Update: Support HB972 - debate tomorrow (5/14)

[J.R.@A&M]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/camp ... ate/nXkkn/

The opposition ( https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense?fref=ts ) is urging their folks to call Whitmire. Sounds like a good idea to me, too.

[GEM-Texas]

“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “

IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.

Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.

I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.

I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.

[terryg]

“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “

IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.

Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.

I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.

I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.

It is not meaningless in that it is no-longer a felony if licensed student or employee chooses to carry despite a school's administrative policies. This puts University employees on the same playing field as nearly all other employees in the state of Texas. It becomes a personal choice whether to risk termination (or in cases of posted 30.06, misdemeanor charges) if discovered carrying.

[CJD]

“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “

IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.

Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.

I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.

I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.

This bill decriminalized carry on public campuses! HUGE step!

[Bladed]

“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “

IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.

Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.

I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.

I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.

It is not meaningless in that it is no-longer a felony if licensed student or employee chooses to carry despite a school's administrative policies. This puts University employees on the same playing field as nearly all other employees in the state of Texas. It becomes a personal choice whether to risk termination (or in cases of posted 30.06, misdemeanor charges) if discovered carrying.

Bear in mind that under HB 972, as passed by the House, public colleges would not be able to give 30.06 notice, so there could be no charges for carrying on a public college campus unless you carried at a sporting event, bar, or primary/secondary school. This would be a huge step in the right direction.

[J.R.@A&M]

Over the past couple of sessions, there have been recurring arguments that go something like this:

Pro-Campus Carry: "What are you campus carry opponents so riled up about? We've been carrying for years in the nearby movie theaters and grocery stores and you didn't care then."

Campus Carry Opponent: "No, campus buildings are special/sacred/etc. No guns on campus."

Pro-Campus Carry: "There have been guns on campus for a long time... It is legal for CHLs to carry on the sidewalks and school grounds. The line between the legal/unrestricted area and the campus building is arbitrary."

Campus Carry Opponent: "Campus buildings are special/sacred/etc. No guns on campus."

If HB 290 passes, it would be possible for non-staff, non-student CHL folks to legally carry in public university buildings, WITH NO RESTRICTION. Given that, I would carry at Texas Tech the next time I visit there, just to say that I did, and to establish a precedent to extend the above conversation:

Pro-Campus Carry: "There have been guns on campus for a long time... and now also in campus buildings since the 2013 session, and nothing bad happened. The line between the outside grounds and the campus building WAS arbitrary and meaningless after all."

[jmra]

If HB 290 passes, it would be possible for non-staff, non-student CHL folks to legally carry in public university buildings, WITH NO RESTRICTION.

HB 290
Relating to school district selection of assessment instruments in place of state-administered assessment instruments.

[J.R.@A&M]

If HB 290 passes, it would be possible for non-staff, non-student CHL folks to legally carry in public university buildings, WITH NO RESTRICTION.

HB 290
Relating to school district selection of assessment instruments in place of state-administered assessment instruments.

My bad. 290 is a Highway that I drive frequently. HB 972.

[GEM-Texas]

I'm sorry but if for faculty and staff - you can be terminated for carry, it effectively negates legal carry. If you were fired for such as a faculty member, you could kiss getting another academic job good-bye.

A life-long career is ruined. That's a mighty effective sanction. With or without signs makes little difference for the faculty/staff member.

It's nice that visitors might be able to carry. But that isn't not a giant breakthrough for the people who spend most time on campus. The visitor doesn't have to go to campus. Fac/staff do.


Will it lead to change later - that's an interesting question. As I said before, the reasonable restriction of letting anitgun administrators make that restriction will probably take away the impetus for further legislative action.

[Jaguar]

I'm sorry but if for faculty and staff - you can be terminated for carry, it effectively negates legal carry. If you were fired for such as a faculty member, you could kiss getting another academic job good-bye.

A life-long career is ruined. That's a mighty effective sanction. With or without signs makes little difference for the faculty/staff member.

It's nice that visitors might be able to carry. But that isn't not a giant breakthrough for the people who spend most time on campus. The visitor doesn't have to go to campus. Fac/staff do.


Will it lead to change later - that's an interesting question. As I said before, the reasonable restriction of letting anitgun administrators make that restriction will probably take away the impetus for further legislative action.

Again, welcome to the same boat the majority of employees in the state of Texas are in. If I were to carry at my work and it was found out, I would be fired and my life-long career ruined, no one in industry would touch me for being fired for violation of company policies.

Yet, if you came to the plant where I work and gained permission to enter, and walked in carrying two 1911’s and a 3AT backup you would be just fine. If someone saw your weapon(s), at worst they could ask you to leave, at best it would be me and I’d start a conversation about how the heck you carry so much steel around.

Contrast that with if I went to visit a university building carrying and was found out… instant third degree felony.

I am not saying the bill is perfect but it would go a long way to the target. If a university in Texas allowed faculty, staff and students to carry, I - along with a bunch of people here - would consider that school above the anti-gun schools. I bet a bunch of pro-2A educators would look to move there as well.

[terryg]

Testimony tomorrow?

According to our opposition there will be:
https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.facebook.com/gunfreeschools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you haven't yet, please call senators now:

Members of Senate Committee on Criminal Justice:

Chair: John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
Vice-Chair: Joan Huffman (512) 463-0117

John Carona (512) 463-0116
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Dan Patrick (512) 463-0107
José Rodríguez (512) 463-0129
Charles Schwertner (512) 463-0105

[terryg]

Bump ... please call these senators ...

[RHenriksen]

Called all of them this afternoon!

[2firfun50]

baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.

Per Rep. Fletcher's description of the amended bill at third reading, nothing in the bill (as passed by the House) would allow a public college or university to post 30.06 on campus buildings. The relevant language is in the amended Penal Code. The amended Government Code has no bearing on a public college's ability to post 30.06, only on a public college's ability to create administrative policies (which do not have force of criminal law). Nothing in the amended Penal Code would exempt a public college from the "governmental entity" restriction created by PC 30.06(e).

Folks let us not forget about HB508. "Government entities" do indeed improperly post 30.06 signs. Without HB508, which may be dead, government entities, including public universities may indeed post whatever they like without fear of punishment and the uninformed won't know any better. Just because the informed know the signs are invalid, doesn't mean the general public, or even campus LEO's, know.

In my humble opionion, we must have both HB972 (its a start) and HB508. If we don't, we'll have a tread about universities improperly posting 30.06.

[CJD]

baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.

Per Rep. Fletcher's description of the amended bill at third reading, nothing in the bill (as passed by the House) would allow a public college or university to post 30.06 on campus buildings. The relevant language is in the amended Penal Code. The amended Government Code has no bearing on a public college's ability to post 30.06, only on a public college's ability to create administrative policies (which do not have force of criminal law). Nothing in the amended Penal Code would exempt a public college from the "governmental entity" restriction created by PC 30.06(e).

Folks let us not forget about HB508. "Government entities" do indeed improperly post 30.06 signs. Without HB508, which may be dead, government entities, including public universities may indeed post whatever they like without fear of punishment and the uninformed won't know any better. Just because the informed know the signs are invalid, doesn't mean the general public, or even campus LEO's, know.

In my humble opionion, we must have both HB972 (its a start) and HB508. If we don't, we'll have a tread about universities improperly posting 30.06.

In fact, it almost seems these bills were made for each other. I've been pushing 508 heavily. I don't see any indication that it's dead, however. It's moving about the same pace as 972.