UT campus carry rules

[atxscubasteve]

Here is my reply to President Fenves: What do yall think??!


Dear President Fenves,

I want to thank you for your due diligence and effort in regards to the Campus Carry bill's implementation on UT's Campus and auxiliary sites. I would like to let you know that a few of your policies seem to be unreasonable, and in one particular case, in direct conflict with a statement given by the Honorable Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, to Texas Senator Brian Birdwell on December, 21 2015.

First, I want to introduce myself. My name is Adam **** and I am junior finance major at McCombs. My UTeid is *****. I am actively involved in my local church involved with the 11 year old Boy Scout program. Last year, I got back from serving a two-year volunteer service missionary for my church in California and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ever since I was a kid, I was taught gun safety and to respect guns. I grew up hunting here in Texas and in Michigan with my father, brothers, uncles and grandparents (many of whom are military veterans). I would say I am very familiar with how guns work and the safe ways to operate and handle them. I have never smoked tobacco in my life, I have never tasted alcohol, I don't drink coffee, I am a University Honor student, I have never had a criminal record or even been issued a speeding ticket citation. I am 24 years old and yes I have a CHL or currently known as LTC permit. I won't bother you with the qualifications, requirements, and background checks that we undertake prior to receiving our LTCs, as I am sure you are well aware. However, I did want to address a few items in your policy documents you have sent to Chancellor McCraven in regards to how UT should implement Campus Carry.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 3 - A license holder who carries a semiautomatic handgun on campus must carry it without a chambered round of ammunition."

You may as well state that a license holder can carry a handgun on campus, but without any bullets to put inside that gun. The point of having a gun concealed with one in the chamber is that in the case of an active shooter, or an immediate threat to cause serious bodily harm upon me or upon another person is to be able to react instinctively and quickly using the skills taught in LTC classes and other outside training.

If one were to have to ratchet the slide of a semi-automatic handgun to put a bullet in the chamber, this would require two hands, have the possibility of fumbling the gun onto the ground in a stressful situation, or even requiring the gun's barrel to be pointed a someone other than the active threat while the ratcheting is taking place.

Ratcheting a gun also creates a large and abrupt noise that would automatically direct the active shooter's attention to the said LTC carrier in a way that would give away all tactical advantage.

If you were really thinking about safety, you would know that a gun does not magically go off all of a sudden. It requires someone to pull the trigger. Most hostlers carried by LTC holders, if not all, cover the trigger and trigger guard making it impossible to pull the trigger while the gun is securely holstered. Your policy 2 adequately addresses this issue.

In summary: a gun doesn't magically discharge, could potentially lead to problems ratcheting in a stressful situation, increase the danger level of innocent students or faculty, and take away all tactical advantage from the LTC carrier. Therefore, I recommend that this policy be taken from your recommendations.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 7 - Texas Penal Code §46.035(b)(1) excludes license holders of handguns from carrying a handgun in the premise of a business that has a permit or license issued under designated chapters of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Any premises on campus that meets the requirements of TPC §46.035(b)(1) must provide notice in accordance with Texas Gov’t Code §411.204."

This cannot be implemented as a blanket banning from all places that merely serve alcohol. Any restaurant that serves alcohol on campus that derives more than 51% of its alcohol from on-premises consumption would already be included under current laws.

If any restaurant on campus meets this standard, then they would have already had to post the red 51% sign.

You seem to suggest that any restaurant that sells alcohol would have to "provide the required notice." This notice would indeed be a false and illegal sign as these companies do not derive more than 51% of profits from on-premises consumption.

Please check the TABC website and search all restaurants on campus to see if they require this signage before improperly blanketing every location with red 51% signs.

However, if you are suggesting that every restaurant or place of business that serves on premise consumption of alcohol be banned from allowing LTC holders inside, then the correct signage would be the 30.06 postings as stated in the statue.

However, it is already against the law to carry a gun with a LTC while intoxicated. LTC holders would already know this before having a drink.
So requiring signage for an LTC holder who would just like a burger and no alcohol would have the effect of generally banning LTC holders.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 18 - The occupant of an office to which the occupant has been solely assigned and that is not generally open to the public should be permitted, at the occupant’s discretion, to prohibit the concealed carry of a handgun in that office. An occupant who chooses to exercise this discretion must provide oral notice that the concealed carry of a handgun in the occupant’s office is prohibited. In addition, if the occupant’s duties ordinarily entail meeting people who may be license holders, the occupant must make reasonable arrangements to meet them in another location at a convenient time."

This policy seems almost unmanageable and unreasonable to attempt to allow individual faculty, professors, and staff from allowing or not allowing LTC holders in managing their own Gun Policy within their office. The actual office is not owned by the said occupant and therefore is property of the University as well as responsibility of you sir. You are the one, in accordance with the regents, who are given the latitude to administer the regulations of the Campus Carry Bill to be implemented. It is not up to the individual professor, staff, or faculty member who is the occupant of a private space on campus. I will include a quote from Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General.

Mr. Paxton: "Requiring that the rules be distributed to faculty suggests that the Legislature did not intend for the faculty members themselves to establish those rules. And, as a practical matter, if each faculty member could establish individualized rules, adequately publishing such rules and providing the notice required by S.B. 11 would be unmanageable. Thus, a court would likely conclude that S.B. 11 does not authorize a president or chief executive officer of an institution of higher education to delegate to individual professors the decision as to whether possession of a concealed handgun is allowed in the individual professor's classroom." Ken Paxton KP-0051 https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... &utm_term=

I would assume "classroom" to also have the meaning of office space assigned as well.

Is this to mean, a professor can announce on the first day of class each semester to his or her students giving them notice that if they want to come in for office hours they cannot carry a handgun inside? This would require me and other LTC to have to make special arrangements with the professor each time I wanted to come in for office hours. This would create an unnecessary burden on the professor as well as any student who has a LTC. (Might I remind you that LTC holders are more law abiding than peace officers and pose no threat to the safety of the professors, faculty, or staff)

The rest of the statues are relatively okay, and I do not see a problem with you regulations that you have suggested. I only take issues with the ones above as to hope to enlighten you to perhaps a different point of view (aka a student who actually has a LTC). Please let me know what changes will be made. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Adam

[casp625]

Here is my reply to President Fenves: What do yall think??!


Dear President Fenves,

I want to thank you for your due diligence and effort in regards to the Campus Carry bill's implementation on UT's Campus and auxiliary sites. I would like to let you know that a few of your policies seem to be unreasonable, and in one particular case, in direct conflict with a statement given by the Honorable Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, to Texas Senator Brian Birdwell on December, 21 2015.

First, I want to introduce myself. My name is Adam **** and I am junior finance major at McCombs. My UTeid is *****. I am actively involved in my local church involved with the 11 year old Boy Scout program. Last year, I got back from serving a two-year volunteer service missionary for my church in California and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ever since I was a kid, I was taught gun safety and to respect guns. I grew up hunting here in Texas and in Michigan with my father, brothers, uncles and grandparents (many of whom are military veterans). I would say I am very familiar with how guns work and the safe ways to operate and handle them. I have never smoked tobacco in my life, I have never tasted alcohol, I don't drink coffee, I am a University Honor student, I have never had a criminal record or even been issued a speeding ticket citation. I am 24 years old and yes I have a CHL or currently known as LTC permit. I won't bother you with the qualifications, requirements, and background checks that we undertake prior to receiving our LTCs, as I am sure you are well aware. However, I did want to address a few items in your policy documents you have sent to Chancellor McCraven in regards to how UT should implement Campus Carry.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 3 - A license holder who carries a semiautomatic handgun on campus must carry it without a chambered round of ammunition."

You may as well state that a license holder can carry a handgun on campus, but without any bullets to put inside that gun. The point of having a gun concealed with one in the chamber is that in the case of an active shooter, or an immediate threat to cause serious bodily harm upon me or upon another person is to be able to react instinctively and quickly using the skills taught in LTC classes and other outside training.

If one were to have to ratchet the slide of a semi-automatic handgun to put a bullet in the chamber, this would require two hands, have the possibility of fumbling the gun onto the ground in a stressful situation, or even requiring the gun's barrel to be pointed a someone other than the active threat while the ratcheting is taking place.

Ratcheting a gun also creates a large and abrupt noise that would automatically direct the active shooter's attention to the said LTC carrier in a way that would give away all tactical advantage.

If you were really thinking about safety, you would know that a gun does not magically go off all of a sudden. It requires someone to pull the trigger. Most hostlers carried by LTC holders, if not all, cover the trigger and trigger guard making it impossible to pull the trigger while the gun is securely holstered. Your policy 2 adequately addresses this issue.

In summary: a gun doesn't magically discharge, could potentially lead to problems ratcheting in a stressful situation, increase the danger level of innocent students or faculty, and take away all tactical advantage from the LTC carrier. Therefore, I recommend that this policy be taken from your recommendations.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 7 - Texas Penal Code §46.035(b)(1) excludes license holders of handguns from carrying a handgun in the premise of a business that has a permit or license issued under designated chapters of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Any premises on campus that meets the requirements of TPC §46.035(b)(1) must provide notice in accordance with Texas Gov’t Code §411.204."

This cannot be implemented as a blanket banning from all places that merely serve alcohol. Any restaurant that serves alcohol on campus that derives more than 51% of its alcohol from on-premises consumption would already be included under current laws.

If any restaurant on campus meets this standard, then they would have already had to post the red 51% sign.

You seem to suggest that any restaurant that sells alcohol would have to "provide the required notice." This notice would indeed be a false and illegal sign as these companies do not derive more than 51% of profits from on-premises consumption.

Please check the TABC website and search all restaurants on campus to see if they require this signage before improperly blanketing every location with red 51% signs.

However, if you are suggesting that every restaurant or place of business that serves on premise consumption of alcohol be banned from allowing LTC holders inside, then the correct signage would be the 30.06 postings as stated in the statue.

However, it is already against the law to carry a gun with a LTC while intoxicated. LTC holders would already know this before having a drink.
So requiring signage for an LTC holder who would just like a burger and no alcohol would have the effect of generally banning LTC holders.

"POLICY STATEMENT | NO. 18 - The occupant of an office to which the occupant has been solely assigned and that is not generally open to the public should be permitted, at the occupant’s discretion, to prohibit the concealed carry of a handgun in that office. An occupant who chooses to exercise this discretion must provide oral notice that the concealed carry of a handgun in the occupant’s office is prohibited. In addition, if the occupant’s duties ordinarily entail meeting people who may be license holders, the occupant must make reasonable arrangements to meet them in another location at a convenient time."

This policy seems almost unmanageable and unreasonable to attempt to allow individual faculty, professors, and staff from allowing or not allowing LTC holders in managing their own Gun Policy within their office. The actual office is not owned by the said occupant and therefore is property of the University as well as responsibility of you sir. You are the one, in accordance with the regents, who are given the latitude to administer the regulations of the Campus Carry Bill to be implemented. It is not up to the individual professor, staff, or faculty member who is the occupant of a private space on campus. I will include a quote from Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General.

Mr. Paxton: "Requiring that the rules be distributed to faculty suggests that the Legislature did not intend for the faculty members themselves to establish those rules. And, as a practical matter, if each faculty member could establish individualized rules, adequately publishing such rules and providing the notice required by S.B. 11 would be unmanageable. Thus, a court would likely conclude that S.B. 11 does not authorize a president or chief executive officer of an institution of higher education to delegate to individual professors the decision as to whether possession of a concealed handgun is allowed in the individual professor's classroom." Ken Paxton KP-0051 https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... &utm_term=

I would assume "classroom" to also have the meaning of office space assigned as well.

Is this to mean, a professor can announce on the first day of class each semester to his or her students giving them notice that if they want to come in for office hours they cannot carry a handgun inside? This would require me and other LTC to have to make special arrangements with the professor each time I wanted to come in for office hours. This would create an unnecessary burden on the professor as well as any student who has a LTC. (Might I remind you that LTC holders are more law abiding than peace officers and pose no threat to the safety of the professors, faculty, or staff)

The rest of the statues are relatively okay, and I do not see a problem with you regulations that you have suggested. I only take issues with the ones above as to hope to enlighten you to perhaps a different point of view (aka a student who actually has a LTC). Please let me know what changes will be made. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Adam

Sending a letter that long to the president of any organization will probably not be read.

[atxscubasteve]

That's good feedback. I'll look to shortening it to the essentials

[Bladed]

[cbunt1]

I would order two questions regarding the empty chamber rule:

1) Concealed is concealed. How do you purport to know if my chambers are empty¿

2) Or What????

[Bladed]

I would order two questions regarding the empty chamber rule:

1) Concealed is concealed. How do you purport to know if my chambers are empty¿

2) Or What????

As to the "Or What????" question, the answer is disciplinary action. Students can be expelled; faculty and staff can be fired.

[atxscubasteve]

Well, my email worked. I got a response from the UT President's office, here is what it says,

President Fenves asked me to reach out to you to respond to your comments. He appreciates your feedback. Might we be able to discuss your concerns over the next few days?

Thanks,

Carlos

Looks like we might be having a meeting or a call at some point over the next few days. I'll let you know how it goes.

[C-dub]

The holster requirements make good sense and most will have a holster that meets those requirements, but as long as the holster is a belt or shoulder holster I don't see where there is anything else that can be required.

[flintknapper]

No chambered round in a semi-auto?

Makes about as much sense as keeping your car battery in the trunk until you need it.

[twomillenium]

After reading what UT is wanting and what the Law says, it is hard to believe that we have such obvious low IQ people in charge of our institutions of higher education.

[John Galt]

After reading what UT is wanting and what the Law says, it is hard to believe that we have such obvious low IQ people in charge of our institutions of higher education.

Liberalism is destroying our education system.

[atxscubasteve]

After reading what UT is wanting and what the Law says, it is hard to believe that we have such obvious low IQ people in charge of our institutions of higher education.

Liberalism is destroying our education system.

I hope to dissuade these guys from making bad policies. I am probably only one of the few who actually has some ground to stand on since I'm actually a student at UT.

[gljjt]

No chambered round in a semi-auto?

Makes about as much sense as keeping your car battery in the trunk until you need it.

Keeps you from accidentally starting your car.

[Bladed]

After reading what UT is wanting and what the Law says, it is hard to believe that we have such obvious low IQ people in charge of our institutions of higher education.

Liberalism is destroying our education system.

I hope to dissuade these guys from making bad policies. I am probably only one of the few who actually has some ground to stand on since I'm actually a student at UT.

Antonia Okafor (antonia.okafor@concealedcampus.org), regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, is organizing UT-Austin students and faculty who support the law but oppose the policies approved by President Fenves (particularly the policy requiring semi-autos to be carried with an empty chamber and the policy allowing anyone with a private office to designate the office as a "gun-free" zone), to work together on the next step of SCC's pro-campus carry offensive. If you're a student at UT, you might want to try to get in touch with her.

[nimravus01]

The holster requirements make good sense and most will have a holster that meets those requirements, but as long as the holster is a belt or shoulder holster I don't see where there is anything else that can be required.

The belt or shoulder holster requirement is for open carry only. There is no such requirement in the law for concealed carry. E.g. you could carry in an ankle holster.