TexasCHLforum.com

Guys,

Did the recent campus carry proposal indicate that colleges would be "forced" to allow carry? It just dawned on me that just about every school would ban guns by 30.06 or university guidelines even if campus carry passed.

Embalmo

The answer to your question is yes:

"As proposed, S.B. 1164 authorizes persons who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon to do so on a public, private, or independent institution of higher education campus. The bill authorizes an institution of higher education to establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential buildings owned by the institution and located on campus, and prohibits such institutions from adopting rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus. The bill also creates an exception under the Penal Code for such persons."

See the SB1164 bill analysis here:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 01164I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S.B. 1164 needs to be passed ASAP (as written). One of my main pet-peeves..... campus carry. YES!

I totally agree gemini. That and the parking lot bill needs to be filed on the opening days of the next legislature, IMO.

also

I work as an adjunct professor. My concern is that if the bill does get passed next session it will get an amendment to not apply to privite institutions (like it did toward the end of last session). Where do I work - of course - a private university.

gemini wrote:
S.B. 1164 needs to be passed ASAP (as written). One of my main pet-peeves..... campus carry. YES!

I storngly disagree. It should not be passed as it was written. There are much better ways to accomplish the same thing without being quite so obvious about what is going on.

For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Think about that. It still prohibits public universities from banning CHL's because they are government property and 30.06 would not apply. It allows private schools to ban because they are just like any other private business. And ti clears up all the questions about if Steve's School of Model Airplane Flying and similar institutions are prohibited places or not. with the added benefit of not having the words campus, university, or college in them. Most companies and people use word searches to tell them what bills to look for and this won't set of as many alarms.

srothstein wrote:For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

I agree, as a first step. I know we both would like to eliminate most of the location restrictions, and this would be movement in the right direction.

srothstein wrote: For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Think about that. It still prohibits public universities from banning CHL's because they are government property and 30.06 would not apply. It allows private schools to ban because they are just like any other private business. And ti clears up all the questions about if Steve's School of Model Airplane Flying and similar institutions are prohibited places or not. with the added benefit of not having the words campus, university, or college in them. Most companies and people use word searches to tell them what bills to look for and this won't set of as many alarms.

Matthew 10:16...I like the way you're thinking.

srothstein wrote:

gemini wrote:
S.B. 1164 needs to be passed ASAP (as written). One of my main pet-peeves..... campus carry. YES!

I storngly disagree. It should not be passed as it was written. There are much better ways to accomplish the same thing without being quite so obvious about what is going on.

For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Think about that. It still prohibits public universities from banning CHL's because they are government property and 30.06 would not apply. It allows private schools to ban because they are just like any other private business. And ti clears up all the questions about if Steve's School of Model Airplane Flying and similar institutions are prohibited places or not. with the added benefit of not having the words campus, university, or college in them. Most companies and people use word searches to tell them what bills to look for and this won't set of as many alarms.

I can see the advantage in this line of thinking. Thanks. I am very interested in getting it passed for personal reasons.
1. My wife works at a major univ. Once or twice a week she has to stay late due to classes etc.
2. Currently have 2 kids enrolled in 2 different univ. 1 already has CHL, 1 will be eligible in a few months.
I fear for their safety. Additionally, I hate having to disarm, rearm, disarm etc etc while visiting either kid.

srothstein wrote:For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Eliminate "or private", and I'd agree. I'd rather eliminate the school "premises" restriction completely, but I don't think the state should ever say that private property is off limits.

srothstein wrote:For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Except then schools can then simply say they will expel or fire anyone found carrying (Government Code §411.203). That simply puts us in the same boat as the 20 states that don't statutorily prohibit college carry but no students or faculty does because they will be expelled or fired if found out; only people not affiliated with the college can carry because they aren't bound by their rules.

hirundo82 wrote:

srothstein wrote:For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Except then schools can then simply say they will expel or fire anyone found carrying (Government Code §411.203). That simply puts us in the same boat as the 20 states that don't statutorily prohibit college carry but no students or faculty does because they will be expelled or fired if found out; only people not affiliated with the college can carry because they aren't bound by their rules.

I think Steve was saying that SB1164 should be changed by adding that provision. And as written, SB1164 already covers the concern for expelling students or faculty or employees that do have a CHL and carry:

"The bill authorizes an institution of higher education to establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential buildings owned by the institution and located on campus, and prohibits such institutions from adopting rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus. The bill also creates an exception under the Penal Code for such persons." (bold emphasis is mine)

Steve, if that's incorrect, please step in.

joe817 wrote:I totally agree gemini. That and the parking lot bill needs to be filed on the opening days of the next legislature, IMO.

Joe, I recently communicated with my Rep (Debbie Riddle) about these two bills for the 2011 legislative season, and following is the response I rec'd from her chief of staff:

Hey there pdubyoo,

Good to hear from you again. Debbie is still with you on both of these bills. I don't know yet if we'll be the office actually introducing them, but we'll put it on our list of possibilities. Let us know if we can do anything else for you!

I believe Rep Riddle introduced one of these bills last year. It sounds like there needs to be another rep that helps pick-up the gauntlet for the 2011 season. Even if either/both are introduced (modified or not) and have strong support, we've got to get them past the "calendars committee" where they both died a painful death last season.

hirundo82 wrote:

srothstein wrote:For example, I would much prefer to see the law changed by adding another definition. We could just add a defitinion of a school as a public or private institution of primary or secondary education. Nothing else is needed.

Except then schools can then simply say they will expel or fire anyone found carrying (Government Code §411.203).

No. Being taxing authorities and political subdivisions of the state, public schools and universities are just as bound by preemption as your local municipality.

Fantastic pdubyoo! WTG!

I think NOW is the time to write your State Congressman & Senator and let them know your concerns. A letter or email to them keeps both bills in their minds and hopefully on 'the front burner', when it DOES come time for bills to get introduced.