ELB wrote:I thought the rules promulgated by the President (as modified by the Regents) had the force of law once adopted?
Only if provided notice via 30.06:
TPC 46.035 wrote:(a-2) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) or Section 46.03(a), a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on the campus of a private or independent institution of higher education in this state that has established rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns pursuant to Section 411.2031(e), Government Code, or on the grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by such an institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of such an institution, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, provided the institution gives effective notice under Section 30.06.
The easiest method to ensure that there is no question of the location being off limits is the posting of a 30.06 sign at each off limits location.
Ah. Saying the notice must be given is a lot different than "it's not even illegal to bring your weapon into areas of campus restricted by policy." I'll will bet that every student and employee will sooner or later be required to sign a statement containing language that meets the statute. They'll post signs as well, but the lack of one will not legally assist anyone who has signed a statement, just non-students/employees.
Restricted by policy is different than restricted by signage.
I'm curious about private institutions. Won't they have to post a 30.06 on every building?
They have to give effective notice, if they don't want to have security, or someone else, stand by a notify everyone when the walk in then yes they will have to post. They can give effective notice to students and staff, through other communications, but for the general public, if there is no sign, then they may assume it is legal to carry.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
Not 5pm yet so it's still possible the decision will be issued today, but at this point it's more likely to happen on Monday.
The plaintiffs wanted the injunction in time for the start of classes on the 24th. So the closer to the 24th the decision is issued, the less time there will be for the losing party to appeal and get a response from the 5th Circuit before classes begin.
Looking at the judge's caseload on the court's public schedule, I doubt he'll find time to finalize and file the decision on Thursday (tomorrow) or Monday. So that leaves Friday and Tuesday. Of course, that's assuming he intends to issue his decision before classes start. Legally, the judge isn't under any requirement to issue his decision within any particular timeframe.
Well it is almost 3:00 on Friday, classes start Monday, and the Google is oddly lacking of any updates. Oh how our dearest professors must be sweating.
"I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could."
I hope the judge doesn't issue a decision prior to class starting - forcing those 3 professors to either teach their class and allow LTC concealed carry or boycotting their duties as employees of UTA.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
bblhd672 wrote:I hope the judge doesn't issue a decision prior to class starting - forcing those 3 professors to either teach their class and allow LTC concealed carry or boycotting their duties as employees of UTA.
OR option #3. resign....(close to #2, just sounds better!)
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
The court concludes at this stage in the proceedings that requiring public universities to
allow licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns is a basis for the Campus Carry Law that
bears a debatably rational relationship to the conceivable legitimate governmental end of
enabling individuals to defend themselves. See Reid, 979 F.2d at 1087. Further, the court
concludes that allowing private universities to prohibit concealed carry by licensed individuals
Case 1:16-cv-00845-LY Document 54 Filed 08/22/16 Page 9 of 11
bears a rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest of respecting the private property rights of private universities.
It appears to the court that neither the Texas Legislature nor the Board of Regents has
overstepped its legitimate power to determine where a licensed individual may carry a concealed
handgun in an academic setting. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a
substantial likelihood of success on their equal-protection claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs at this time have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of ultimate
success on the merits of their asserted claims, their request for immediate relief must fail. The
court therefore need not and does not reach the remaining requirements for granting a
preliminary injunction. Bluefleld, 577 F.3d at 253 ("[A] preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has 'clearly carried
the burden ofpersuasion' on all four requirements."). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction (Clerk's Doc.
No. 20) is DENIED.
SIGNED this of August, 2016
Good to know ;)