TexasCHLforum.com

I'm glad to see this pass the Senate, but I'm a little confused by the provision that institutions may declare "certain areas" off-limits as long as they don't totally ban carry. Couldn't university officials simply define "certain areas" to include classrooms, offices, and the library, so that almost everyone going to campus would effectively be banned anyway? And since there are no specific guidelines on what "justification" is sufficient, couldn't they pretty much just use a general statement that they believe guns in those locations would not be conducive to a learning environment?

TrueFlog wrote:

NotRPB wrote:

@_PatJohnson_ 1 minute ago

Point made if #SB11 FAILS CHLS can OPENCARRY outside, outdoors on campus, #TxLege

casp625 wrote:Passed in the Senate! 21-10

That tweet is not accurate. Under HB910, open carry is prohibited on college campuses.

accurate or not as to the law/bills. I don't know, the tweet was what I think the female Senator stated immediately prior to passage
"Campus" versus "premises" definitions were discussed the other day .. I need to re-read

But Senator Birdwell specified that the OC ban on campuses had been included in both bills, so that it won't be allowed.

x

I have not re-read yet, but it is possible Sen Huffman was saying CHL LEGALLY allowed to carry on CAMPUS now, ... I should have recorded that audio on my phone ...but there was an argument or questioning the other day about campus versus premises in either this or oc 910 bill when Rep Zerwas was laying out amndmnt, and I saw both words in SB11 conf cmtee report

jeffrw wrote:I'm glad to see this pass the Senate, but I'm a little confused by the provision that institutions may declare "certain areas" off-limits as long as they don't totally ban carry. Couldn't university officials simply define "certain areas" to include classrooms, offices, and the library, so that almost everyone going to campus would effectively be banned anyway? And since there are no specific guidelines on what "justification" is sufficient, couldn't they pretty much just use a general statement that they believe guns in those locations would not be conducive to a learning environment?

The board of regents has to approve it by a 2/3 vote and then report it to the legislature 100 days before the start of each session. The legislature can address overreach legislatively during the subsequent session. it will take a while for the dust to settle on this, but it's a large step forward.

They spent a lot of time talking about "legislative intent" today.... very worthwhile discussion and part of it (at least) was captured in the written record by an official motion.

Tweets by the uninformed are so funny

@NeftyGonzalez 12 minutes ago

Breaking:
Concealed handgun's now legal on college campus in the great state of Texas #TXlege

breaking, as if "concealed" has not already been legal on "campus" for years and years lol

@wickedmetro 20m20 minutes ago

#sb11 passes open campus carry.....body count will rise. #GunsMatter #txlege

that's just incorrect

NotRPB wrote:Tweets by the uninformed are so funny

@NeftyGonzalez 12 minutes ago

Breaking:
Concealed handgun's now legal on college campus in the great state of Texas #TXlege

breaking, as if "concealed" has not already been legal on "campus" for years and years lol

@wickedmetro 20m20 minutes ago

#sb11 passes open campus carry.....body count will rise. #GunsMatter #txlege

that's just incorrect

To paraphrase an old drinking adage....

Never Tweet on an empty head.

NotRPB wrote:Tweets by the uninformed are so funny

@wickedmetro 20m20 minutes ago

#sb11 passes open campus carry.....body count will rise. #GunsMatter #txlege

that's just incorrect

Of course! Because now 18-year-olds will be bringing their fully semi-automatic weapons to class, right?

Charles, should we be calling Straus' office tomorrow morning urging him to bring up SB11 for a vote as early as possible in the day? Or is whatever is going to happen already set in stone and there's no point in calling?

jeffrw wrote:

NotRPB wrote:Tweets by the uninformed are so funny

@wickedmetro 20m20 minutes ago

#sb11 passes open campus carry.....body count will rise. #GunsMatter #txlege

that's just incorrect

Of course! Because now 18-year-olds will be bringing their fully semi-automatic weapons to class, right?

with that 18 year old's beer in the other hand inside the classroom, yeah, that's common right?

NotRPB wrote:I have not re-read yet, but it is possible Sen Huffman was saying CHL LEGALLY allowed to carry on CAMPUS now, ... I should have recorded that audio on my phone ...but there was an argument or questioning the other day about campus versus premises in either this or oc 910 bill when Rep Zerwas was laying out amndmnt, and I saw both words in SB11 conf cmtee report

That's exactly what she said. She was stating for the record that the only thing changing is now CHLs will be allowed to carry in buildings and that currently CHLs are already on campus.

RoyGBiv wrote:

jeffrw wrote:I'm glad to see this pass the Senate, but I'm a little confused by the provision that institutions may declare "certain areas" off-limits as long as they don't totally ban carry. Couldn't university officials simply define "certain areas" to include classrooms, offices, and the library, so that almost everyone going to campus would effectively be banned anyway? And since there are no specific guidelines on what "justification" is sufficient, couldn't they pretty much just use a general statement that they believe guns in those locations would not be conducive to a learning environment?

The board of regents has to approve it by a 2/3 vote and then report it to the legislature 100 days before the start of each session. The legislature can address overreach legislatively during the subsequent session. it will take a while for the dust to settle on this, but it's a large step forward.

They spent a lot of time talking about "legislative intent" today.... very worthwhile discussion and part of it (at least) was captured in the written record by an official motion.

I came away with a different impression based on Sen. Birdwell's comments. The Regents don't have to approve things with a 2/3 vote. The 2/3 vote is required if they wish to disapprove or make things less restrictive. If the Regents agree with the President/CEO's list of off limits places, no action is required. I may need to go listen again once the archived video is posted.

txyaloo wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

jeffrw wrote:I'm glad to see this pass the Senate, but I'm a little confused by the provision that institutions may declare "certain areas" off-limits as long as they don't totally ban carry. Couldn't university officials simply define "certain areas" to include classrooms, offices, and the library, so that almost everyone going to campus would effectively be banned anyway? And since there are no specific guidelines on what "justification" is sufficient, couldn't they pretty much just use a general statement that they believe guns in those locations would not be conducive to a learning environment?

The board of regents has to approve it by a 2/3 vote and then report it to the legislature 100 days before the start of each session. The legislature can address overreach legislatively during the subsequent session. it will take a while for the dust to settle on this, but it's a large step forward.

They spent a lot of time talking about "legislative intent" today.... very worthwhile discussion and part of it (at least) was captured in the written record by an official motion.

I came away with a different impression based on Sen. Birdwell's comments. The Regents don't have to approve things with a 2/3 vote. The 2/3 vote is required if they wish to disapprove or make things less restrictive. If the Regents agree with the President/CEO's list of off limits places, no action is required. I may need to go listen again once the archived video is posted.

According to the text on page 15 of the committee report:

Not later than the 90th day after the date that the rules, regulations, or other provisions are established as described by Subsection (d-1), the board of regents or other governing board of the institution of higher education shall review the provisions. The board of regents or other governing board may, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the board, amend wholly or partly the provisions established under Subsection (d-1). If amended under this subsection, the provisions are considered to be those of the institution as established under Section (d-1).

So yes, txyaloo is right, I believe. The local president or other chief executive officer makes the rules for the school, the board of regents must review, but it takes a 2/3 vote of the board of regents to overrule the rules as written by the president or chief executive officer.

Bottom line is this: some presidents will overreach, some won't, and this overreach will be contrary to the legislative intent. It can be readdressed in 2017 by the legislature (after having a year of good results at other schools to stand upon).

And yes, RoyGBiv is also right in his statement that this is a huge step forward (if Strauss doesn't step upon it).

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

puma guy wrote:My Senator Sylvia Garcia is up!

You need to vote more often . . . in each election.

Chas.

Yep! I getting a death certificate so I can vote as a Democrat!

Yep, vote early and often!