UNT Campus Carry Draft Policy

[TexasJohnBoy]

https://campuscarry.unt.edu/unt-policy-draft

I haven't read it yet, it just got published about 10 minutes ago. The website went down for about 10 minutes right after it was released...

[joe817]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting TJB.

I can't find much to object to. On the whole I like it.

[TresHuevos]

Section VII B 2 really concerns me. They're saying that the Police Chief can ban legal carry "upon receipt of credible information of imminent injury to human life or destruction to university property."
That seems counterproductive to me.

[LSUTiger]

Campus carry is not going to be effective for the LTC if you are prohibited from as many places and times as outlined in the policy.

It's basically gutted by the prohibitions.

[Jusme]

Section VII B 2 really concerns me. They're saying that the Police Chief can ban legal carry "upon receipt of credible information of imminent injury to human life or destruction to university property."
That seems counterproductive to me.

Yeah I also don't understand the portion where it says carry can be suspended when there is an activity that has a history of violence. Why don't they prohibit the "Activity" ? Maybe I'm just not as smart as those college deans and administrators.

[RoyGBiv]

I appreciate the considered way the University has approached the Campus Carry issue, but believe the Draft Policy makes some important mistakes. Specifically as follows.

"10. at a location where medical, health,or clinical services are provided, specifically Chestnut Hall, Life of Purpose in Chilton Hall, the Psychology Clinic in Terrill Hall, Speech and Hearing Clinic in the Speech and Hearing Building, and the Welch Street Complex B."

By what logic are you planning to exclude law abiding, responsible, background-checked, properly licensed citizens from responsibly carrying their self defense weapon while in need of health services? If someone is not mentally competent and is seeking such services, that person should not have a license. And if someone is intending "bad actions", this rule will not stop them from committing their intended act. This rule, quite plainly, restricts the rights of only the law abiding and does nothing to stop those with bad intentions.

I would make the same argument against item 11 (services to minors), item 12 (religious and meditation areas), item 13 (Phys Ed and intramural activities, where not already prohibited by State Statute.) and especially item 14 (large scale events). Large scale events are a "soft target" for violence. Many innocent people in a close space, with little in the way of self defense. Again, this rule would do nothing to dissuade criminals and terrorists. In fact, knowing that there are "no concealed self defense weapons" at such events may actually embolden those intent on committing crimes at such places and events.

Please remember that anyone who would comply with this policy is not the kind of person you would suggest "needs" to be disarmed. The people you need to worry about are those that would not abide by this policy. As such, the policy goes too far in disarming the law-abiding under circumstances that could be misconstrued as "common sense", but in the real world of supporting data and statistics have no factual proof of benefit.

Thank you.

[ELB]

I appreciate the considered way the University has approached the Campus Carry issue, but believe the Draft Policy makes some important mistakes. Specifically as follows.

"10. at a location where medical, health,or clinical services are provided, specifically Chestnut Hall, Life of Purpose in Chilton Hall, the Psychology Clinic in Terrill Hall, Speech and Hearing Clinic in the Speech and Hearing Building, and the Welch Street Complex B."

....

I notices stuff like this in the policies of other universities. Some how if healthcare is involved, concealed carry becomes "dangerous" and the university policy bans it. Not just in hospitals, but any place there is "patient care." "Speech and Hearing"? Really?

[ELB]

Section VII B 2 really concerns me. They're saying that the Police Chief can ban legal carry "upon receipt of credible information of imminent injury to human life or destruction to university property."
That seems counterproductive to me.

Yeah I also don't understand the portion where it says carry can be suspended when there is an activity that has a history of violence. Why don't they prohibit the "Activity" ? Maybe I'm just not as smart as those college deans and administrators.

Yes, let's ban carry where it is most likely to be needed....

[ELB]

Btw, thanks for posting this TexasJohnBoy.

[Papa_Tiger]

I don't think section VII.B is going to fly at all with the legislature.

That is delegating authority to a third party to prohibit concealed carry when the law explicitly states that the President and Regents of the university are the ones to decide where to prohibit carry.

[MeMelYup]

Page 3
IV. Locations and Activities where Concealed Handguns are Prohibited. A License Holder is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun onto the campus premises where prohibited by law and where prohibited by this policy based on the nature of the student population, specific safety concerns, and uniqueness of the campus environment.
A. Concealed handguns are prohibited:
2. at a location used as a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship as prohibited under section 46.035(b)(6) of the Texas Penal Code;

They omitted, (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

[TXBO]

The temporary prohibitions section is troubling. I'll be interested to see how the legislature receives it.

[TXBO]

Section VII B 2 really concerns me. They're saying that the Police Chief can ban legal carry "upon receipt of credible information of imminent injury to human life or destruction to university property."
That seems counterproductive to me.

Yeah I also don't understand the portion where it says carry can be suspended when there is an activity that has a history of violence. Why don't they prohibit the "Activity" ? Maybe I'm just not as smart as those college deans and administrators.

Yes, let's ban carry where it is most likely to be needed....

That was exactly my first though. Let's allow an event with a history of violence but disallow the ability to protect yourself against it.

[NorthTexas]

Thanks for posting JohnBoy, I didn't know this was available. I'm happy they didn't try to outright ban as many classrooms as possible, but in my opinion there are still more than enough restrictions to make it difficult for a good number of folks to carry on campus daily. Some of the areas I see as problematic:

Section II(D): Just a statement that LTC holders don't have to self-identify on campus except as required at the request of law enforcement, per current laws. However, I see a potential conflict between this and Section VI(A)(3), which states: "A handgun may be stored only in a
private residential room as defined in this policy, and in a locked container installed or approved by the University." (emphasis is mine) I highly doubt UNT will install approved locked containers into all private residential rooms on campus due to the number and cost involved, so a LTC holder would need to self-identify in order to request a room with such a locking container installed, or to request approval of their own locking container. I can imagine the university would feel the need to retain records of who occupies rooms with approved containers, creating a de facto list of at least some LTC holders on campus. I don't know if there's any way such a list could ever be requested under open records laws, but that makes me nervous.

Section IV(A)(2): Prohibition at places used as a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship. I assumed this referred to the non-denominational chapel on campus that is rented by local churches who hold Sunday and Wednesday services on campus for students. However, the chapel is later prohibited by name, so this must be something else. Anyone who knows UNT have any ideas? All I can figure is maybe the Baptist Student Ministry and/or Wesley Foundation that are on the perimeter of campus - I've heard they leased land from UNT, but don't know if that's true.

Section IV(A)(10): I agree with everyone else who questions prohibition in the various clinics. Additionally, Chestnut Hall is not entirely medical/clinic offices - the Student Money Management Center and Career Center are also located in that building, and are unnecessarily prohibited.

Section IV(A)(14): Locations for large scale events. Almost all of the rooms listed in this section are used for multiple purposes, including but not limited to large lecture classroom use, staff meetings, and special events. I don't understand the logic in excluding these locations, and more importantly, I do think their exclusion would make it more difficult to carry on campus. A student or professor could, schedule permitting, lock their gun in their dorm room or car, but I suspect it would be much more difficult for a staff member to get to their car before and after meetings in these locations.

Section IV(B)(2): University graduations. Like the large scale event rooms above, I don't get the logic - I guess they see a bigger crowd as a more dangerous situation? I don't think this should be prohibited.

Section V: "Any individual who without authorization, tampers with, defaces, modifies, or removes a notice provided pursuant to this policy is subject to disciplinary action, including trespass from campus, suspension, termination of employment or a business relationship, and is subject to criminal prosecution." - I would also like to see unauthorized placement of 30.06 signs added to this list. There was some discussion on this forum recently of unauthorized signs being placed in front of businesses, and professors at other institutions have been vocal in their desire to post signs outside their offices or classrooms.

Section VII: The entire section on temporary restrictions disturbs and offends me.
VII(A): I can see no reason to justify a prohibition on carrying for 7 days leading up to an event. This was mentioned in one of the info sessions as a possibility for the Distinguished Lecture Series, which has often brought controversial speakers to campus. Several speakers over the years have received lively student protests, but I never heard of even a threat of violence, much less an actual history of violence. At best, I could see prohibiting carry on the day of an event such as DLS, but not the entire week leading up to it. Does anyone else know of any events on campus with an actual history of violence? I do not.

VII(B): I agree with others that this won't fly with the Legislature because the President can't delegate that authority to the Chief of Police. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the intent of this section is to allow the university to prohibit carry in a threatened or actual campus shooter situation - exactly when we would most need to be able to carry.

The campus carry task force is accepting anonymous feedback through Feb. 8th - I don't know whether they will seriously consider it, but sending in your thoughts couldn't hurt. http://campuscarry.unt.edu/share-your-thoughts