TexasCHLforum.com

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).

Regarding the legislative intent, I definitely saw that the examples mentioned today as potentially being excluded from carry were quite specific (e.g. day care centers, health care facilities, labs with sensitive materials). Ordinary classrooms, offices, and libraries weren't mentioned at all. Sen. Birdwell also specifically mentioned the Student Union as a place that a school wouldn't be able to declare off-limits.

If I may, I would like to mirror what was said during the time leading up to the passage of OC, regardless of what is in the campus carry bill, let's get a law on the book that cracks the dam of resistance to CC and then work to develop legislation the next session.

Much was said about the LEO lobby during the work to get OC passed. I am willing to wager that the amount of lobbying from the institutions of higher learning in this state makes the LEO lab by look like a bunch of purring kittens. Think about it.

Seems to me that the provisions in the legislation will expose the executives and regents of the institutions as the petty tyrants they truly are. Their actions will provide ample fodder for legislation to correct the limits that will be in place this session.

There will be a few institutions state wide that will allow more concealed carry on campus than the rest of the prog campuses. Texas A&M and Sul Ross out in Alpine are distinct possibilities. Recall the number of ISDs that now allow concealed carry.

I also predict there will be a few incidents that bring to light the the errors of those campuses that do not allow adequate concealed carry. The crazies are out there. This legislation will illustrate to the crazies where the gun free kill zones are and they will take advantage of it.

I hope and pray tomorrow the House does the right thing.

Thanks for listening.

I didn't realize the 2/3 Regent vote was needed to override, I thought it was required for approval. This bill is even weaker tea than I thought.

Universities are overloaded with administrators, they will just appoint some guy to design a patchwork of no carry zones that effectively makes it impossible to legally carry concealed. There's no teeth in the bill to prevent that despite what it says.

I expect Straus will make sure this passes because he can have his cake and eat it too. He can claim he passed campus carry while his UT buddies hamstring it with off-limits zones. If he lets it blowup at the last minute, then he risks getting enough flak to enable a better bill next time, or a threat to his being speaker next time.

The only real significance of this bill is if it turns out to be a dam-buster .

ELB wrote:I didn't realize the 2/3 Regent vote was needed to override, I thought it was required for approval. This bill is even weaker tea than I thought.

Universities are overloaded with administrators, they will just appoint some guy to design a patchwork of no carry zones that effectively makes it impossible to legally carry concealed. There's no teeth in the bill to prevent that despite what it says.

I expect Straus will make sure this passes because he can have his cake and eat it too. He can claim he passed campus carry while his UT buddies hamstring it with off-limits zones. If he lets it blowup at the last minute, then he risks getting enough flak to enable a better bill next time, or a threat to his being speaker next time.

The only real significance of this bill is if it turns out to be a dam-buster .

But a dam-buster it is. Think of it as a camel's nose, edging into the tent. Upon successful implementation at a number of universities, the legislature will have plenty of justification to expand it further.

But a dam-buster it is. Think of it as a camel's nose, edging into the tent. Upon successful implementation at a number of universities, the legislature will have plenty of justification to expand it further.

I hope so, but I fear at will actually be a dam. That same administrator will be writing reports showing that their successfull implementation means there's no further changes needed. And all those senators and representatives that like to be able to write a letter to the university and get some kid in are going to fall right in line.

I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but the more I consider this what this bill actually says and the energy we've expended on it the gloomier I get.

Now if governor Abbott wanted to get busy and appoint some Regents that really give a flip about the first and second amendments and fiduciary responsibilities, kind of like that Hall guy, then things might get really interesting!

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.

That's not quite correct. The Board of Regents can reject a proposal of the university by a 2/3rds vote, but they do not approve anything, unless you want to call doing nothing approval. The college has to report to the legislature, not the Boards of Regents.

ELB wrote:I didn't realize the 2/3 Regent vote was needed to override, I thought it was required for approval. This bill is even weaker tea than I thought.

Universities are overloaded with administrators, they will just appoint some guy to design a patchwork of no carry zones that effectively makes it impossible to legally carry concealed. There's no teeth in the bill to prevent that despite what it says.

I expect Straus will make sure this passes because he can have his cake and eat it too. He can claim he passed campus carry while his UT buddies hamstring it with off-limits zones. If he lets it blowup at the last minute, then he risks getting enough flak to enable a better bill next time, or a threat to his being speaker next time.

The only real significance of this bill is if it turns out to be a dam-buster .

Remember, every off limits location must be 30.06 posted. And the campus legal staff will be studying the legislative intent and telling Presidents if they are overreaching.

jeffrw wrote:

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).

Regarding the legislative intent, I definitely saw that the examples mentioned today as potentially being excluded from carry were quite specific (e.g. day care centers, health care facilities, labs with sensitive materials). Ordinary classrooms, offices, and libraries weren't mentioned at all. Sen. Birdwell also specifically mentioned the Student Union as a place that a school wouldn't be able to declare off-limits.

This could create a very awkward and undesirable situation. Most college students enter several buildings in the course of a day's classes, and most college students over 21 live off campus, some of them many miles away, driving or riding a bus to campus. So, if they need to enter ONE SINGLE no-CCW building during the day, they can't carry at all; they'll have to leave their concealed guns at home, or in their cars, parked far from campus. Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list, students will be effectively blocked from carrying to school at all. That's the exact same situation we were hoping to address with this bill: allowing students to carry into buildings.

Just checking in.....so looks like SB11 has a chance tommrow right?
House rules can stop a filibuster right?
Really hope SB11 gets a chance

Ruark wrote:

jeffrw wrote:

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).

Regarding the legislative intent, I definitely saw that the examples mentioned today as potentially being excluded from carry were quite specific (e.g. day care centers, health care facilities, labs with sensitive materials). Ordinary classrooms, offices, and libraries weren't mentioned at all. Sen. Birdwell also specifically mentioned the Student Union as a place that a school wouldn't be able to declare off-limits.

This could create a very awkward and undesirable situation. Most college students enter several buildings in the course of a day's classes, and most college students over 21 live off campus, some of them many miles away, driving or riding a bus to campus. So, if they need to enter ONE SINGLE no-CCW building during the day, they can't carry at all; they'll have to leave their concealed guns at home, or in their cars, parked far from campus. Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list, students will be effectively blocked from carrying to school at all. That's the exact same situation we were hoping to address with this bill: allowing students to carry into buildings.

The legislative intent is very clear that standard classrooms can not be off limits. Otherwise this bill is worthless. If they pull junk like that a student CHL holder needs to sue.

Ruark wrote:Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list.

I highly doubt this. The bill and legislative intent specifically limit the ability to put an entire classroom building on an off limits list. They could put specific classrooms or areas of a building as off limits. An example of an entire building that could be off limits would be the nuclear reactor at A&M.

Sounds like lots of restrictions, but it is a start......gotta start somewhere right?
Gonna hold out hope until the session is over, this is an important step in the right direction.

SB11 is third on the list of items eligible. There's a TON of stuff behind it (6 pages total)... Chances they sacrifice all of that other stuff for chub rub?

I can see these liberal "educators" overreaching at first... making regulations that in the dorms, guns must be unloaded, disassembled, and locked in multiple, separate lock boxes, and you have to turn in your ammo every night to a security guard... you might have professors who want for their individual classrooms and/or offices to be marked with 30.06, entire buildings like the student union, main office, library, rec center be prohibited and so on.

I can see future sessions addressing this by making it clear that only certain "sensitive facilities" such as a bio or chemical lab, chemical or fuel storage facilities, a place like A&M's nuclear reactor, and maybe places where electromagnets or other high voltage or explosive things may be going on are the only places where any college may enact these regulations. And then make it that they may only have regulations in the dorms that are along the lines of: if the pistol is not on a student's hip, then it needs to be in some sort of a locked container.

That will work much better.

AJSully421 wrote:I can see these liberal "educators" overreaching at first... making regulations that in the dorms, guns must be unloaded, disassembled, and locked in multiple, separate lock boxes, and you have to turn in your ammo every night to a security guard... you might have professors who want for their individual classrooms and/or offices to be marked with 30.06, entire buildings like the student union, main office, library, rec center be prohibited and so on.

I can see future sessions addressing this by making it clear that only certain "sensitive facilities" such as a bio or chemical lab, chemical or fuel storage facilities, a place like A&M's nuclear reactor, and maybe places where electromagnets or other high voltage or explosive things may be going on are the only places where any college may enact these regulations. And then make it that they may only have regulations in the dorms that are along the lines of: if the pistol is not on a student's hip, then it needs to be in some sort of a locked container.

That will work much better.

Indeed, there will be a firestorm of commentary, fearmongering, and demands from most of the faculty. But as somebody earlier noted, school administrators will be paying most attention to what their general counsel tell them. And administrators are used to ignoring the shrill demands of the faculty.