TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

Actually, the board of regents doesn't approve the list. They can only reject the list with a 2/3 vote. The list is submitted to the legislative committee every two years on even numbered years 100 days before the session begins. I assume the "teeth" of the law lies with the intent of the legislature being defied and passing a bill in the next session to remove the opt out provision or something to that effect.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

I'm very happy that SB11 has passed and will become law. I think there will be some things in it that will need fixing just like with the original CHL law and most laws.

I still won't be able to CC next week to my niece's graduation ceremony, but many of the problems should be ironed out by the time my own daughter goes to college.

Regarding the issue with the board of regents being able to override something the president chooses, why would they? This will be the battle for several years. The entire campus might not be banned, but by banning select strategic buildings it will make it so that few people if anyone will be able to without having to return to their vehicle between certain classes. Someone else pointed that out in another thread and I agree. It will be a problem and the schools will push the limits of what they can ban and practically dare anyone to challenge them on it.

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

I think that if A&M wanted guns they would already allow them. They have denied every application to carry from CHLers.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

Something to look forward to fixing in 2017. Gig 'Em.

It looks like even though private institutions can opt out, that they will now be forced to post 30.06 signs. Am I wrong?


That is a lot of doors in a lot of buildings ...

terryg wrote:It looks like even though private institutions can opt out, that they will now be forced to post 30.06 signs. Am I wrong?


That is a lot of doors in a lot of buildings ...

I don't see anything in the bill that requires a private institution to post 30.06 when they opt out. However, the bill does state that 30.06 must be posted in order for concealed carry to constitute a crime. [Section 46.035 (a-2)] I would infer that if a private institution opts-out and posts 30.06, then anyone carrying concealed would be subject to arrest as well as discipline by the school (eg. expulsion). If the private institution opts-out but does not post 30.06, then an individual would still be subject to discipline by the school, but could not be charged with a crime.

CJD wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

I think that if A&M wanted guns they would already allow them. They have denied every application to carry from CHLers.

I based what I said on the TAMU Chancellor's statements about campus carry:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... and-staff/

Texas A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp told Lt. Governor Dan Patrick he has no objection to the Campus Carry Bill now pending in the State Senate. In a letter to the Lt. Governor, Sharp wrote, “I have complete trust and faith in our students.”

{——SNIP——}

“Having licensed gun owners in possession of legal weapons on our campuses does not raise safety concerns for me personally,” Sharp wrote in the letter. “The real question is this: ‘Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home?’ Of course I do!”

Sharp stated he has encouraged his university presidents not to become involved in this issue. He urged them to focus on funding issues ......

TrueFlog wrote:

terryg wrote:It looks like even though private institutions can opt out, that they will now be forced to post 30.06 signs. Am I wrong?


That is a lot of doors in a lot of buildings ...

I don't see anything in the bill that requires a private institution to post 30.06 when they opt out. However, the bill does state that 30.06 must be posted in order for concealed carry to constitute a crime. [Section 46.035 (a-2)] I would infer that if a private institution opts-out and posts 30.06, then anyone carrying concealed would be subject to arrest as well as discipline by the school (eg. expulsion). If the private institution opts-out but does not post 30.06, then an individual would still be subject to discipline by the school, but could not be charged with a crime.

Bear in mind that 30.06 notice can also be given orally or via a written handout, so students and faculty might still be subject to arrest, even if there are no posted signs.

Bladed wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

terryg wrote:It looks like even though private institutions can opt out, that they will now be forced to post 30.06 signs. Am I wrong?


That is a lot of doors in a lot of buildings ...

I don't see anything in the bill that requires a private institution to post 30.06 when they opt out. However, the bill does state that 30.06 must be posted in order for concealed carry to constitute a crime. [Section 46.035 (a-2)] I would infer that if a private institution opts-out and posts 30.06, then anyone carrying concealed would be subject to arrest as well as discipline by the school (eg. expulsion). If the private institution opts-out but does not post 30.06, then an individual would still be subject to discipline by the school, but could not be charged with a crime.

Bear in mind that 30.06 notice can also be given orally or via a written handout, so students and faculty might still be subject to arrest, even if there are no posted signs.

True. And, of course, students, staff and faculty are the primary users of any campus facility.

But there is still a change. Previously, without any type of signage, carrying into buildings on campus was statutorily off limits just like carrying into building with a court. That is no longer the case. Parents coming for a campus tour of a private college, for example, would now be 100% legal to carry in and out of buildings unless notice is given during the tour or the buildings are posted. The same would be true for visitors to the library or to a sporting event. Correct?

terryg wrote:... The same would be true for visitors to the library or to a sporting event. Correct?

I don't believe anything changed in the law regarding sporting events. I believe sporting events are still off limits, per:

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense . . ..
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;

Jumping Frog wrote:

terryg wrote:... The same would be true for visitors to the library or to a sporting event. Correct?

I don't believe anything changed in the law regarding sporting events. I believe sporting events are still off limits, per:

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense . . ..
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;

True. I fogot college sporting events were covered separately and not just under the general ban on premises.