TexasCHLforum.com

ETA: Disregard all I wrote below. (The forum editor really needs a "strike-thru" font.) The empty chamber provision only applies to semi-autos, I just went back and checked.

Which makes revolvers more attractive as a "ready to go" handgun for campus carry, if the empty chamber rule survives.

(My old comment, before I went back and re-read the UT recommendations:)
If the "empty chamber" provision flies, and its purpose is apparently to keep someone from accidently pulling the trigger on a live round, then do revolver carriers have pull one round, figure out which way the cylinder turns, and position the empty changer so it will rotate into firing position when the trigger is pulled?

Or can you put the empty cylinder under the hammer, old-West-style? That would give revolvers an edge over semi-autos in the readiness category.,

Or do all the chambers of a revolver have to be empty to meet the UT rule?

They really didn't think this one through

.

ScottDLS wrote:What of they say you can only carry a .22 derringer unloaded?

I think that would fall afoul of the provision that the university may not adopt rules that have the effect of generally prohibiting concealed carry, because it would prevent the vast majority of CHL'ers from being able to carry. I suspect the population of licensees that carry a .22 derringer as their daily carry, especially sole daily carry, is very small, both in percentage and absolute numbers.

I do not believe SB 11 allows the university to establish a rule or regulation that would allow the university to expel a student or fire an employee for carrying in a manner that is legal under the law. They can't regulate concealed carry separately or outside of the law implemented by SB 11.

By law (SB 11) the baseline or default is that concealed carry is legal all over campus. Except as provided by law, the university may not adopt any "rule, regulation, or other provision" prohibiting concealed carry. Thus the university cannot enact a provision regulating carry that does not fall into one of the exceptions. However, any rule or regulation that falls into one of the exceptions does have the force of law.

Now, having re-read the text of SB 11, I am now not so sure the Legislature did not give the universities the power to regulate how a handgun is carried as well as where it is carried.

The exceptions provided by law that allow the university to regulate any part of concealed carry are:
- storage of handguns in dorms or other residential facilities
- "establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders."
- private universities/colleges may opt out entirely.

Note that the second exception says they may regulate "the carrying" of handguns. I think most of us, and perhaps the Leg as well, thought of this in terms of "where," but SB 11 does not appear to me to limit regulation only to location. It simply says "the carrying of concealed handguns" (Sec. 411.2031, paragraph (d-1)).

Empty chamber is stupid for a number of reasons, and I hope Mr. Cotton is correct that "how" can't be regulated, but it does not read that way to me.

Another interesting bit: The footnotes reference a memorandum from the Coalition to Keep Guns Off Campus (CKGOC), and cites argument that the "counsel' for CKGOC made. (I don't know if these are argument made in the memorandum or the counsel go to make them orally to the Working Group).

Who are these guys and how did their memorandum come to the attention of the Working Group? Did the Working Group solicit input from them, did it just arrive in the mail and they read it? Did TSRA/NRA/Independence Institute (Dave Kopel) or any other groups get solicited or get to submit "memorandums?"

It appears the WG rejected CKGOC's recommendations about banning guns in classrooms an its stats claiming rapes on campus and suicides increased after campus carry was implemented on other campuses, but I wonder what influence they had did creep in? Bloomberg's astroturf Everytown was cited as a source for data as well, and GunFreeUT was mentioned as well. The only "balance" I saw was a reference to Students for Concealed Carry (who countered the suicide increase attributable to campus carry claims), but says it doesn't know the evidence that SCC used. (Did they ask for it?)

(Oh, and they cite the much-debunked "one in five campus women raped" statistic as well. )

Perhaps this was a clever bit of politics to counter a couple groups that were pestering them -- the WG can say "yes we carefully considered your arguments and found them lacking), but overall I find it disturbing that two such overt anti-gun and integrity-free organizations were consulted for "data".

When it comes time for the Legislature to review the "progress" of the state universities, this should be an interesting question.

dru wrote: ...

ELB wrote:2. The prof, at beginning of semester, makes an announcement in class that he doesn't allow concealed carry in his office. That would seem to cover it at least for the LTC'ers who are in class that day.

I don't know that would fly. I can't imagine that many professors actually take attendance, especially in the lower level classes so it would be hard to prove that a student was ever given oral notice. What if a student came in late? or stepped out to use the restroom while the announcement was made. I think the only way to satisfy the oral requirement of the whole thing is to say it when someone comes to your office

I don't know why it wouldn't fly. So what if a few students cut class, come late, or run to the bathroom? If it comes to light that a student with a license has a concealed handgun in the prof's office and he calls the campus cops with a complaint, it will be on the student to convince the responding officers that he really wasn't in the class the day the prof made the announcement (and the fact that the prof may not have taken attendance will not work in the student's favor at this point). The officers may very well decide that "absence" is an argument the student can make in court, where it may or may not be successful.

dru wrote:

ELB wrote:3. Course syllabus or maybe course catalog, or may paper handed out at beginning of semester carries written notice. If it is in correct wording and languages, then it applies. If it's not, then it's just wastebasket fodder.

But for purposes of campus carry, the notice must be oral, not printed. Professors can't use the 30.06 sign to designate their own offices off limits. The university may do that, possibly at a university health clinic or lab, but the professors have to give oral notice.

The university (actually at this point, the working group) doesn't want a bunch of signs so they say the notice must be oral, but if a prof chooses to put the written notice in his course materials, there is no one who is going to gainsay him on that. (In fact,wouldn't surprise me for them to argue First Amendment protection for signs and other written notices). Look at all the deference they give them about their office spaces -- they try to tell him what he can and can't put in his course materials and there will be a major revolt just on the that principle alone. (and remember, these are the guys foaming at the mouth we are talking about here.) Whether it legally constitutes "effective notice" won't get hashed out until it gets to court.

The real solution, of course, is for the University to be brought to heel about the whole "each prof gets to choose" deal, as Mr. Cotton pointed out early on. But if that survives the President and the Regent's review, then I have little doubt there will be some mouth-foamers who will use every avenue to fight back, whether the campus rules say the can or not.

Thoughts, scenarios, assuming that the working group is correct that this can be done on an office-by-office basis:

1. Prof will not like to say 'no guns' every time a student comes to the office. Bet he will instead post some "no guns" sign. Doubt he will post the required one, since it is too dang big (note that the working group verified for itself that a legally sufficient sign is at least 2' x 3'). Any student legally carrying with half-a-education in the LTC laws will recognize that post-it note doesn't count and carry right in. Everybody's happy.

2. The prof, at beginning of semester, makes an announcement in class that he doesn't allow concealed carry in his office. That would seem to cover it at least for the LTC'ers who are in class that day.

3. Course syllabus or maybe course catalog, or may paper handed out at beginning of semester carries written notice. If it is in correct wording and languages, then it applies. If it's not, then it's just wastebasket fodder.

I find this appalling, if informative:

Every member of the Working Group – including
those who are gun owners and license holders – thinks
it would be best if guns were not allowed in classrooms.

(p 26)

But I do applaud that they recognized both the law and the obvious:

The primary on-campus activity for most of our more
than 50,000 students is going to class. If handguns were
banned from classrooms, license holders would have
to leave their handguns at home or in their cars every
day they go to class. Short of an outright prohibition of
handguns in all buildings – that is, a reversion to the state
of the law as it was before S.B. 11 was passed – we can
think of no measure that would more effectively prohibit
campus carry than designating classrooms as gunexclusion
zones.

UTMacGuy wrote:This is the part I'm having trouble with:

• The occupant of an office to which he or she has
been solely assigned and that is not generally open
to the public should be permitted, at the occupant’s
discretion, to prohibit the concealed carry of a
handgun in that office.

• If the occupant’s duties ordinarily entail meeting
people who may be license holders, the occupant
must make reasonable arrangements to meet them in
another location at a convenient time.

This might not be a big issue for a lot of faculty and staff but for technology staff that have to go to many offices daily, that's an issue. ...

Not to worry! They are concerned about it! Not about your rights or your safety, but about your structural inequality.

This recommended rule,
therefore, would have the overall effect of giving faculty
members more control over their work environment
than staff or students would enjoy. Our concern is
that this policy will perpetuate structural inequalities
between faculty and staff members at UT Austin.

However, you still outrank students:
(In the section about forbidding carry in the dorms, one of the exceptions is:)

Third, staff members, such as the building services
and maintenance staff, should be permitted to carry a
concealed handgun on or about their person while they
are discharging their employment responsibilities.

Papa_Tiger wrote:This definitely needs clean-up in the overall CHL law:
"Where Handguns Must Not Be Carried:
Regardless of S.B. 11, Texas law will continue to prohibit license holders from carrying handguns in certain on-campus locations. These include:
The grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a pre-K through 12 school or educational institution is being conducted. This would include, for example, the Blanton Museum of Art when a public school field trip is being conducted there."

If I'm not associated with the school activity, an area should not be off limits by statute if a group of school kids shows up. If I recall correctly, that was discussed somewhat during either the public testimony or on the floor of the House that a place where a field trip is taking place doesn't become off limits for a CHL holder when the school group shows up.
...

Good catch, and I seem to recall that same discussion during the Legislative Session (altho there is a small possibility I simply read it here on the forum).

They like to use "analogy" to extent the no-carry areas.
-Hospitals are off-limits (I know I know only if posted), so by analogy, UTA wants to ban carry anywhere a patient is treated...
- In their words, pre-K-12 schools are off-limits, so any place on campus that might have children should be off-limits to carry (for the children!)
- Court rooms are off-limits, so any place that formal hearings for student or faculty or employee discipline are off-limits to carry

Further details:

They propose to basically forbid students to have guns in dorms. Visiting parents/others can carry, and carry would be permitted in common areas but not dorm rooms (sleeping quarters).

Carry will be permitted in "married housing", but the resident must have a gun locker or safe, minimum 16 gauge steel, fully enclosing the firearm(s). Here's the interesting part: it can't have a keyed lock:

c) have a high-strength locking system consisting
of a mechanical or electronic combination or
biometric lock, and not a key lock;

Also (p 18):

RECOMMENDATION # 9:
The concealed carry of handguns should be prohibited
in areas for which state or federal law, licensing
requirements, or contracts require exclusion exclusively
at the discretion of the state or federal government, or
are required by a campus accrediting authority. Where
appropriate, signage must conform to the overriding
federal or state law requirements. Otherwise, notice
conforming to TPC § 30.06 must be provided.

Comment: In some instances, federal law prohibits
firearms from being carried in certain places. For
example, 10 C.F.R. § 73.81 bars a person from carrying
a firearm in a protected facility or installation, such as
our Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL),
which is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed
facility. Similarly, state law or licensing requirements
may place restrictions on concealed carry. For example,
licensing standards for before- and after-school
programs for school-aged children and for child-care
centers prohibit on-premises firearms. See Texas Dept.
of Family and Protective Services, Licensing Division,
Minimum Standards for School-Age and Before or After-
School Programs §744.2607; Minimum Standards for
Child-Care Centers §746.3707. Finally, in rare instances,
the federal or state government may unilaterally impose
a restriction on the carrying of firearms, as may a
campus accrediting authority.

It appears to me that if this is allowed to stand, this is a big backdoor/camel's nose under the tent/loophole for universities/colleges to get carry banned campus wide. I don't see how an accreditation authority could override state law, but if state law requires state universities to maintain accreditation, then which prevails? Any one know the Education Code well enough?

I found it surprising that UT Austin as two 51% bars. (p 17):

4. The premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under designated chapters of the
Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51
percent or more of its income from the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.

RECOMMENDATION # 7:
Any premises on campus that meets the requirements
of TPC § 46.035(b)(1) must provide notice in
accordance with Texas Gov’t Code § 411.204.
Comment: This exclusion is found in TPC § 46.035(b)
(1). It applies at least to the Cactus Café in the Student
Union and to Gabriel’s Café in the AT&T Executive
Education and Conference Center. Section 46.035(k)
specifies that notice must be given in accordance with
Texas Gov’t Code § 411.204.

Doing a search of the TABC website, all licenses associated with "University of Texas" are BLUE, not RED. When I search of the names of the two locations (Cactus Café, Gabriel's Café), I get restaurants in other cities that are obviously not the ones at UT Austin (and are BLUE anyway). I suppose it is possible these two locations are licensed under another name entirely, like a contractor hired to run them -- anyone know?

'stang, thanks!

TXBO wrote:"Semi automatic handguns must be carried without a chambered round Of ammunition".

This is nuts. Does the law really allow the university regulate how a legally-possessed firearm is carried? I was thinking it was limited to "where."


This is interesting:

The report goes on to note how requiring gun owners to un-holster and store their guns "multiplies the danger of an accidental discharge" ...

Surprisingly UT Is ahead of the military on this one, at least in my experience.

I really couldn't read the rest of it because the Chron seems to have an autoplay add followed by a video report, and it just eats my old computer alive -- I can't stop it, and it gums up all the other processing. Does anyone have a link directly to the UT campus carry rules document?