TexasCHLforum.com

To be ultimately pragmatic, legislation that only affects public / state schools and lets private schools continue to ban and fire, increases the risk at those latter schools. So in terms of risk management, why should students and staff at private schools support such discriminatory legislation and paint targets on themselves.

It is a general flaw of our CHL rules that allow places open to the public to ban CHL because of some conservative ranting about private property. Certainly, we don't allow discrimination based on race, etc. Thus, private properties rights are not absolute. The real reason for the private property ranting is that businesses and other institutions think the ban decreases their liability profiles. They really don't care about civil liberties.

Most colleges already have in their handbooks verbiage against firearms that would suffice as employee or student notice. So that point is moot.

The issues are:

1. Will state schools have the right to post 30.06 signs?
2. Will private and state schools still have the right to dismiss students or staff for carry (even if they cannot evoke criminal penalties)?

If they can still fire or expell you, then the 30.06 provision is nice but practically useless in allowing carry.

It might be a good first incremental step but ideal legislation would allow carry on all campus and disallow allow employment penalties.

However, as I said before - for private universities - controlling their property and employment rights is a big can of worms.

Will the suggested legislation differentiate between private and state campuses? If carry is allowed on private campuses doesn't that override the provisions for private places (as for example, stores) to post 30.06 signs? Private private purists would be upset about that (foolishly in my opinion). However, such a differentiation would simple hang targets on the private school.

Any info welcome.