Campus Carry -- Where Are We Now?

[mr1337]

I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

Private universities may simply place 30.06 signs to opt out.

[jmra]

I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

Private universities may simply place 30.06 signs to opt out.

Thought that might be the case.

[CJD]

I've been occupied all day and most of yesterday and missed what happened. I take it that campus carry passed? What are the opt-in/out provisions in the new law?

University president compiles a list of buildings off limits and reason why. List is submitted to board of regents who can override with a 2/3 vote. List is submitted to legislative committee. Evidently the committee doesn't have much power other than reporting to the body any disapproval at which time a bill could be submitted to tighten up loopholes.
Legislative intent is that a defacto ban can not be created by the president and that there must be a specific reason for making a building or portion of a building off limits. Off limit buildings would be posted 30.06 but penalties for violation are much stronger than 30.06.
Private universities can opt out completely but not sure of the process for doing so.

So, what is to stop the university president from listing all buildings as off-limits, and then the board of regents approving that list? And then what recourse do we have?

The law does prohibit an all-out ban. But it does allow listing buildings and areas as long as they don't "have the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry on campus. The boundaries between "provisions necessary for ... safety" and "the effect of generally prohibiting" concealed carry are not defined in the law. I have a less generous view than many of how hard most administrations are going to push those boundaries.

And the recourse is, I guess, either sue them (and who has standing to do this? only students? or all concealed handgun carriers?) or wait until the next legislature and hope the legislators do something about it.

Kind of what I figured. The law has been passed, but that doesn't mean that Universities won't fight it tooth and nail...... the exception perhaps being Texas A&M.....

I think that if A&M wanted guns they would already allow them. They have denied every application to carry from CHLers.

I based what I said on the TAMU Chancellor's statements about campus carry:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... and-staff/

Texas A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp told Lt. Governor Dan Patrick he has no objection to the Campus Carry Bill now pending in the State Senate. In a letter to the Lt. Governor, Sharp wrote, “I have complete trust and faith in our students.”

{——SNIP——}

“Having licensed gun owners in possession of legal weapons on our campuses does not raise safety concerns for me personally,” Sharp wrote in the letter. “The real question is this: ‘Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home?’ Of course I do!”

Sharp stated he has encouraged his university presidents not to become involved in this issue. He urged them to focus on funding issues ......

Right, but I don't think he'll be the one setting the rules. I think the President of each individual branch will set them, and the main campus president denies carry applications. Time will tell.

[J.R.@A&M]

The process will eventually turn into a fight over the interpretation of the law.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/31/ ... ov-abbott/

"[Birdwell] said his intent was that public college campuses would be as “permissive and accessible” as possible to handgun license holders and that universities would be as “specific and as minimalistic as possible” in defining restricted areas. The bill would not, Birdwell said, allow for universities to exempt entire dormitories or buildings from the requirement based on a technicality.

During the House’s debate on the measure Sunday, state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who participated in the negotiations, contradicted Birdwell’s interpretation.

The San Antonio Democrat, who participated in negotiations between the two chambers on the bill, suggested the language of the bill allowed for more latitude than the comments of Birdwell, as well as those of Republican state Sen. Van Taylor, R-Plano, indicated.

“The words in the conference committee report that exist in various sections completely disagree with those remarks and sentiments made by Senator Birdwell and Taylor,” he said."

The way I read it, the words of the conference committee report show the intent very clearly: "...The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution."

[Glockster]

Yes, and we should probably start a pool to see who can come closest to guessing the date after the law goes into effect of the first lawsuit.