UT profs can make "gun free" zones out of offices

[Scott Farkus]

I am not an expert on the law here, but are there no guidelines on what areas can be declared off limits and also on who is authorized to make this determination? It seems that this decision may be counter to the actual law.

At a minimum, this is more evidence that the folks running our universities cannot be trusted with discretion in determining areas that meet the legal requirements for exclusion of LTC holders. Much as with government owned property, I think we need to take this discretion away and just eliminate the ability to restrict carry on any publicly owned land or premises.

This. I don't recall the exact words but the law said something to the effect that any restrictions could not have the effect of prohibiting carry generally. The debate surrounding the bill as it went through the Legislature mainly contemplated discretion for things like labs with volatile chemicals or machines that couldn't operate in the presence of metal (like MRI machines). I can't imagine arbitrary postings of offices for no reason other than the officeholder said so wouldn't violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

They do have to furnish a report to the Legislature justifying these areas they allow to be posted, so hopefully this nonsense will be knocked down pretty quickly.

[Jusme]

I am not an expert on the law here, but are there no guidelines on what areas can be declared off limits and also on who is authorized to make this determination? It seems that this decision may be counter to the actual law.

At a minimum, this is more evidence that the folks running our universities cannot be trusted with discretion in determining areas that meet the legal requirements for exclusion of LTC holders. Much as with government owned property, I think we need to take this discretion away and just eliminate the ability to restrict carry on any publicly owned land or premises.

I think that the legislators intentionally left out exact wording as to what each University can determine to be "prohibited" areas, some because of special circumstances to the individual campuses, and some so that the issue can be revisited in the next session. This is a new law, and with all new laws there will be "growing pains". The Regents, Administrators et al, have been pretty much able to write their own rule books for years on public university campuses, and they don't like being told they no longer are fully in charge. They don't see themselves as subject to legislative rules, and will continue to push the limits as much as they can until they are forced to change. Some have done an exemplary job in trying to comply with the law, TAMU, and Texas Tech for example, but UT and it affiliates are the ones pushing back. There will have to be more precise wording included in the law during the next session, and when LTC carriers on campus prove all of the fears and predictions wrong, a lot of universities will implement some of their own changes. JMHO

[RogueUSMC]

Well, at least the deranged student will know the professors offices are prime gun-free killing zones.

maybe the loonies will do it there instead of a classroom full of people...

[Scott Farkus]

This. There's no way it would've passed (it probably would've been chubbed to death on the house floor) had it been more specific or been more restrictive in terms of university determination. This got the law on the books. It's much harder to get a law on the books than it is to incrementally modify it to what you initially wanted. Once it's on the books it's very hard to take off.

Exactly. It was mushed up a bit to get the law on the books, and Birdwell was clear in his comments that they would be looking closely at what was prohibited and why, and would revisit the law in future sessions if necessary.

If they let UT allow its faculty and staff to post their own offices, I imagine the faculty and staff at every other institution will demand the same option and the law would essentially be invalidated. Therefore, I can't imagine the Legislature is going to let this stand.

[Jusme]

I am not an expert on the law here, but are there no guidelines on what areas can be declared off limits and also on who is authorized to make this determination? It seems that this decision may be counter to the actual law.

At a minimum, this is more evidence that the folks running our universities cannot be trusted with discretion in determining areas that meet the legal requirements for exclusion of LTC holders. Much as with government owned property, I think we need to take this discretion away and just eliminate the ability to restrict carry on any publicly owned land or premises.

I think that the legislators intentionally left out exact wording as to what each University can determine to be "prohibited" areas, some because of special circumstances to the individual campuses, and some so that the issue can be revisited in the next session. This is a new law, and with all new laws there will be "growing pains". The Regents, Administrators et al, have been pretty much able to write their own rule books for years on public university campuses, and they don't like being told they no longer are fully in charge. They don't see themselves as subject to legislative rules, and will continue to push the limits as much as they can until they are forced to change. Some have done an exemplary job in trying to comply with the law, TAMU, and Texas Tech for example, but UT and it affiliates are the ones pushing back. There will have to be more precise wording included in the law during the next session, and when LTC carriers on campus prove all of the fears and predictions wrong, a lot of universities will implement some of their own changes. JMHO

This. There's no way it would've passed (it probably would've been chubbed to death on the house floor) had it been more specific or been more restrictive in terms of university determination. This got the law on the books. It's much harder to get a law on the books than it is to incrementally modify it to what you initially wanted. Once it's on the books it's very hard to take off.

I actually had a great conversation with Senator Brian Birdwell regarding the Campus Carry bill, and he said that they wanted the Universities to be able to limit areas that were specific, and unique to their campus, while still maintaining the intent of the law. When I spoke with him, he had only read some of the preliminary proposals from a couple of Universities, and that he and others were going to compile lists, of things that he felt may need to be addressed, and possibly changed if necessary, but that the main thrust was to get the bill passed and then "tweak" it later.

[C-dub]

"Sorry professor. I need to speak with you, but I have to stand here in the hall and talk to you from just outside your doorway."

I think it would be great if a bunch of students that support campus carry would do that whether they are armed or not or even old enough to have an LTC.

[tommyg]

Maybe the savants (people that are retarded mentally but are brilliant in a few very narrow areas) need
to attend gun range

[JMod45]

I have been paying attention to A&M more than UTA, and the differences in rules are surprising to me. I was told during an introduction to campus carry presentation, put out by the University Police Dept, that A&M originally had the rule worded very similar to UT, but changed it. A member from the Campus Carry Task Force said

"It didn't pass legal review, the attorney general said 'that won't work, it's in violation of the law"

So how is it UT is able to get wording that A&M was told is in violation of the law?

From the UT website https://campuscarry.utexas.edu/info-sheets
Depending on which page you click on"

"Faculty members who are solely assigned to an office are permitted to prohibit the concealed carry of a handgun in that office. If faculty members choose to exercise this discretion, they must provide oral notice that the concealed carry of a handgun is prohibited in their offices. Oral notice is the only legally effective way to provide notice about the prohibition. Please note: The syllabus is not the medium by which students should be informed of this sort of prohibition"

"University employees who are solely assigned to an office are permitted to prohibit the concealed carry of a handgun in that office. If an employee chooses to exercise this discretion, he or she must provide oral notice that the concealed carry of a handgun is prohibited in the office. Oral notice is the only legally effective way to provide notice about the prohibition"

From the A&M website http://www.tamus.edu/campus-carry-rules/
More specifically http://assets.system.tamus.edu/files/co ... 042716.pdf

"Assigned employee offices for which the employee has demonstrated that the carrying of a concealed handgun by a license holder in the office presents a significant risk of substantial harm due to a negligent discharge of the handgun, and the president/CEO has approved the employee’s request that the office be designated as an area where licensed concealed carry of a handgun is not permitted"

I also find it interesting that UT says "Oral notice is the only legally effective way to provide notice about the prohibition"
At A&M I have been told that if your office is approved, you will have to hang a 30.06 sign.

[Scott Farkus]

They're trying to avoid a 30.06 sign for some reason. Surely they're not worried about advertising the office as a gun free zone.

But they also seem not to want to professors to use the syllabus, presumably because the wording on written notice must be identical to 30.06. Again, they seem to be avoiding the promulgated words for some reason.

I'm not sure how oral notice is going to work. Maybe they expect the professor to just announce it on day one, and that's expected to cover all students in the class at the time for the remainder of the semester? What if someone else comes into the office - is the professor supposed to announce "I don't allow guns in this office" every time a non-student enters?

Unless there is a quirk in the campus carry law that I am not aware of, this stuff about "oral notice is the only legally effective notice" seems patently untrue.

I hope Birdwell comes down hard on this nonsense. This is exactly the kind of stuff he told them not to do.

[seph]

For some reason, they don't want it in writing. Professor's word against the student's word.

[SHogun62]

UT-Austin President Greg Fenves had previously argued that a "chambered-round" provision, which would have prohibited people carrying on campus from keeping a bullet in their gun chambers, was needed to prevent guns from accidentally firing off.

Has he talked to his boss? You know.....McRaven, the former navy SEAL? If HE affirms that possibility, then we know the fix is in.

Despite his record in the military, McRaven has already made it clear he opposed the new law in it's entirety. What I find most ironic is that virtually all of the people who would be carrying concealed are members of the ever increasing veteran population(myself included). You'd think that being a veteran himself, he'd be all for the majority of CHL carriers on campus being individuals with extensive firearms training.

[The Annoyed Man]

UT-Austin President Greg Fenves had previously argued that a "chambered-round" provision, which would have prohibited people carrying on campus from keeping a bullet in their gun chambers, was needed to prevent guns from accidentally firing off.

Has he talked to his boss? You know.....McRaven, the former navy SEAL? If HE affirms that possibility, then we know the fix is in.

Despite his record in the military, McRaven has already made it clear he opposed the new law in it's entirety. What I find most ironic is that virtually all of the people who would be carrying concealed are members of the ever increasing veteran population(myself included). You'd think that being a veteran himself, he'd be all for the majority of CHL carriers on campus being individuals with extensive firearms training.

Yah........ maybe I should have highlighted the reason for my original comment. I get it that McRaven is NOT a supporter of the RKBA, and I knew that before my original post. But my point was to the technical issue of whether or not a gun would just "fire off" all by its onesies, without something or someone to initiate the trigger. Surely he knows enough about firearms to know that they will not.

[SHogun62]

UT-Austin President Greg Fenves had previously argued that a "chambered-round" provision, which would have prohibited people carrying on campus from keeping a bullet in their gun chambers, was needed to prevent guns from accidentally firing off.

Has he talked to his boss? You know.....McRaven, the former navy SEAL? If HE affirms that possibility, then we know the fix is in.

Despite his record in the military, McRaven has already made it clear he opposed the new law in it's entirety. What I find most ironic is that virtually all of the people who would be carrying concealed are members of the ever increasing veteran population(myself included). You'd think that being a veteran himself, he'd be all for the majority of CHL carriers on campus being individuals with extensive firearms training.

Yah........ maybe I should have highlighted the reason for my original comment. I get it that McRaven is NOT a supporter of the RKBA, and I knew that before my original post. But my point was to the technical issue of whether or not a gun would just "fire off" all by its onesies, without something or someone to initiate the trigger. Surely he knows enough about firearms to know that they will not.

Ahh, my mistake, gotcha. To that I would say that even here in UTD, we have quite a few instructors that, despite their years of higher education, still seem to think a firearm will just up and empty itself without the carrier doing anything but transporting it.

[mr1337]

UT-Austin President Greg Fenves had previously argued that a "chambered-round" provision, which would have prohibited people carrying on campus from keeping a bullet in their gun chambers, was needed to prevent guns from accidentally firing off.

Has he talked to his boss? You know.....McRaven, the former navy SEAL? If HE affirms that possibility, then we know the fix is in.

Despite his record in the military, McRaven has already made it clear he opposed the new law in it's entirety. What I find most ironic is that virtually all of the people who would be carrying concealed are members of the ever increasing veteran population(myself included). You'd think that being a veteran himself, he'd be all for the majority of CHL carriers on campus being individuals with extensive firearms training.

Yah........ maybe I should have highlighted the reason for my original comment. I get it that McRaven is NOT a supporter of the RKBA, and I knew that before my original post. But my point was to the technical issue of whether or not a gun would just "fire off" all by its onesies, without something or someone to initiate the trigger. Surely he knows enough about firearms to know that they will not.

Ahh, my mistake, gotcha. To that I would say that even here in UTD, we have quite a few instructors that, despite their years of higher education, still seem to think a firearm will just up and empty itself without the carrier doing anything but transporting it.

Most educators are not capable of rational thinking when it comes to firearms.