Pushing the envelope on Campus Carry?

[TexasJohnBoy]

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/a ... 591939.php

Seems like there is an effort, at least by some, to try and push the envelope on the intention of this law. (This is not news to anyone here, I am sure) Personally, I think this section sums it up:

The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.

But there are others who think along these lines:
"More and more campus and system leaders now agree the law is written vaguely enough to give presidents the ability to ban guns in classrooms or dormitories."

I will say that currently I do not feel like this is the case on my campus, it seems so far that they (the campus carry task force) are going to attempt to write a policy that upholds the spirit of the law. It's been said in most, if not all, of the town hall meetings that I have gone to that banning all classrooms or all offices would nullify the law, and therefore is off the table. I sincerely hope that my feelings on that matter are not incorrect.

TJB

[Charles L. Cotton]

Claiming that Trey Martinez Fischer "helped to craft the final version of the campus carry" bill is like saying Neville Chamberlain helped to draft Britian's defense stragety in WWII. Yes, Fischer was on the conference committee, but only because he opposed campus-carry. Conference committees always have at least one opposition member, just to make things look even-handed. The Speaker and Lt. Gov. pick the bill author, and at least two others. One will be an opponent and the third choice will determine the fate of the bill.

I also have a big problem with Fischer stating that, in the event a college board of regents overrules the President's gun rules, that it goes back to the president for new rules. That's complete garbage and Fischer knows it. The board of regents can amend or revoke any and all rules and their vote ends the matter.

Chas.

[TexasJohnBoy]

I agree on all counts Charles. The way I understand it, if the Regents override a portion or all of a policy, they are the final say so on what will be enacted. I'm worried that this is a group of people picking a fight that will drag on for some time. I plan on writing my reps this evening urging them to support any efforts in 2017 to tighten restrictions on what types of policies can be put in place, as well as any attempts to clarify the intent of the law.

I think everyone who can read should be able to understand the legislative intent of the law as written, as well as the spirit of the law, and to have a representative saying the opposite, and casting confusion into the subject, is quite unnerving to me.
TJB

[mojo84]

Claiming that Trey Martinez Fischer "helped to craft the final version of the campus carry" bill is like saying Neville Chamberlain helped to draft Britian's defense stragety in WWII. Yes, Fischer was on the conference committee, but only because he opposed campus-carry. Conference committees always have at least one opposition member, just to make things look even-handed. The Speak and Lt. Gov. pick the bill author, and at least two others. One will be an opponent and the third choice will determine the fate of the bill.

I also have a big problem with Fischer stating that, in the event a college board of regents overrules the President's gun rules, that it goes back to the president for new rules. That's complete garbage and Fischer knows it. The board of regents can amend or revoke any and all rules and their vote ends the matter.

Chas.

For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

[jb2012]

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/a ... 591939.php

Seems like there is an effort, at least by some, to try and push the envelope on the intention of this law. (This is not news to anyone here, I am sure) Personally, I think this section sums it up:

The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution.

But there are others who think along these lines:
"More and more campus and system leaders now agree the law is written vaguely enough to give presidents the ability to ban guns in classrooms or dormitories."

I will say that currently I do not feel like this is the case on my campus, it seems so far that they (the campus carry task force) are going to attempt to write a policy that upholds the spirit of the law. It's been said in most, if not all, of the town hall meetings that I have gone to that banning all classrooms or all offices would nullify the law, and therefore is off the table. I sincerely hope that my feelings on that matter are not incorrect.

TJB

I've been active on a few threads about this subject lately, and it sure seems like there will be a few lawsuits here in the future. I have been busy lately with midterms and haven't been able to find much on this subject. There was an update released on 9/24 with a good description of the law, and I was impressed with the fact that they actually listed some real facts regarding the law (http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releas ... 92415.html). However I can't find much more information. Our severely liberal newspaper released an article yesterday; mainly about a woman b******* about how the only reason campus carry passed was lack of left wing involvement. I tried to get in touch with students for concealed carry about starting a chapter here but got zero response. Hopefully once August rolls around, at least a few schools won't have major law-breaking restrictions and others will see that we can behave ourselves at school, the way we behave ourselves outside of school (regarding chl carriers obviously) and that it will not be this huge shootout that the left envisions. I mean since 1996 we have made up less than .25% of all crime, that's some pretty hard evidence that we behave ourselves. May I ask what school system you are associated with?

[ELB]

...
For the most part and as far as I can tell, most boards of regents are yes men and pretty much ratify whatever the chancellor and president propose. If they step out of line, they get the Wallace Hall treatment. Wallace was on to uncovering some serious scandal and wrongdoing.

Yup.

[cb1000rider]

My understanding - somewhat subjective - is that most colleges don't want campus carry. At all. Certainly the majority of college professors don't want to deal with hostile students that are now possibly armed.

This fear is being balanced with another fear that if universities don't implement "reasonable" campus carry policies that the legislature is going to take that as a sign of failure and not give them an option to self-regulate in some future legislative session.

It'll be interesting to see how it balances out.

[MeMelYup]

My understanding - somewhat subjective - is that most colleges don't want campus carry. At all. Certainly the majority of college professors don't want to deal with hostile students that are now possibly armed.

This fear is being balanced with another fear that if universities don't implement "reasonable" campus carry policies that the legislature is going to take that as a sign of failure and not give them an option to self-regulate in some future legislative session.

It'll be interesting to see how it balances out.

I must disagree with your one statement. "Certainly the majority of college professors don't want to deal with hostile students that are now possibly armed."
I think the professors are afraid they may have to deal with an irate student that would act as the professor would perceive him/herself acting in the same situation. I don't see 99.9% of licensed firearm carrying students being so upset that blood will flow over a grade. I don't see even the threats happening.

[The Annoyed Man]

My understanding - somewhat subjective - is that most colleges don't want campus carry. At all. Certainly the majority of college professors don't want to deal with hostile students that are now possibly armed.

This fear is being balanced with another fear that if universities don't implement "reasonable" campus carry policies that the legislature is going to take that as a sign of failure and not give them an option to self-regulate in some future legislative session.

It'll be interesting to see how it balances out.

OR.... the legislature might simply slap the colleges down by firming up the language of the law to leave no doubt about what they can and cannot do. Their claim that the language leaves room for making campuses gun free is purely wishful thinking, and it will not survive a courtroom, but there is no doubt that they strategy is the same as Scientology's - to bleed the opposition dry through litigation costs.

[TexasCajun]

At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said in other threads regarding this topic. Public universities have had the option to allow in-building campus carry from the start. Not a single one has done so and will not do so until the new law goes into effect. The language of the bill gives the presidents and boards of regents some latitude - which they'll use to create a general carry prohibition with a few exceptions instead of vice versa as the law's author and sponsors intended. Although the bill's legislative supporters are publicly being optimistic, I have a feeling that they're preparing for round 2. This ain't over by a long shot, and I hope our legislature has the resolve to fix these issues once they have the data to back it up.

[TVegas]

At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I've said in other threads regarding this topic. Public universities have had the option to allow in-building campus carry from the start. Not a single one has done so and will not do so until the new law goes into effect. The language of the bill gives the presidents and boards of regents some latitude - which they'll use to create a general carry prohibition with a few exceptions instead of vice versa as the law's author and sponsors intended. Although the bill's legislative supporters are publicly being optimistic, I have a feeling that they're preparing for round 2. This ain't over by a long shot, and I hope our legislature has the resolve to fix these issues once they have the data to back it up.

I'm sure some colleges will fight back with attempts at general prohibitions, but I expect that most colleges will just accept it and post 30.06 signs where they reasonably think that they can. Most of the state college systems have lawyers that will probably make it clear that they can try a general prohibition, but it will just get them sued and eventually required to remove the signs.

I could be wrong, but I don't expect many colleges to put up too much of a fight.

[TexasCajun]

I hope I'm wrong. But the track record is that the universities won't make allowances on their own. To date, they've only done so when made to.

[jb2012]

I hope I'm wrong. But the track record is that the universities won't make allowances on their own. To date, they've only done so when made to.

I agree, as well as the fact that the general population of academia tends to fall on the liberal side.

[TVegas]

I bet buildings like student unions will be the epicenter of the debate once campus carry is in effect. Student unions aren't class buildings, they don't tend to have dorms attached to them, and they almost certainly don't have places like bio-containment labs in them. However, they are usually the most trafficked and highly populated public buildings on campuses. I can already hear the emotional arguments about how guns should be banned from a place where students are socializing and campus visitors are constantly roaming.

[b322da]

Most of the state college systems have lawyers that will probably make it clear that they can try a general prohibition, but it will just get them sued and eventually required to remove the signs.

I could be wrong, but I don't expect many colleges to put up too much of a fight.

Jim