HB 86 - By Simpson : Campus-carry Questions

[srothstein]

or via students paying tuition with government grants, (unknown millions) it's still government (my) tax dollars

I disagree. Once you give the money to the student as a grant, it is his money and not your tax dollars any longer. He may choose to use it for tuition at Texas State, Arizona State, or Rice, but it is his money he is spending.

At least, that is how I think of it. I get that from being told by my parents that I cannot give money as a gift and put limits on how they spend it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think schools should be treated like any other business or organization. A publicly funded school should have no authority to enforce 30.06 just like a government owned beach or library.

At the other end of the spectrum, a private sole proprietorship business like Joe's Plumbing, Tom's Tutoring or Bob's Bookshop should have strong property rights for their building and grounds. Almost as strong, if not as strong, as a private residence.

In the middle ground?

I have no objections to changing the rules so companies and organizations that get "free government money" or "a total or partial tax exemption or tax break" are an exception to 30.06 and they can't enforce a CHL ban, as long as it's fairly applied across the board. Treat schools like any other business or organization for the 30.06 law. For example, if Rice can't ban because of tax breaks then neither can nonprofit organizations like charities and churches, unless they give up their tax breaks. Reliant stadium should also be forced to allow CHL unless they're 100% non-gov owned and give up their special tax treatment.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Schools are special targets for mass murderers and they are statutorily off limits for armed CHL's. Companies and nonprofit organizations are neither. Yes there have been church shootings in Texas, but very few, the total death toll is less than almost every school shooting, and none of the churches were posted with 30.06 signs, so the people in church were not forced to be defenseless.

The simple fact is college campuses are very dangerous places and not only because of the threat of a mass murderer. That's whey the Jeanne Clery law was passed requiring colleges to post crime statistics. Guess what, so-called "private schools" tried to exempt themselves from the Clery law so they wouldn't have to report. No such law is needed for non-profit organizations because they are not the target of such crimes.

As a practical matter, I would love to pass a law that no business that invites the public enter can ban armed CHLs, but the votes simply would not be there.

Chas.

[RPB]

or via students paying tuition with government grants, (unknown millions) it's still government (my) tax dollars

I disagree. Once you give the money to the student as a grant, it is his money and not your tax dollars any longer. He may choose to use it for tuition at Texas State, Arizona State, or Rice, but it is his money he is spending.

At least, that is how I think of it. I get that from being told by my parents that I cannot give money as a gift and put limits on how they spend it.

When I got my grants, the school got the money, I picked the checks up at that school's financial aid office, I seriously doubt that after that, any people drop out of that school and run real fast to register for classes and matriculate at another and apply it towards tuition at another ... that school benefits from my tax money.

[A-R]

As a practical matter, I would love to pass a law that no business that invites the public enter can ban armed CHLs, but the votes simply would not be there.

Chas.

I want that too. What do we need to do to get those votes? We have a large majority of conservative Republicans in this state? Who do we need to elect to get this done? Tea Party? Libertarians? Whigs?

[Charles L. Cotton]

As a practical matter, I would love to pass a law that no business that invites the public enter can ban armed CHLs, but the votes simply would not be there.

Chas.

I want that too. What do we need to do to get those votes? We have a large majority of conservative Republicans in this state? Who do we need to elect to get this done? Tea Party? Libertarians? Whigs?

It will never ever happen. The employer parking lot bill has every Texas business and industry group against it and it isn't nearly as radical as what I suggested.

Chas.

[cbr600]

The simple fact is college campuses are very dangerous places and not only because of the threat of a mass murderer.

That may be true, but that's a very different argument than the tax argument.

You previously wrote:
"If a school wants to claim private status, then they need to be as private as Joe the Plumber; paying all taxes Joe pays, not getting any government money or assistance, etc."

The same principle applies to all companies and organizations, and is not limited to schools.

[RPB]

So there's more than one argument (reason) campus carry should pass, and as a subcategory of those, very good arguments (reasons) it should apply to all campuses too.

[austin-tatious]

I just read the text of the bill (available at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00086I.htm). Three cheers for Mr. Simpson.

I am not a Texas house member, staff, or janitor...or a lawyer. So maybe these questions are obvious. I appreciate knowledgeable answers.

1. Why does the bill add text in Sec. 411.2031(b), (c), and (d) use 'campus' instead of 'premises' given that we already can carry on the grounds of a university? Later in the bill 'premises' is used, as I expected, in the amendments to Section 46.03(a).

2. Where the bill amends Section 46.035, it sounds like it allows CHLs to carry at a collegiate sporting event as long as 30.06 is not posted. Do I understand that correctly?

Thanks.

1. The use of the word "campus" is problematic and it will likely be changed in a committee amendment. As pointed out, it's already legal to carry "on campus" but not in a building, i.e. "premises." The problem comes in when you try to use the work "premises" because then the school could still have policies prohibiting employees and students from carrying "on campus" outside buildings, but there would be no criminal violation. More than just a single word change will be necessary.

2. Collage sporting events would be off limits only if a 30.06 sign were posted.

Chas.

The idea that this would allow employees as well as students and visitors with CHLs to carry did not occur to me. IF that is the intent, then I don't think the language supports it. Absolutely no one (for or against) thinks that this bill would allow the institution to prevent students who have a CHL from carrying, but it doesn't explicitly say students in the bill...just anyone who has a CHL. Similarly employees are not called out.

But wait, look again at amended Sec. 411.2031.

(c) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license
holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

If no rule can be adopted to prohibit carrying, then institutions could not prohibit employees from carrying as one of the terms of employment.

[RPB]

Sounds good .. I used to work in a University's Audio Visual Dept repairing/maintaining electronic stuff, after working in the college book store ... as "Staff"
All I could carry was a "barely legal" knife, I mean a box opening tool.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The simple fact is college campuses are very dangerous places and not only because of the threat of a mass murderer.

That may be true, but that's a very different argument than the tax argument.

You previously wrote:
"If a school wants to claim private status, then they need to be as private as Joe the Plumber; paying all taxes Joe pays, not getting any government money or assistance, etc."

The same principle applies to all companies and organizations, and is not limited to schools.

No it's not a different argument. I want campus-carry in every school in the State, every single one. Private property rights folks want to allow so-called private schools to be exempt from this requirement, once again ignoring the fact that commercial property does not enjoy the relative freedom from regulation enjoyed by non-commercial property owners.

All I'm saying is a school can't claim to be a "private school" if it gets governmental benefits that private businesses don't get. You want to expand my argument to something other than schools, but you don't get to do that. The issue in campus-carry bills is schools, not any and all other nonprofit organizations. If you want a law that prohibits all nonprofit organizations from posting 30.06 signs, then get someone to introduce that bill then work on getting it passed. I'm working on campus-carry and I don't buy the unbridled "private property rights" argument for schools that are funded in whole or part by tax money.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I just read the text of the bill (available at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00086I.htm). Three cheers for Mr. Simpson.

I am not a Texas house member, staff, or janitor...or a lawyer. So maybe these questions are obvious. I appreciate knowledgeable answers.

1. Why does the bill add text in Sec. 411.2031(b), (c), and (d) use 'campus' instead of 'premises' given that we already can carry on the grounds of a university? Later in the bill 'premises' is used, as I expected, in the amendments to Section 46.03(a).

2. Where the bill amends Section 46.035, it sounds like it allows CHLs to carry at a collegiate sporting event as long as 30.06 is not posted. Do I understand that correctly?

Thanks.

1. The use of the word "campus" is problematic and it will likely be changed in a committee amendment. As pointed out, it's already legal to carry "on campus" but not in a building, i.e. "premises." The problem comes in when you try to use the work "premises" because then the school could still have policies prohibiting employees and students from carrying "on campus" outside buildings, but there would be no criminal violation. More than just a single word change will be necessary.

2. Collage sporting events would be off limits only if a 30.06 sign were posted.

Chas.

The idea that this would allow employees as well as students and visitors with CHLs to carry did not occur to me. IF that is the intent, then I don't think the language supports it. Absolutely no one (for or against) thinks that this bill would allow the institution to prevent students who have a CHL from carrying, but it doesn't explicitly say students in the bill...just anyone who has a CHL. Similarly employees are not called out.

But wait, look again at amended Sec. 411.2031.

(c) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license
holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

If no rule can be adopted to prohibit carrying, then institutions could not prohibit employees from carrying as one of the terms of employment.

Except for the problematic use of the word "campus," the bill would allow every CHL including school employees to carry everywhere on the school real estate.

Chas.