TexasCHLforum.com

GEM-Texas wrote: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.

The very reason for the existence of many private colleges is a desire by educators, students, and parents to have access to institutions of postsecondary education that are not beholden to the same regulations as state schools. If you want to teach at or attend a Christian school, you should be able to teach at or attend a private Christian school, and if you want to teach at or attend a gun-free school, you should be able to teach at or attend a private gun-free school. Gun ownership may be protected by the U.S. Constitution, but gun owners are not a protected class.

It's quite ironic (and telling) that many gun rights activists rant about how the government should stay out of people's business, until someone raises the issue of carrying firearms on private property. Then, in an abrupt about face, those same gun rights activists start citing other government restrictions on the rights of private property owners as justification for further government restrictions on the rights of private property owners. Such a discrepancy is almost enough to lead a casual observer to believe that those gun rights activists aren't as interested in preventing government interference as they are in being able to do whatever they please, whenever and wherever they please.

Before someone brings up the parking lot issue, I will preemptively point out that I view a person's automobile to be his or her personal embassy--his or her territory on foreign soil. If you allow the public to use your parking lot, you must accept both the cars and their contents. The same is not true of allowing individuals to enter your place of business. For instance, a shop owner should be able to say, "I'm sorry, but you can't bring that bull into my china shop."

GEM-Texas wrote: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.

Again, I haven't yet seen a draft of the legislation, but this is what we anticipate:

1. Will state schools have the right to post 30.06 signs?

No.

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

Private schools - Yes
State schools - No

Pinkycatcher wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote: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.

It would probably just take away the restriction from schools. Which means public schools would be forced, and private schools would have to provide notice (under 30.06/student or staff handbooks/lots of verbal notice)

I haven't yet seen a draft of Senator Wentworth's forthcoming legislation, but that is essentially what I expect to see. If this is a cause you support, I strongly suggest that you take a look at the "SCCC Handbook: Texas Edition" so that you'll be better prepared to defend your position to voters and legislators, and I suggest that you consider ordering professionally printed and bound copies for both your State Representative and you State Senator.