TexasCHLforum.com

More from SCC:

mojo84 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.

As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."

Whether the legislature authorized the university to make such a rule is a question for the courts, not individual citizens. The law states, "[T]he president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution." The only restriction (other than the prohibition against a campus-wide ban on concealed carry) placed on university presidents is that any rule, regulation, or other provision must be "reasonable." The term "reasonable" isn't defined in the law; therefore, as I said, its meaning is a question for the courts.

Requiring an empty chamber does not pass the reasonable test.

Agreed. However, until a court rules as such, there is nothing to stop a university from expelling a student or firing an employee caught carrying with a loaded chamber.

Pawpaw wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.

As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."

Whether the legislature authorized the university to make such a rule is a question for the courts, not individual citizens. The law states, "[T]he president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution." The only restriction (other than the prohibition against a campus-wide ban on concealed carry) placed on university presidents is that any rule, regulation, or other provision must be "reasonable." The term "reasonable" isn't defined in the law; therefore, as I said, its meaning is a question for the courts.

Breny414 wrote:Wondering if they received guidance from the AG about the round in the chamber issue. Also, it runs counter to their logic regarding how excessive manipulation of the firearm could cause an accidental discharge, thus they will allow cc in classrooms without asking folks to disarm and put their ha guns in gun lockers. seems to me that having to unchamber a handgun fits the same argument. And where do you unchamber a round while out and about?

Charles can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe that all AG opinions are made publicly, so I think we would have heard if they'd sought and received an opinion.

I'd be interested to see an opinion on this. The question is whether or not such a policy is "reasonable."

Pawpaw wrote:

ErnieP wrote:Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

From the SCC Facebook page: