TexasCHLforum.com

paperchunker wrote:My take on SB11
I am 64 yrs old, a chl instructor and a full time college student. My wife, daughter and granddaughter are also college students. ..

If you all go to the same school, sounds like you could start your own chapter of SCC! More seriously, if you have the time and inclination, you could help document non-compliance and maybe be a witness in the 2017 legislature. Or even have standing in court if need be.

Scott Farkus wrote:

baldeagle wrote:He was in Dallas today signing transportation bills that benefit north Dallas. I suspect he'll do a similar public signing of the gun bills, probably in Austin.

He should sign SB273 in front of the 30.06 sign at Austin City Hall, HB910 in front of Acevado's office at APD Headquarters, and SB11 on the steps of the UT tower building.

Or would that be spiking the football?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ...
The as-passed version of SB11 is not what we wanted. It does have value in that any school that violates the spirit of the Bill will make it easier to amend the law in 2017. .... Schools have the ability to act in good faith, or they can lay the foundation of their own downfall. Like Bladed, I expect the latter.

Chas.

This.^^^

If it's not written in the law, it ain't gonna happen. "Legislative intent" is mighty weak tea. And that Democrat legislator quoted earlier in the thread, can'at remember his name, gave a perfect example of why relying on legislative intent to guide the university is a fool's game. They'll just choose the intent they want.

I think the universities believe that because they have successfully stalled campus carry for four sessions now and the only this watered down version has made it so far, why should they knuckle under now? They probably think they have a good shot at stalling any serious changes in the next session, particularly if their guy is back in a position of power.

As I said earlier, the only thing that will fire up the legislature enough to clamp down on them is for them to be publicly and loudly caught thumbing their noses at the Leg's power, and making legislators mad. Mr. Cotton's effort will help with that.

So would SCC documenting testimony for individual students about what a pain in the constitutional tookus campus concealed regulations are, and having those individuals ready to testify next legislature. This is tough for students because they are their for only a relatively short time, and if they have any sort of serious degree, they should rightfully be spending their time on getting that done, graduated, and on to bigger and better things. But hopefully there are some who would be willing to come back and testify even if it won't help them directly any more.

Despite my apparent glumness elsewhere about the details of campus carry bill, I am very pleased this passed also.

Now SCCC's mission will be to trumpet any nonsense by the administrations.

txyaloo wrote:

Ruark wrote:Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list.

I highly doubt this. The bill and legislative intent specifically limit the ability to put an entire classroom building on an off limits list. They could put specific classrooms or areas of a building as off limits. An example of an entire building that could be off limits would be the nuclear reactor at A&M.

There is no language in the bill that says an entire classroom building, or any other building, may not be put off limits for CHL carry. The university just has to generate a report justifying it, and remember this will be be written by people who don't want guns on campus.

The only limitation is "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." There are no legal penalties for a university president who creates a clever patchwork that greatly discourages concealed carry.

The limits of "...the effect of generally prohibiting..." are up for grabs, and the situation favors the anti-gun presidents. When the president of UT consults with the anti-gun student government and the largely anti-gun faculty and they all decide the "specific safety considerations" of places where masses of students gather (because crowd behavior and risk of missed shots) and professors' offices (because grades are discussed there and that's "emotional"), and add in labs for safety purposes, etc etc... it's going to be tricky to legally carry. Only the regents can over-ride this, and as a group they don't seem interested in how the universities actually operate (see what happ;ened to Regent Hall), they just want to expand fund raising.

A student can sue and try to introduce legislative intent, but he's up against a university with a whole lot bigger budget. Maybe SAF would help, but I they are pretty busy already.

I hope there are some legislative champions in the next leg that will expand this, but I do not get the sense that the legislature really cares much about reining in the universities, to put it mildly.

jmra wrote:

martytcp wrote:

bones281 wrote:Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who's been a Houston police officer for 15+ years. The subject of open carry came up and it obvious that he didn't like the fact that law passed, but it was his comment that got got me. He said that they're going to stop anyone open carrying in Houston and that the city is going to have to hire more officers because of this law.

I hope that is only his "opinion" on hiring more officers to question citizens who choose to open carry. In my " opinion, they should probably go ahead and hire a crew of defense lawyers as well, if that is indeed their plan. Just sayin.

after they stuff the pockets of a few law abiding citizens with cash they will change their policy.

I wouldn't base any future income getting money out of the city. It is extremely difficult to successfully break through "official immunity" and as noted elsewhere a police officer can come up with all kinds of reasonable suspicion pretexts to stop someone open carrying, including facial expressions (in his experience), the fact you were nervous, etc. Remember DA Rosenthal basically instructed the police to ignore the first version of the MPA and arrest anyone with a gun in his car and no CHL. That really only went away when Rosenthal went away.

So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Wording is confusing. President can make rules regulating the carry of weapons, then the regents can change those rules after 90 days or they have to CONFIRM the rules for them to take effect? (Sb11)

That's what I got out of it. And I think Mojo84 is right.

K5GU wrote:

ELB wrote:

K5GU wrote:This is the link to the current SB 11 Conference Report. The side-by-side showing the changes by the committee begins on page 13, see the far right column.
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/84cc ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just started going thru this, but it appears much different from one at earlier link, and one linked in the tweet above.

I think the Legiscan site's text is the older 2nd reading of the bill.

I like that one much better. Much cleaner.

K5GU wrote:This is the link to the current SB 11 Conference Report. The side-by-side showing the changes by the committee begins on page 13, see the far right column.
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/84cc ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just started going thru this, but it appears much different from one at earlier link, and one linked in the tweet above.

TrueFlog wrote:Here's a conflicting/confusing tweet: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#Campuscarry compromise allows colleges to denote gun free zones but not totally opt out. Vote possible today #txlege http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011H.htm

The tweet says colleges can opt-out, put the link she provided has the same text as 74novaman posted - and that text does not include an opt-out provision. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

When I first read it quickly, I thought the opt-out provision applied to all, it took me a second close reading to realize the opt-out provision is for private/independent institutions only (assuming that link has an accurate copy of the report).

74novaman wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

Kkpsiknl wrote:Just got an alert, committee report on sb11 has been filed.

I have seen a version of the committee report published. Anyone else?

I think this is it:

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB11/2015

If that is it, and I read it correctly, by default concealed carry will be legal on "campuses" which includes buildings and lands owned by the university/college.

Private or independent schools can take action to opt out of concealed carry. Public ones do not have that option.

No open carry.

(1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or
leased by an institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education.
...
(b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or
about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the
campus of an institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d) or (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.

(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may
establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the
storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities
that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located
on the campus of the institution.

(e) A private or independent institution of higher
education in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and
faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or
other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying
handguns on the campus of the institution, any grounds or building
on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being
conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by the
institution.

JollyHappyDad wrote:I just read a blog article on TTAG (by one of their more reputable contributors) that claims the conference committee did not have the authority to remove the amendment (authority is limited to reconciling differences between bills), the article claims that a vote(s) has to be taken to authorize them to take that action, before it can go back for a vote. Been a long time since high school civics, anybody know this for sure?

As I wrote earlier, I'm betting that the conference committee took the position that the parts for the bills that were in conflict were the Huffines and Dutton amendments, so removing them both = reconciling the differences.

The committee noted this might be stretching a tad, but in their eyes, the rules say it is up to the presiding officer to determine this.

From the conference committee report:

{The conference committee may have exceeded the limitations
imposed on its jurisdiction, but only the presiding officer can
make the final determination on this issue.}

I am assuming that would be Lt Gov Patrick and Speaker Straus, unless they assign someone else to preside when HB910 is considered.

Thus if the presiding officers are ok with the deletion of the amendments, then the only vote required is a concurrence vote.

Robert91RS wrote:

Ruark wrote:What about Whitmire? As he walked away, he seemed to imply that he's going to come back and do whatever it takes to kill the bill.

I thought his vendetta was against the amendment. Is he out to kill the bill too?

He didn't sound very supportive of the bill in general. Lots of "I voted for concealed carry way back when, I own lots of guns...but" language.

Passing concealed carry was a long time ago, Senator. The baseline for 2A has moved.

From the Senate State Affairs Committee Analysis:

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

So Senator Whitmire thinks the Senate Committee analysis was wrong? If the Committee analysis is correct then legally it doesn't matter if the amendment is put back in.

If it does matter, then Senator Whitmire is advocating for letting the police violate constitutional rights? Huffines should ask him about that.