TexasCHLforum.com

TrueFlog wrote:If a school declares an area off-limits that is not considered reasonable within legislative intent, what recourse is there? For example, if they declare all common areas with TV's off-limits, is there a way for the students to challenge that? How are the schools be held accountable for making "reasonable" decisions?

Nevermind: Birdwell just answered my question. Nothing can be done until the next time the legislature meets as which point they can decide to modify or clarify the law.

If a school declares an area off-limits that is not considered reasonable within legislative intent, what recourse is there? For example, if they declare all common areas with TV's off-limits, is there a way for the students to challenge that? How are the schools be held accountable for making "reasonable" decisions?

Van Taylor is up. He's my Senator and has always talked a good talk. I'm curious to see if he backs it up.

Ruark wrote:They're talking about HB 11, not SB 11.

Nope, this is SB 11 - Campus Carry.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In short:

Under SB11, Private colleges can ban carrying a handgun on their property and this is not limited to buildings. This is currently the law since private schools can use TPC §30.06. Under SB11, even private schools cannot have general policies to render all of its real estate off-limits. Therefore, this is slightly better for private schools.

Under SB11, Public colleges can create rules against carrying handguns on all of their property that apply to students, faculty and staff. This is currently the law. Under SB11, there will be a criminal offense only for carrying in a building or part of a building. There is no offense for carrying outside of a building. This too is the current law. As with private colleges, they cannot have a global policy of making all buildings off-limits.

Neither public nor private schools can ban guns in cars in the parking lot.

We are not worse off with SB11.

Chas.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware that storing a handgun in a car was already protected and will continue to be protected. I'm glad you're able to confirm that SB11 does not grant a school any expanded powers to ban concealed carry.

The bill uses a confusing mix of the terms "campus" and "premises" - http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/84ccrs/sb0011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding public colleges:
The president may establish rules regarding carry "on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus", and the school must post 30.06 "with respect to any portion of a premises" [411.2031 (d-1)] To me this says that the school can prohibit carry anywhere on campus (including in a private car in a parking lot) but only has to post 30.06 on premises (i.e. buildings).

Additionally, a license holder commits an offense if he carries on "a portion of a premises". [46.035 (a-3)] So while the school can prohibit carry anywhere on campus, it's only a crime if you carry into a posted building. For example, if you carry in a prohibited parking lot and get caught, you could be not be arrested but could still be expelled.

Personally, I don't see this as a step backwards. Under current law, a school can prohibit carry anywhere on campus and punish anyone who violates the prohibition (expulsion, etc.) SB11 would not change that. Under current law, it's a crime to carry into any building on any campus. Under SB11, it would be legal by default and would only be a crime if the school has declared the building off-limits and posted it accordingly.

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...

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

A groundswell of negative feedback from law enforcement between the day it was passed by the House (21-April) and the day it was received back from the Senate (25-May).

I believe Charles has indicated that the Dutton amendment was a surprise and was passed quickly without much consideration. The reps who voted for it then had no idea how upset it would make law enforcement. By the time it came back around in the form of the Huffines amendment, several days had passed - several days of bad PR by Stickland and opposition by a few vocal LEO's. That bad PR and opposition was enough to cause several reps to flip their votes. I don't agree with their decision - they represent the people, not law enforcement - but I do understand it.

Some people also think that they were trying to help Abbott and maybe even save the bill. Had the House concurred, Abbott would have been in a tough spot - veto the bill and anger the pro-gun crowd, or pass the bill and anger law enforcement. By not concurring, the House saved Abbott from having to make that choice. They also avoided the possibility that he might side with the LEO's and veto the bill, thus killing it altogether.

v7a wrote:Committee HB910 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.

I'm glad to see this formalized in the record. Some may argue that by removing the amendment, the legislative intent was to allow LEO to stop and ask for licenses. Having this in the official record refutes that argument and makes it clear that the legislature does not approve of such stops by LEO.