TexasCHLforum.com

terryg wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:

“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “

IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.

Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.

I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.

I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.

It is not meaningless in that it is no-longer a felony if licensed student or employee chooses to carry despite a school's administrative policies. This puts University employees on the same playing field as nearly all other employees in the state of Texas. It becomes a personal choice whether to risk termination (or in cases of posted 30.06, misdemeanor charges) if discovered carrying.

CJD wrote:

baldeagle wrote:So it's no longer illegal but they can still prohibit it. And as an employee I could be fired for violating policy. And that's called progress? {{{sigh}}} My gun still stays in the car, and I'm not better off than I was before this law was passed (if indeed it is passed.)

Why would you leave it in the car? Under what circumstances would they ever know you had it, unless you had to use it (better that you had it) or you get stopped by police on campus (not illegal so unless they report you to the university, which I don't see why they would because it's none of their business) then you should be fine.

baldeagle wrote:So it's no longer illegal but they can still prohibit it. And as an employee I could be fired for violating policy. And that's called progress? {{{sigh}}} My gun still stays in the car, and I'm not better off than I was before this law was passed (if indeed it is passed.)

baldeagle wrote:The bill states that "For purposes of this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code."
Institution of higher education, then, means:

(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.

The bill then goes on to say:

(b) The president or other chief executive officer of an
institution of higher education in this state, on behalf of the
institution, and after consulting with law enforcement, students,
staff, and faculty of the institution, may adopt written rules or
regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on
premises owned or leased and operated by the institution, on any
grounds or building owned or leased by the institution and on which
an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or on a
passenger transportation vehicle of the institution. A written rule
or regulation adopted under this subsection may remain in effect
for not more than one year after the date of adoption and may be
renewed, reenacted, or reenacted and amended by the institution
only after consultation with students, staff, and faculty of the
institution.
(c) An institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule or regulation under Subsection (b), or a private or
independent institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule, regulation, or other provision or take any other action
described by Section 46.03(j), Penal Code, shall adopt written
rules or regulations concerning:
(1) the storage of handguns in dormitories or other
residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution; and
(2) the carrying of concealed handguns by license
holders at collegiate sporting events or other official mass
gatherings that take place on grounds or buildings owned or leased
and operated by the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting a student enrolled at that institution who
holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, from transporting or storing a
handgun of the same category the student is licensed to carry or
ammunition for that handgun in a locked, privately owned motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle leased by or for the student:

I don't see any way that can be read as to prohibit public institutions from preventing carry on their campuses.

Maybe someone can enlighten me? That may be what Fletcher said, but the bill was amended eight times before it was engrossed.

jmra wrote:

Bladed wrote:

terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.

Per Rep. Fletcher's description of the amended bill at third reading, nothing in the bill (as passed by the House) would allow a public college or university to post 30.06 on campus buildings. The relevant language is in the amended Penal Code. The amended Government Code has no bearing on a public college's ability to post 30.06, only on a public college's ability to create administrative policies (which do not have force of criminal law). Nothing in the amended Penal Code would exempt a public college from the "governmental entity" restriction created by PC 30.06(e).

So, let me see if I am understanding this bill if passed:
- Public university equals no 30.06.
- No longer a crime to carry in buildings as long as there is not a sporting event in progress.
- University may establish rules for staff and students that would result in Disciplinary action (no bearing on visitors such as parents).
- Private universities would have to give notice under 30.06. Could be done in orientation for staff and students but would have to be posted for visitors.

terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.