HB 86 - By Simpson : Campus-carry Questions

[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.

[Beiruty]

1) maybe to deny them posting 30.06 at the entrances?

[MasterOfNone]

1) maybe to deny them posting 30.06 at the entrances?

That's the reason I see. If they used "premises," the intent could be nullified by a school posting 30.06 signs to prevent you from reaching the premises.

[austin-tatious]

1) maybe to deny them posting 30.06 at the entrances?

That's the reason I see. If they used "premises," the intent could be nullified by a school posting 30.06 signs to prevent you from reaching the premises.

That would, IMHO, maybe be needed for the private institutions. But...wouldn't the public institutions be unable to post 30.06 if this bill is signed into law? The buildings and grounds are government buildings and grounds, and 30.06 is not allowed in government buildings, with the usual exceptions like courthouses, secure areas of police stations, etc.? OTOH, schools including universities are currently one of the exceptions.

This is not easy for me to understand, but IANAL!

[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.

[Teamless]

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

Could a college (assuming a tax payer funded and non-100% private school, post 30.06 signs? Seems to me if they are Public Colleges and Universities, the would not be able to do that...

[Ameer]

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

Could a college (assuming a tax payer funded and non-100% private school, post 30.06 signs? Seems to me if they are Public Colleges and Universities, the would not be able to do that...

That's the way the law should be. If Rice wants to post 30.06 they should be able to, but UH should be prohibited from posting 30.06 anywhere, including sports, unless they give up all tax money first.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

Could a college (assuming a tax payer funded and non-100% private school, post 30.06 signs? Seems to me if they are Public Colleges and Universities, the would not be able to do that...

Due to the wording of Tex. Penal Code §30.06(e), the Penal Code could be amended to require a 30.06 sign to render collage sporting events off-limits to CHL's. TPC §30.06(e) generally renders 30.06 signs posted by governmental entities unenforceable, except when they are posted on a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035. In other words, if governmental property is already off-limits, then a 30.06 sign can be posted. In fact, meetings of governmental entities are off-limits only if CHL's are given notice under TPC §30.06. HB86 would simply put college sporting events on the same footing as meetings of governmental agencies.

Chas.

It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[RPB]

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

Could a college (assuming a tax payer funded and non-100% private school, post 30.06 signs? Seems to me if they are Public Colleges and Universities, the would not be able to do that...

That's the way the law should be. If Rice wants to post 30.06 they should be able to, but UH should be prohibited from posting 30.06 anywhere, including sports, unless they give up all tax money first.

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that. Whether the money is directly to the school from Government grants (I think it was in excess of 35 million is easily traceable), or via students paying tuition with government grants, (unknown millions) it's still government (my) tax dollars

[Ameer]

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that.

Is that any different than a private company getting government research grants and posting 30.06? What about a company that gets most of its income from government contracts?

The question is where we should draw the line. On one side, I think definitely a public school or university shouldn't be able to post enforceable 30.06 signs, even for sports, and private residences that home school definitely should have that right, even in their driveway or on their lawn.

[RPB]

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that.

Is that any different than a private company getting government research grants and posting 30.06? What about a company that gets most of its income from government contracts?

The question is where we should draw the line. On one side, I think definitely a public school or university shouldn't be able to post enforceable 30.06 signs, even for sports, and private residences that home school definitely should have that right, even in their driveway or on their lawn.

"Private" companies under contract with the government often have additional rules to follow regarding workplace safety, audits, discrimination, Insurance and the like ... I think if they get "millions" in Tax dollars, either stop accepting the money, or follow rules the government (we) set, since "we" pay so much to "them"

Two girls I raised were home schooled, yet "we" didn't get "millions" we bought the books ourselves, we paid the utilities ourselves, we bought the computers and programs ourselves, our "free lunch program" was whatever I or their mother paid for at the store out of "our money" and cooked, the "school nurse" was whatever doctor I took them to and paid for with "my money" the "school playground" was the playground equipment I assembled one Christmas eve in the cold rain, the "school swimming pool" wasn't paid for by the government, nor were "swimming lessons", ...so yes, private residences of homeschoolers can do what they want to. (Of course we had 2 or 3 armed people "on campus" 24/7, so if anything, we'd have had a sign like Chappell Hill Bank has)

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that.

Is that any different than a private company getting government research grants and posting 30.06? What about a company that gets most of its income from government contracts?

The question is where we should draw the line. On one side, I think definitely a public school or university shouldn't be able to post enforceable 30.06 signs, even for sports, and private residences that home school definitely should have that right, even in their driveway or on their lawn.

If a school/company gets paid to do a job, then it's earning the money whether it's building something or doing research. When a school gets free government money, then I don't think they should be exempt from campus-carry. I feel the same way if they get a total or partial tax exemption or tax break, including 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status.

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.

Chas.

[RPB]

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that.

Is that any different than a private company getting government research grants and posting 30.06? What about a company that gets most of its income from government contracts?

The question is where we should draw the line. On one side, I think definitely a public school or university shouldn't be able to post enforceable 30.06 signs, even for sports, and private residences that home school definitely should have that right, even in their driveway or on their lawn.

If a school/company gets paid to do a job, then it's earning the money whether it's building something or doing research. When a school gets free government money, then I don't think they should be exempt from campus-carry. I feel the same way if they get a total or partial tax exemption or tax break, including 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status.

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.

Chas.

Especially with research and stimulus grants, BUT ALSO even to the extent that they shouldn't accept "Pell Grants" and "SEOG" and Texas Educational Opportunity Grant (TEOG) and Texas Public Education Grant (TPEG) etc etc if they want to claim to be "private" and an exemption from regulation. (acronyms/names may be different than when I was enrolled, but you know what I mean)
After all ... tuition ...that's a main source of "their" income from "our" dollars..

[Ameer]

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.

[baldeagle]

I have a problem with giving Rice millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer (my) money and allowing that.

Is that any different than a private company getting government research grants and posting 30.06? What about a company that gets most of its income from government contracts?

The question is where we should draw the line. On one side, I think definitely a public school or university shouldn't be able to post enforceable 30.06 signs, even for sports, and private residences that home school definitely should have that right, even in their driveway or on their lawn.

If a school/company gets paid to do a job, then it's earning the money whether it's building something or doing research. When a school gets free government money, then I don't think they should be exempt from campus-carry. I feel the same way if they get a total or partial tax exemption or tax break, including 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status.

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.

Chas.

I like this thinking. The government has for years been using the coercion of the withholding of funds to force states or other entities to do things the politicians want done that could not be done constitutionally. It's time to leverage that power to our benefit for once to force entities to obey the Constitution.