HB 1893 off to Calendars

[hirundo82]

I trust someone at every opt-out hearing at every private school will ask if the school is willing to guarantee the safety of every student while on campus. Since they aren't governmental entities, then they don't enjoy sovereign immunity, so their answers to those questions could cost them a great deal of money down the road.

Mr. Cotton, can you expound on this a bit?

It had been my impression that there was not a significant liability for entities designating a gun-free zone. Also, is there any significant liability potential in not allowing concealed carry?

If it has the possibility of coming back to hurt the colleges where they really care--in the pocketbook--I think they are more likely to listen.

[jrosto]

The Committee Substitute is still not posted.

Now that I have mentioned that, they should post it just to prove me wrong.

[srothstein]

Jrosto, someone must not like you. It is posted now (11:30, 4-14-09).

[boomerang]

With all the proposed changes I'm disappointed it wouldn't eliminate the ambiguity about school field trips.

[cowtown]

It's disappointing that the substituted language appears to give private or independent institutions a complete "out" to continue prohibitions against CHL carrying on campus. Charles, I don't see wording that exempts parking lots from this prohibition. Am I missing something?

Thanks!
Cowtown

[gemini]

I'm reading, nothing changes on private college campuses, providing they consult students, staff and officials to form policy AND they post legal signs barring concealed carry. Some limited liability stuff.
I am assuming parking lots, sidewalks etc. are still OK for CHL. Buildings or portion thereof off limits if posted?
Also, clarify rules on sporting events, please. I read OK unless the event is properly posted.
Thanks

[cowtown]

They are required to consult students, faculty, staff, etc., but unfortunately, they are not required to form their policy in agreement with the desires of those groups. So even if a majority of students, etc., favor concealed carry on campus, the institution can still ban them. Unless I'm reading something wrong. (which I have been known to do....frequently!)

[boomerang]

With all the proposed changes I'm disappointed it wouldn't eliminate the ambiguity about school field trips.

What ambiguity is there?

Whether they're off limits to armed citizens.

[hirundo82]

I don't see wording that exempts parking lots from this prohibition. Am I missing something?

It's in there, but not very obvious:

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an institution of
higher education or private or independent 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.
(e) A private or independent institution of higher
education in this state may, after consulting with students, staff,
and faculty of the institution, establish rules, regulations, or
other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying
handguns on premises that are owned or operated by the institution
and located on the campus of the institution. For purposes of this
subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035,
Penal Code.

So the current version of the bill still prohibits all institutions from prohibiting carry on their campuses but allows private institutions to prohibit carry only on their premises, defined in Penal Code Section 46.035 as:

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I'm reading, nothing changes on private college campuses, providing they consult students, staff and officials to form policy AND they post legal signs barring concealed carry.

As I understand it, the bill basically takes away the special status institutions of higher education have under the CHL laws.

Public institutions become like any other government facility--they cannot prohibit carry.

Private institutions become like any other private business--it is only against the law to carry there if they give proper 30.06 notice, but they can still fire (or expell) employees and students for carrying on their premises if they do not post (or give other 30.06 notice).

[cowtown]

Nice summary. You probably are pretty close on your conclusions. Here's hoping it makes it through all the hurdles!

[TrueFlog]

As I understand it, the bill basically takes away the special status institutions of higher education have under the CHL laws.

Public institutions become like any other government facility--they cannot prohibit carry.

Private institutions become like any other private business--it is only against the law to carry there if they give proper 30.06 notice, but they can still fire (or expell) employees and students for carrying on their premises if they do not post (or give other 30.06 notice).

If that's an accurate summary, then it sounds like a pretty good bill to me. Private schools truly are like any other business. Sure, they get a lot of state funding, but don't most other businesses? Some get it in the form of tax breaks, others are able to apply for assistance for the state. I went to school on a state scholarship - does that mean I lost my private property rights for those five years simply because I received state assistance? How 'bout families that receive tax stamps, welfare, unemployment, HUD-assistance, etc. - should they be allowed to post 30.06 in their homes? Or do they have no private property rights since they receive gov't funding?

The NRA and others recently filed suit in San Francisco because the city had banned firearm ownership in publicly-funding housing (the PJ's). The ban was overturned on the grounds that providing the housing did not entitle the city to violate the citizen's private property rights. The issue of concealed carry on private campuses is no different except that in this case, property rights work against the pro-gunners rather than for us.

That said, I would like to see a provision that would allow students, faculty, guests, etc. to keep a firearm concealed in a vehicle without fear of disciple, expulsion, etc. (That is, something similar to the Parking Lot Bill.)

[austin-tatious]

I don't see wording that exempts parking lots from this prohibition. Am I missing something?

It's in there, but not very obvious:

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an institution of
higher education or private or independent 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.
(e) A private or independent institution of higher
education in this state may, after consulting with students, staff,
and faculty of the institution, establish rules, regulations, or
other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying
handguns on premises that are owned or operated by the institution
and located on the campus of the institution. For purposes of this
subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035,
Penal Code.

So the current version of the bill still prohibits all institutions from prohibiting carry on their campuses but allows private institutions to prohibit carry only on their premises, defined in Penal Code Section 46.035 as:

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

I'm reading, nothing changes on private college campuses, providing they consult students, staff and officials to form policy AND they post legal signs barring concealed carry.

As I understand it, the bill basically takes away the special status institutions of higher education have under the CHL laws.

Public institutions become like any other government facility--they cannot prohibit carry.

Private institutions become like any other private business--it is only against the law to carry there if they give proper 30.06 notice, but they can still fire (or expell) employees and students for carrying on their premises if they do not post (or give other 30.06 notice).

I thought the current law allowed us to carry concealed on a campus as long as we do not carry on the premises. That is not so?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I thought the current law allowed us to carry concealed on a campus as long as we do not carry on the premises. That is not so?

You are correct. Premises is defined to be a building or portion of a building.

Chas.

[hirundo82]

That said, I would like to see a provision that would allow students, faculty, guests, etc. to keep a firearm concealed in a vehicle without fear of disciple, expulsion, etc. (That is, something similar to the Parking Lot Bill.)

That would be an effect of the current version of the bill since it prohibits any institution of higher education from adopting any "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," with the exception that private institutions can prohibit carry only on their premises. Parking lots are explicitly not premises per Section 46.035.

I thought the current law allowed us to carry concealed on a campus as long as we do not carry on the premises. That is not so?

That is correct, but institutions can still expell students or fire employees for carrying, even if it is just in the parking lot or other, non-premises, locations. I'm also not aware of any higher education institutions doing this, but Section 30.06 does not just apply to buildings--it could be expanded to the entire campus by posting signs or giving other valid notice (including it in the employee orientation handbook for instance) and all CHL holders who had been notified could not carry in their car without risking arrest (a remote possibility, but still real). This bill would avoid that problem.