TexasCHLforum.com

Winchster wrote:

txglock21 wrote: Is an ISD a government agency? I truly don't know, but also the Dallas County Tax Office in Garland is definitely government- owned and yet is "properly posted" also. Both are listed on Texas3006.com. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

One final comment, then I will quit hijacking the thread. Yes an ISD is a government agency, as is the tax office and one of the sections of 30.06 reads:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Therefore, to me, and many others, it is "improperly" posted.

The real question is whether it is "a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03." If a school sporting event is taking place there, it would definitely be a prohibited location under 46.035; therefore, the 30.06 signs would be enforceable under those circumstances. However, the question is whether a for-lease arena/conference center owned by a school district is the premises of an educational institution.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Bladed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

I'm fairly confident that you will lose that argument in court. And lose badly.

ISD's are "educational institutions", clear as day.

So if a school district uses its investment fund to develop an apartment complex as a source of income and equity for the district, no resident of that apartment complex may lawfully possess a gun?

As I said before, this is a question for the lawyers and the courts, but it's definitely not as simple as pointing out that an independent school district is an educational institution. You have to look at the intent of the law and the intent behind the chosen wording. Why does the law say "on the physical premises of a school or educational institution" and not "in any building owned by an educational institution"?

If I own five rent houses plus the house in which I live, any of those could be described as "a home owned by Bladed," but only the one in which I live could accurately be described as "the home of Bladed." Just as interpreting these two phrases is more complicated than being able to define "home" and "Bladed," interpreting the law in question is more complicated than being able to define "premises" and "educational institution."

The apparent intent of the law is to keep guns out of school buildings and buildings where school-sponsored activities are taking place. It would have been much easier for lawmakers to simply prohibit guns in any building owned by an educational institution, but they went out of their way to use more-complicated language. It's reasonable to assume they did so for a reason.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

mr1337 wrote:

v7a wrote:The quiet before the s̶t̶o̶r̶m̶ bill passage?

I think we'll see come 10:30AM tomorrow morning.

Anyone "in the know" have an indication if they are planning to suspend the rules to allow a 3rd reading tomorrow as well (as happened in the Senate for SB17)?

The Senate didn't suspend the rules to allow the third reading on the same day as the second. The third reading happened the following day.

Suspending the rules to allow the third reading on the same day as the second requires a four-fifths majority (25 votes in the Senate; 120 votes in the House), so that almost never happens with a bill this controversial.

Also, that's much more common in the Senate. If I recall correctly, the House typically only suspends the constitutional three-day rule when there is a time crunch.

v7a wrote:

Locksmith wrote:I may be wrong.. but it appears to me like the language in HB910 was substituted with the language from SB17

I don't think that matters much. From what I understand not just the same language but also the same bill number must be voted on by both Senate and House in order for the bill to go directly to the Governor. If the House passes HB910 instead of SB17 (even if language is identical), it will need get sent over to the Senate and voted on again there (presumably after going through Senate committee first).

Correct.

mojo84 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

Again, the provision I cited has nothing to do with making campus carry legal and everything to do with making sure campus carry is allowed.

Again, I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS. Just acknowledging what the other poster is saying.

Whether he or you are right is not what I'm concerned with. I have no dog in the fight as I do not work for a university. I was only clarifying what I thought he was saying.

Since you are the new legislative expert here, did the legislators anticipate that employers would prohibit employees from keeping their carry weapons in their cars in the parking lot when they passed the concealed carry law in 1995 making it legal for people to conceal carry? Did they contemplate how the employee would restrict such activity via employee rules and employment contracts?

This essentially rendered employees unable to conceal carry before or after work unless they went home beforehand to get their guns.

I wasn't around in '95, but as I understand it, the legislature was primarily concerned with getting something passed. Shall-issue laws were still considered some what new/unproven, and the legislature kept the initial law fairly broad. Then, as the existing law established a safe track record for itself and as lawmakers started identifying problems with enforcement (e.g., employers restricting guns in parked cars, businesses posting inconspicuous no-guns signs), they tweaked the law to address those issues.

Since campus carry legislation was first introduced in 2009, the push has always been about ensuring that universities and colleges can't prohibit license holders--especially students, faculty, and staff--from carrying on campus. That provision was stripped from the 2013 House bill, by a committee substitute from an anti-campus-carry committee chair, but it has always been a core part of the mission of the legislators carrying these bills and the organizations pushing these bills.

The clause prohibiting universities and colleges from creating "any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution" is not vague or ambiguous. It doesn't say, "any law" or "any rule other than a provision of the employee handbook." There is no way to interpret that clause as allowing universities to include a concealed-carry prohibition as a condition for employment.

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

Again, the provision I cited has nothing to do with making campus carry legal and everything to do with making sure campus carry is allowed.

mojo84 wrote:

thechl wrote:

CJD wrote:

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n institution of higher education...in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do.

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

Perhaps I, alone, see the distinction. I shall not repeat it.

I just hope HB910, along with 226, 308, 905 and 937 all reach the governor's desk prior to pumpkin time.

I see what you are saying. Other than schools and universities, concealed carry is legal but employers can still prohibit as part of their employee rules. Your concern seems to be that the university could make a rule prohibiting their employees from carrying while working. Correct?

If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

The difference between most employers and public colleges is that public colleges are STATE institutions, and their campuses are STATE property.

Your comment on guns in employees' cars isn't very clear, but state law currently prohibits public AND private employers from restricting the possession of firearms in employees' cars, and state law currently prohibits public AND private colleges from restricting the possession of firearms in the cars of CHL holders (including students), so a law prohibiting PUBLIC colleges from restricting concealed carry by students, faculty, and staff is not unprecedented.

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n institution of higher education...in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do!

That provision serves no other purpose if it doesn't prevent colleges and universities from creating administrative policies against students, faculty, and/or staff carrying on campus.

The provision isn't needed to decriminalize campus carry (the changes to PC Sec. 46.03 do that), and the provision isn't needed to prohibit public colleges from posting 30.06 (PC Sec. 30.06[e] already does that), so the only purpose the provision serves is to stop universities and colleges from creating anti-campus-carry administrative policies.

This isn't a point of contention--everybody involved in the process (on both sides) agrees that this provision would prohibit colleges and universities from creating anti-campus-carry administrative policies.

The difference between carrying at your place of employment and carrying on a college campus is that your employer clearly has a rule prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns, AND there is no law saying that your employer "may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns."

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n institution of higher education...in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.