TexasCHLforum.com

Charles, can you clarify for me? If I'm reading amendment 5 correctly, this bill as amended now only applies to the main non-health related universities? So since I work at one of the health-related institutions of higher education listed in 63.002, I'm out of luck? If I'm reading it correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that makes absolutely no sense. If anything, the students at a health-related university are older and more responsible than the students at a typical 4-year institution.

I guess it's a huge step in the right direction, but I just don't understand why it needed to be limited to non-health-related institutions. Since time is so short, I'm guessing that there's little chance that it can be fixed at this point.

ELB wrote:

sig-sog wrote:What good is this bill with the opt out?

If I understand correctly, 2/3 of the Regents of the university have to vote to "opt out." So campus carry is on the premises unless they take action. Right now, universities and colleges have to "opt in" for campus carry (on premises) to be legal, and none of them have done this.

IIRC, at least the Student Senate at A&M voted to opt-in but not sure about the institution as a whole.

didn't take long: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... -house.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

he forgot the vote

safety1 wrote:Can anyone explain what happened??? I froze up on the feed right at the big moment.
How did that happen? it was like the Dems just rolled over. What the what???

It passed. By God, it passed.

So, from what I understand after reading the amendments, the schools (excluding medical schools and hospitals) have to designate just certain portions of the campus as "off-limits" and have a 2/3 vote. Have to have the Big Ugly 30.06 signs at the off limits places. Then, on EVEN NUMBERED YEARS, they have to submit a report to a standing committee as to where the off limits places are and WHY they are off limits. I can see the schools trying to ban them from dorms. They'll lose money on that deal, though, because upperclassmen will live off campus if they can.

Sounds like the legislature can tell them what is acceptable and what isn't for off limits places.

SA-TX wrote:

ELB wrote:

sig-sog wrote:What good is this bill with the opt out?

If I understand correctly, 2/3 of the Regents of the university have to vote to "opt out." So campus carry is on the premises unless they take action. Right now, universities and colleges have to "opt in" for campus carry (on premises) to be legal, and none of them have done this.

IIRC, at least the Student Senate at A&M voted to opt-in but not sure about the institution as a whole.

They may have, but it was only an expression of support, it had no legal effect.

ELB wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

safety1 wrote:Can anyone explain what happened??? I froze up on the feed right at the big moment.
How did that happen? it was like the Dems just rolled over. What the what???

They used a rule where 25 members can vote/sign/something and end all debate and amendments and force a vote immediately.

Talk about pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I have never heard of that one. that's interesting.

SewTexas wrote:

ELB wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

safety1 wrote:Can anyone explain what happened??? I froze up on the feed right at the big moment.
How did that happen? it was like the Dems just rolled over. What the what???

They used a rule where 25 members can vote/sign/something and end all debate and amendments and force a vote immediately.

Talk about pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I have never heard of that one. that's interesting.

Is that like a seldom used nuclear option?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Okay, now I can say a little more about the Rep. Zerwas amendment. Even with the Amendment, it decriminalizes campus-carry. While it is a version of opt-out, it does require a 2/3 vote of the Board of Regents and it cannot be the entire campus. I can't get into why at this point.

Now to the Senate, after 3rd reading, where the addition of private institutions is a problem.

Chas.

Charles, should we be contacting Senators asking them to concur with the House changes to SB11?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Okay, now I can say a little more about the Rep. Zerwas amendment. Even with the Amendment, it decriminalizes campus-carry. While it is a version of opt-out, it does require a 2/3 vote of the Board of Regents and it cannot be the entire campus. I can't get into why at this point.

Now to the Senate, after 3rd reading, where the addition of private institutions is a problem.

Chas.

Wahoo!

Following along from Detroit but time to go to sleep with a smile.

SA-TX

v7a wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:They used a rule where 25 members can vote/sign/something and end all debate and amendments and force a vote immediately.

Huh? Why wasn't this rule taken advantage of earlier in the day?

Wondering the same?

That last amendment puts a new hurdle when it goes back to the senate as it know brings the property rights issue back into play. I guess they can strip it back out in conference, if they have the will to do it.

v7a wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:They used a rule where 25 members can vote/sign/something and end all debate and amendments and force a vote immediately.

Huh? Why wasn't this rule taken advantage of earlier in the day?

I thought the same thing... Just pull that as soon as you get to the floor. But, I'm not complaining, this is movement in the right direction. I just hope they hammer it out in conference and get this on the books.

I feel like a 115 year-old Amish dude trying to figure out a space ship... What happened? Is finding the TX legislative process to be confusing a sign of early-onset Alzheimer's? Do I need to talk to my doctor?

So let's say a student has a class in bldg 1 where carry is allowed. Then let's say their next class is in bldg 2 does not allow carry. Does the student have to go to their car to store the handgun? And then go back to get it for class in bldg 3 where it is again allowed. This is ridiculous.