TexasCHLforum.com

This is a lousy bill. It allows public universities to opt out of allowing campus carry. Guess how many will opt out? Why even bother passing the dern thing?

This is the text of the original bill.

Small steps... Do they have to post 30.06?

Small steps is how the Gun control camp has been slowly taking our rights away.

Smily wrote:Small steps... Do they have to post 30.06?

Small steps is how the Gun control camp has been slowly taking our rights away.

Unless it requires 30.06, then this is a no-step, as universities are already allowed discretion of whether or not they allow carry.

baldeagle wrote:This is a lousy bill. It allows public universities to opt out of allowing campus carry. Guess how many will opt out? Why even bother passing the dern thing?

This is the text of the original bill.

Where does it say that public universities can opt out? To the contrary, it says they can't. Unless the substitute says that.

CJD wrote:

baldeagle wrote:This is a lousy bill. It allows public universities to opt out of allowing campus carry. Guess how many will opt out? Why even bother passing the dern thing?

This is the text of the original bill.

Where does it say that public universities can opt out? To the contrary, it says they can't. Unless the substitute says that.

The substitute says that. And yes, they have to post 30.06, but trust me, they will. They'll have no problem posting them on every building. It's all about the children, don't you know.

Then I agree, effort should be wasted elsewhere.

If state facilities can't ban CC, then why can state schools?

I suspect this was done in order to get the bill out of committee. If it actually makes it to the House floor, amendments can be added that change the language.

baldeagle wrote:This is a lousy bill. It allows public universities to opt out of allowing campus carry. Guess how many will opt out? Why even bother passing the dern thing?

This is the text of the original bill.

Where can I find text to the substitute to HB 972? Because HB 972 states "(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 premises that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution and located on the campus of the institution."

So the way I read it, public higher education institutions would not be able to stop licensed CHL's from carrying on campus.

The myFoxAustin article stated the following:

The measure has been opposed by state universities and gives schools a chance to opt out of the campus-carry provision if they first consult with students, faculty and staff. For campuses that still ban weapons, the bill reduces the penalty for a violation from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Read more: http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/219466 ... z2QDDHjhId" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I assume that is what was changed in the substitute.

hammer58 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:This is a lousy bill. It allows public universities to opt out of allowing campus carry. Guess how many will opt out? Why even bother passing the dern thing?

This is the text of the original bill.

Where can I find text to the substitute to HB 972? Because HB 972 states "(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 premises that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution and located on the campus of the institution."

So the way I read it, public higher education institutions would not be able to stop licensed CHL's from carrying on campus.

I listened to the committee hearing today. The committee substitute changes the language to allow public schools to opt out and private schools to opt in.

So the house bill goes on to the calendar committee, hopefully they will schedule it soon enough so that it gets to the floor. Need to contact those committee members.

Calendar Committee
Rep. Todd Hunter
Rep. Eddie Lucio III
Rep. Roberto R. Alonzo
Rep. Carol Alvarado
Rep. Dan Branch
Rep. Angie Chen Button
Rep. Byron Cook
Rep. Myra Crownover
Rep. Sarah Davis
Rep. Craig Eiland
Rep. John Frullo
Rep. Charlie Geren
Rep. Helen Giddings
Rep. John Kuempel
Rep. Doug Miller

That being said it looks like the Senate version SB 182 is stalled in the Criminal Justice committee. We need to contact the members below and tell them to pass this bill through.

Criminal Justice Committee
Sen. John Whitmire
Sen. Joan Huffman
Sen. John Carona
Sen. Juan Hinojosa
Sen. Dan Patrick
Sen. José R. Rodríguez
Sen. Charles Schwertner

I work on a college campus in Houston and the police chief has already said they want to opt out. It makes absolutely no sense to me, especially with everything that has been happening. My gun is literally 40 feet away in my car, but i cannot carry inside my building.

willfullyconcerned wrote:I work on a college campus in Houston and the police chief has already said they want to opt out. It makes absolutely no sense to me, especially with everything that has been happening. My gun is literally 40 feet away in my car, but i cannot carry inside my building.

Don't get caught with it in your car...they might not be able to get you in trouble for breaking the law, but they can "discipline" you for violating policy. Be careful.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

willfullyconcerned wrote:I work on a college campus in Houston and the police chief has already said they want to opt out. It makes absolutely no sense to me, especially with everything that has been happening. My gun is literally 40 feet away in my car, but i cannot carry inside my building.

Don't get caught with it in your car...they might not be able to get you in trouble for breaking the law, but they can "discipline" you for violating policy. Be careful.

I don't believe that's correct. Texas Labor Code, Chapter 52, Subchapter G, Section 52.061 states that an ""employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun (3) . . . who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, . . . from transporting or storing a firearm . . . in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees." This clearly prohibits the employer from adopting an employee policy that bans firearms from the parking lot.

The Attorney General responded to a request from Senator Deuell for clarification of the meaning of the law. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op ... ga0972.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; They can't do it through 30.06 either.

For these reasons, we conclude that the exception set out in subsection 52.062(a)(1) does not include a notice posted under the authority of section 30.06. Accordingly, under section 52.061 of the Labor Code, an employer may not ban the transport and storage of firearms in locked private vehicles by employees with concealed handgun licenses in employee parking areas by posting notice under section 30.06 of the Penal Code.

If the employer takes action (such as discipline or termination) the employee would have a civil cause of action.

Your third question asks about the legal options available to employees whose employers violate section 52.061. See Request Letter at 2. Neither section 52.061 nor any other statute of which we are aware provides a specific remedy for employees. Despite the lack of a statutory remedy, an aggrieved employee may, depending on the circumstances, have the ability to sue an offending employer under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, which provides a mechanism for district courts to determine the parties' legal rights and obligations under a statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 37.001-.011 (West 2008). You also ask whether the Attorney General's Office or another state agency may seek corrective action against an employer who violates section 52.061. See Request Letter at 2. The Legislature has not authorized this office or any other state agency to take such action.

So rather than the employee worrying about violating policy, the employer should be worried about violating the law. I'm pretty sure a lawyer would take such a case on contingency since winning would be almost certain.