SB 354 vs HB 86?

[terryg]

Needed to say it twice just to be sure?

No - because only one poster has actually answered the question.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have an issue with the state being NOT regulating private property owners who receive MILLIONS in Tax dollars . They regulate road construction companies ... etc etc etc

Private schools aren't truly private unless they stand on the same footing as every other business in Texas.

Chas.

I said the same about non-profits and religious organizations that get special tax breaks and subsidies.

Once again, we're not talking about those entities, but schools and a campus-carry bill.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, I wonder why the NRA-ILA chooses to support SB 354 over HB 86? I like HB 86 much better as there are no-exclusions for private institutions. But, I guess they fear that this may also make it harder to pass. Any other reasons anybody can see?

I have an issue with the state being NOT regulating private property owners who receive MILLIONS in Tax dollars . They regulate road construction companies ... etc etc etc

Private schools aren't truly private unless they stand on the same footing as every other business in Texas.

Chas.

I also agree. Which is why I ask the question as to why the more restrictive bill is getting the NRA endorsement over the more broadly worded (and first filed) bill? Again, I speculate to better ensure passage.

Can't get it passed without the private school provision.

Chas.

[terryg]

Can't get it passed without the private school provision.

Chas.

Thanks Mr. Cotton. That's what I was afraid of - but I was wondering if there might be some other sublty I was missing. Thanks for confirming.

I also wonder if the hesitation is due to true concerns over private property rights or simply due to the influence of some of the prestigious private universities in Texas and their wealthy benefactors.

[srothstein]

Is there a legislative benefit to a Senate originating bill over a House originating bill?

As far as I know, there is no direct benefit to it. But, by filing two bills,it allows both houses to work on the bills at the same time. If all goes very well and both pass their respective bill, it can go to a conference committee to work out the differences or pick one. A possible slight tactical advantage to this is that filing the bills in slightly different format allows you to measure how strong the opposition is to some points (would it really pass with provision X in it or not). This might let the house with the more restrictive bill see the support for less restrictions, if it works out that way.

And if one bill passes while the other gets held up in committee, the sponsors can work sometimes to direct it to a different committee or use the second bill to help break the logjam.

I could be wrong about all of this and generally trust the TSRA to know exactly what tactics to use in the legislature. I also trust the NRA to know how to get bills passed at the federal level, though sometimes their compromises bother me more than what I have seen down here. I generally chalk it up to the different playing field and knowing the tactics when it does bother me (and sometimes that really does help).

[terryg]

A possible slight tactical advantage to this is that filing the bills in slightly different format allows you to measure how strong the opposition is to some points (would it really pass with provision X in it or not). This might let the house with the more restrictive bill see the support for less restrictions, if it works out that way.

So theoretically, the reverse could be true. If the House bill passed without much fanfare, it could show the Senate that a bill could pass without the private exemptions. Not that I think that would happen, but it could work that way - right?

[srothstein]

That was kind of what I meant. Take any bill with a potentially controversial clause X. If the bill in the house does not have clause X and the bill in the senate does, which bill passes lets you know how much resistance there is to that clause. If the bill in the house passes, it shows the senate the clause is not needed for the bill. If the bill in the senate passes but the house bill does not, it shows what to try to get it through the house. If both bills pass, it shows the senate that the compromise should not need the controversial clause.

All that assumes the clause is an unwanted clause from your standpoint. Reverse it if it is a wanted clause, but I am sure you see what I mean about how it can be a slight tactical advantage.

Obviously, you have to account for all of the differences in the resistance too. The house may have more resistance to a clause than the senate because more of the house members are worried about their being re-elected, for example. There are way too many variables to think the clause is the only problem, but it is a starting point.

[oldtexan]

I prefer SB 354 to HB 86. I have an issue with the state being able to tell private property owners what they can, or cannot, do with their property, in this case, private universities. There is a conflict between 2d Amendment rights and property rights. I strongly support both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to control one's own property. I prefer SB 354's solution to this conflict.

Out of curiosity, does that mean that you do not support SB321, the "parking lot" bill? I ask because consistency would demand that if that is your position.

I have not read SB321. At the risk of incurring the collective wrath of the forum (and taking this thread off-topic), I admit that if it says what I think it says, I probably could not support it.

[EconDoc]

Campus carry with an exemption for private colleges certainly doesn't help me--neither does it help the 2200 students and 250 faculty, not to mention a couple of hundred staff members, where I teach. We will remain easy targets. That is disappointing. One thing that this bill will do if passed is that, when word gets out that private schools are exempt, private colleges such as the one where I teach will become more inviting targest for the crazed nut jobs and predatory sociopaths in our society. I think that the way to bring private schools in line is to make allowing campus carry a prerequisite to giving state aid to any students at those institutions. But, that might not be politically viable.

If we can get the parking lot bill passed, at least I will be able to keep a gun in my truck without fear of getting fired.

[hirundo82]

Rep. Joe Driver filed a new House campus carry bill filed today, HB 750.

It appears similar to SB 354 in that it allows private institutions to ban carry. It also makes some changes to the wording of §46.03(a)(1), but nothing that looks substantive to me.

[Charles L. Cotton]

HB750 has some significant differences that are not readily apparent. Unnecessary and potentially confusing and conflicting language in SB354 has been removed; the immunity provisions do not apply to a private school that bans carrying on the "premises," undefined language in TPC §46.03(a)(1) has been removed or amended; and the 30.06 requirement for sporting events is added to TPC §46.035(i) rather than making it a stand-alone (and more obvious) addition.

Chas.

[hirundo82]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

So a private institution could potentially be liable for damages resulting from their decision to ban carry? That could make a different when they consult the faculty, staff, and students as required by the bill.

[Charles L. Cotton]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

So a private institution could potentially be liable for damages resulting from their decision to ban carry? That could make a different when they consult the faculty, staff, and students as required by the bill.

HB750 provides immunity to schools that do not ban armed CHL's, in the event a CHL harms or kills someone, or damages property. This immunity is not available to a private school that elects to ban armed CHL's from the premises. Remember, absent 30.06 signs, CHL's can carry everywhere on private schools campuses except in buildings and activity grounds where school sponsored activities are ongoing, so the lack of immunity is not a minor issue.

This bill does not create a cause of action in the event a disarmed CHL is injured or killed while on campus.

Chas.

[oldtexan]

HB750 has some significant differences that are not readily apparent. Unnecessary and potentially confusing and conflicting language in SB354 has been removed; the immunity provisions do not apply to a private school that bans carrying on the "premises," undefined language in TPC §46.03(a)(1) has been removed or amended; and the 30.06 requirement for sporting events is added to TPC §46.035(i) rather than making it a stand-alone (and more obvious) addition.

Chas.

Charles, I have read the text of HB 750. It looks to me as a layman that under Section 3 of HB 750, it would still be illegal for even a CHL holder to possess a firearm in "a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or institution of higher education...". The particular scenario I'm concerned about is an employee of a state university traveling on official business driving a rental vehicle leased to the university.

I spoke to a staffer in Representative Driver's office about this. She told me that in her opinion current TPC Sec 46.02 would allow a person in the above scenario to travel legally with a firearm.

Your thoughts on this?


Thanks in advance.

[RPB]

Just a note to anyone thinking Texas should not regulate anything regarding so-called "private" colleges

Well, they already do.

One only needs to read a little bit to see it ...

Private Institutions (In- and Out-of-State) Interested in Offering Courses Leading to Degrees in
Texas or Using Certain Academic Terms in Texas

To protect students and the public interest in higher education, it is the policy and purpose of the State
of Texas to...
Under Subchapter G of the Texas Education Code, in order to operate as an institution of higher
education with the authorities specified in the first paragraph of this section, a private institution must have ...
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1045.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm sure there are better examples, but I devoted less than a minute looking before I found something that illustrated it well enough


So, they want to protect students and the public from fake degrees, or fake pieces of paper, but students lives are less important than artificial paper to the State ...

I understand give/take negotiation in legislating, but it is a funny comparison.