The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
UT police department has a few crazy policies like officers shall arrest any student in possession of any usable amount of dope. They are the 3rd largest PD in Texas also.ScottDLS wrote:What of they say you can only carry a .22 derringer unloaded? They can make it an expellable offense to carry anything else. Will that fly with the legislature/courts?
I think that would fall afoul of the provision that the university may not adopt rules that have the effect of generally prohibiting concealed carry, because it would prevent the vast majority of CHL'ers from being able to carry. I suspect the population of licensees that carry a .22 derringer as their daily carry, especially sole daily carry, is very small, both in percentage and absolute numbers.ScottDLS wrote:What of they say you can only carry a .22 derringer unloaded?
Whether the legislature authorized the university to make such a rule is a question for the courts, not individual citizens. The law states, "[T]he president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state 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." The only restriction (other than the prohibition against a campus-wide ban on concealed carry) placed on university presidents is that any rule, regulation, or other provision must be "reasonable." The term "reasonable" isn't defined in the law; therefore, as I said, its meaning is a question for the courts.Pawpaw wrote:The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.Bladed wrote:Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.Pawpaw wrote:There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.
This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.
Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?
As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."
.(My old comment, before I went back and re-read the UT recommendations:)
If the "empty chamber" provision flies, and its purpose is apparently to keep someone from accidently pulling the trigger on a live round, then do revolver carriers have pull one round, figure out which way the cylinder turns, and position the empty changer so it will rotate into firing position when the trigger is pulled?
Or can you put the empty cylinder under the hammer, old-West-style? That would give revolvers an edge over semi-autos in the readiness category.,
Or do all the chambers of a revolver have to be empty to meet the UT rule?
They really didn't think this one through
Bladed wrote:Whether the legislature authorized the university to make such a rule is a question for the courts, not individual citizens. The law states, "[T]he president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state 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." The only restriction (other than the prohibition against a campus-wide ban on concealed carry) placed on university presidents is that any rule, regulation, or other provision must be "reasonable." The term "reasonable" isn't defined in the law; therefore, as I said, its meaning is a question for the courts.Pawpaw wrote:The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.Bladed wrote:Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.Pawpaw wrote:There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.
This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.
Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?
As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."
Agreed. However, until a court rules as such, there is nothing to stop a university from expelling a student or firing an employee caught carrying with a loaded chamber.mojo84 wrote:Bladed wrote:Whether the legislature authorized the university to make such a rule is a question for the courts, not individual citizens. The law states, "[T]he president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state 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." The only restriction (other than the prohibition against a campus-wide ban on concealed carry) placed on university presidents is that any rule, regulation, or other provision must be "reasonable." The term "reasonable" isn't defined in the law; therefore, as I said, its meaning is a question for the courts.Pawpaw wrote:The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.Bladed wrote:Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.Pawpaw wrote:There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.
This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.
Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?
As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."
Requiring an empty chamber does not pass the reasonable test.
