UT Campus Carry - Surprise!!

[PvilleStang]

You do have to take into account that most of the media in the area shaping this battle is left leaning, anti-gun. The Statesman seems to be pushing it more than anyone in the news, and their reporters seem very biased and ignorant to much of the laws they're writing about.

And in defense of the gun owners contributing to the report: I have a suspicion that they may be putting things in there they know won't pass muster, but will more than likely shut up the anti-gun nuts for the time being, all well knowing they'll be shot down by either lawyers or leg before Aug 1st.

Speaking of, how is legislature supposed to approve or deny campus policies if they aren't in session between now and when they enact the law August 1st of 2016?

[Vol Texan]

You do have to take into account that most of the media in the area shaping this battle is left leaning, anti-gun. The Statesman seems to be pushing it more than anyone in the news, and their reporters seem very biased and ignorant to much of the laws they're writing about.

And in defense of the gun owners contributing to the report: I have a suspicion that they may be putting things in there they know won't pass muster, but will more than likely shut up the anti-gun nuts for the time being, all well knowing they'll be shot down by either lawyers or leg before Aug 1st.

Speaking of, how is legislature supposed to approve or deny campus policies if they aren't in session between now and when they enact the law August 1st of 2016?

I don't think it is the legislature who is tasked to approve. It is the board of regents who does so.

[RHenriksen]

You do have to take into account that most of the media in the area shaping this battle is left leaning, anti-gun. The Statesman seems to be pushing it more than anyone in the news, and their reporters seem very biased and ignorant to much of the laws they're writing about.

And in defense of the gun owners contributing to the report: I have a suspicion that they may be putting things in there they know won't pass muster, but will more than likely shut up the anti-gun nuts for the time being, all well knowing they'll be shot down by either lawyers or leg before Aug 1st.

Speaking of, how is legislature supposed to approve or deny campus policies if they aren't in session between now and when they enact the law August 1st of 2016?

I don't think it is the legislature who is tasked to approve. It is the board of regents who does so.

Correct. The legislature will receive the university policies and review them every two years. If it looks like the universities are exceeding reasonable levels of restrictions on carry, then the legislature has the open to pass a bill to further restrict (or eliminate?) the regents' discretion.

[Bladed]

From the SCC Facebook page:

[ErnieP]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision. In an active shooter situation, the Racking Sound will draw fire and result in many more deaths than accidental discharges would ever produce.

[casp625]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision. In an active shooter situation, the Racking Sound will draw fire and result in many more deaths than accidental discharges would ever produce.

I wonder if they will have their police department checking to make sure you don't have a round chambered

[TXBO]

These kids from Students for Concealed Carry articulate themselves very well.

[Pawpaw]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

[Breny414]

Wondering if they received guidance from the AG about the round in the chamber issue. Also, it runs counter to their logic regarding how excessive manipulation of the firearm could cause an accidental discharge, thus they will allow cc in classrooms without asking folks to disarm and put their ha guns in gun lockers. seems to me that having to unchamber a handgun fits the same argument. And where do you unchamber a round while out and about?

[Bladed]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

[Bladed]

Wondering if they received guidance from the AG about the round in the chamber issue. Also, it runs counter to their logic regarding how excessive manipulation of the firearm could cause an accidental discharge, thus they will allow cc in classrooms without asking folks to disarm and put their ha guns in gun lockers. seems to me that having to unchamber a handgun fits the same argument. And where do you unchamber a round while out and about?

Charles can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe that all AG opinions are made publicly, so I think we would have heard if they'd sought and received an opinion.

I'd be interested to see an opinion on this. The question is whether or not such a policy is "reasonable."

[Pawpaw]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.

As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."

[Dad24GreatKids]

Hopefully someone will be able to change the no One in Pipe provision.

There's no need to change it. They have overstepped their authority, so it is an invalid requirement. They are allowed to determine where carry is not appropriate and nothing more.

This overstepping of authority is just the kind of thing that may tick off the legislators next session and drive them to take the decision completely out of the universities' hands.

Some of you seem to be confusing the school's authority to enforce a policy through criminal law and the school's authority to enforce a policy through administrative discipline. Nobody (including UT) is claiming they have the authority to make it illegal for a license holder to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber. What they're claiming is that they have the authority to make it an expellable or fireable offense for a student, faculty member, or staff member to carry a pistol with a round in the chamber.

Whether they do or not is a question for the courts, but if you were a student at or an employee of the University of Texas, would you want to be out of school or out of a job for several years while the case works its way through the court system?

The point is that they have made a rule that the legislature neither asked for nor authorized. That will not make them happy.

As for being expelled or fired, how are they going to know you have a weapon, much less whether you have a round chambered? If they somehow find out I have a weapon and ask if I have a round chambered, the answer is, "That would be against the rules," If they want to verify, the answer is, "No. The law says I must keep my weapon concealed on campus."

I understand your point, but if it is a LEO who is asking your logic might not hold true. If campus police are involved they can always disarm you and check. Then the administration could try to enforce their rules.

My hope is that this will either be resolved by the board or a lawsuit will be filed.

[ScottDLS]

What of they say you can only carry a .22 derringer unloaded? They can make it an expellable offense to carry anything else. Will that fly with the legislature/courts?

[ELB]

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.