrote:Educators should not have the final word on whether anyone can exercise their 2A rights. They are unqualified to hold such sway. Their priorities do not align with protecting my rights, nor does their mindset (generally). As we can see in the real world, there are only a handful of places where educators have exercised their authority to allow license holders to carry in grade schools and even then I don't know of any place in Texas that permits non-employee license holders to carry. Handing this decision over to educators has, in the past, served only to maintain a de-facto ban. It has been a legislative cop-out. A way to say "see, we did our part but The Chancellor/Superintendent/School Board won't allow it". I understand the political and media realities behind it. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It took us a while to prevent government from infringing on concealed carry on government property, but the lessons learned there did not translate to schools and colleges.

We'll see how this Bill turns out in real life. It'll be a solid step forward, assuming the Legislature follows up their "intent" with action. I'm betting that until we put some clearer boundaries and teeth in the law, ala SB 273, the de-facto ban will linger.

Hopefully SB 11 is the crack in the dam.

Agree. State universities are not too far removed from governments and should not be statutorily allowed to prevent the free exercise of our rights.

I seem to recall that someone posted that private universities also accept government funding in many forms. Grants, government funded tuition, and other monies as well. Any private university that receives such funds should not be statutorily allowed to prevent the free exercise of our rights. Hiding behind the "private property" rights claim is cowardly and should not be tolerated. Either an institution is 100% privately funded or else it is public. No gray areas when it comes to freedom or self defense.

In addition, if these private institutions want to hide behind the private property opt out provisions, then they should be required to go above and beyond what is generally considered the norm in providing protection for students, faculty, and visitors. As in all cases, these places are just victim zones.

Bladed wrote:... come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities...

I need to read it again, but is it your interpretation that the rules development and potential 90-day window for Regent disapproval is before the implementation date or merely starts on the implementation date. Obviously, we want it to be the former.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

Bladed wrote:... come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities...

I need to read it again, but is it your interpretation that the rules development and potential 90-day window for Regent disapproval is before the implementation date or merely starts on the implementation date. Obviously, we want it to be the former.

OK, I can answer myself... it is in Section 8 (b): the rules development process is BEFORE August 1, 2016.

Once the bills are received by the governor, how long does he have to sign/veto the bills?

nobius wrote:Once the bills are received by the governor, how long does he have to sign/veto the bills?

Technically, if he doesn't sign the bill, it still will become law.

Upon receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature... If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within 10 days, the bill becomes a law.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

anygunanywhere wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Educators should not have the final word on whether anyone can exercise their 2A rights. They are unqualified to hold such sway. Their priorities do not align with protecting my rights, nor does their mindset (generally). As we can see in the real world, there are only a handful of places where educators have exercised their authority to allow license holders to carry in grade schools and even then I don't know of any place in Texas that permits non-employee license holders to carry. Handing this decision over to educators has, in the past, served only to maintain a de-facto ban. It has been a legislative cop-out. A way to say "see, we did our part but The Chancellor/Superintendent/School Board won't allow it". I understand the political and media realities behind it. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It took us a while to prevent government from infringing on concealed carry on government property, but the lessons learned there did not translate to schools and colleges.

We'll see how this Bill turns out in real life. It'll be a solid step forward, assuming the Legislature follows up their "intent" with action. I'm betting that until we put some clearer boundaries and teeth in the law, ala SB 273, the de-facto ban will linger.

Hopefully SB 11 is the crack in the dam.

Agree. State universities are not too far removed from governments and should not be statutorily allowed to prevent the free exercise of our rights.

I seem to recall that someone posted that private universities also accept government funding in many forms. Grants, government funded tuition, and other monies as well. Any private university that receives such funds should not be statutorily allowed to prevent the free exercise of our rights. Hiding behind the "private property" rights claim is cowardly and should not be tolerated. Either an institution is 100% privately funded or else it is public. No gray areas when it comes to freedom or self defense.

In addition, if these private institutions want to hide behind the private property opt out provisions, then they should be required to go above and beyond what is generally considered the norm in providing protection for students, faculty, and visitors. As in all cases, these places are just victim zones.

Entities such as public universities and hospitals, transportation authorities (METRO and HCTRA), parks, museums, zoos, convention venues, the USPS, and others play the "Public or private as convenient" game, and I see potential for that here.

And I also agree that the vast majority of academics are ideologically anti-gun, and will eagerly push that agenda if given half a chance.