With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Locked

Topic author
CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#1

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:48 pm

This is how I read it. If either of these bills become law, institutions of higher education generally, will no longer be legally prohibited places. Public institutions will not be permitted to opt out of the new law as is true of any other government organization which is not included in the list of prohibited places. Since only private institutions will have that option, it would seem to me, that they, too, should have to comply with the same 30.06 notice requirements as any other private property owner must, in order to LEGALLY prohibit CHL carry.

Obviously, these private institutions will be able to have policies to admonish students, staff and faculty who have possession of firearms, but to provide criminal penalties, they should have to post proper notice.

I would recommend that any who testify at the upcoming hearing suggest that the topic be addressed. I will be contacting Sen. Wentworth who happens to be my Senator.
SIGN UP! The National Alliance for an Idiot Free America

User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9071
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#2

Post by Beiruty » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:55 pm

And what is your point, what is your concern with the bill? That private institutions can post 30.06 or would penalize the student who legally carry?
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member


Topic author
CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#3

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:23 pm

Sorry if I worded it poorly.

My hope is that, like any other private entity, since thy would no longer be a prohibited place, they would be REQUIRED to post 30.06 notice for CHL's generally to LEGALLY prohibit CHL carry.

Obviously, they would still be permitted to regulate staff and students through policy.
SIGN UP! The National Alliance for an Idiot Free America


cbr600
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: not here

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#4

Post by cbr600 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:30 pm

deleted
Last edited by cbr600 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Topic author
CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#5

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:38 pm

cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.
This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.
SIGN UP! The National Alliance for an Idiot Free America


cbr600
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: not here

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#6

Post by cbr600 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:48 pm

deleted
Last edited by cbr600 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.


apostate
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#7

Post by apostate » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:01 am

CWOOD wrote:
cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.
This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.
I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough :willynilly: without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

I'm also really amused by the "Easter Egg" in these bills.


Douva
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#8

Post by Douva » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:09 am

apostate wrote:
CWOOD wrote:
cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.
This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.
I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough :willynilly: without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

I'm also really amused by the "Easter Egg" in these bills.
Apostate is right. These are good bills. They've been looked at by a lot of attorneys and a lot of experts on Texas law. Don't start creating problems where there are none--doing so will just hurt us in the long run.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18112
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#9

Post by Keith B » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:12 am

Private colleges would have the Opt-out capability anyway, but I would think a publicly funded college would fall under the Government Building clause and a 30.06 would not be valid anyway. :thumbs2:
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

Cobra Medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:53 pm

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#10

Post by Cobra Medic » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:52 pm

Keith B wrote:Private colleges would have the Opt-out capability anyway, but I would think a publicly funded college would fall under the Government Building clause and a 30.06 would not be valid anyway. :thumbs2:
I think it goes one step further. Not only would a 30.06 be invalid on premises owned or leased by a tax funded entity, but it looks like it would prevent publicly funded colleges from having HR policies and student codes of conduct that administratively punish concealed carriers. That's great for students and faculty, and I wish the legislature would make tax funded hospitals play by those rules.
This will only hurt a little. What comes next, more so.


hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#11

Post by hirundo82 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:36 pm

apostate wrote:I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough :willynilly: without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.
Perhaps we could present it as a feature rather than a bug. By having colleges post the "Big Ugly Sign" to be off limits, their students can see it and get warm fuzzy feelings knowing that nobody is legally carrying in the building. After all, "Feeling Safe" is all they seem to care about.[/color]
Last edited by hirundo82 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


apostate
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#12

Post by apostate » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:11 pm

hirundo82 wrote:
apostate wrote:I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough :willynilly: without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.
Perhaps we could present it as a feature rather than a bug. By having colleges post the "Big Ugly Sign" to be off limits, their students can see it and get warm fuzzy feelings knowing that nobody is legally carrying in the building. After all, "Feeling Safe" is all they seem to care about.
I'm trying to picture 30.06 signs on buildings at Rice. :mrgreen:


WacoCarry
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#13

Post by WacoCarry » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:31 pm

Let's just go with HB 86 and we don't have to worry about the 30.06 signs! I am not a fan of private schools being able to opt out.


RPB
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: With HB750 or SB354...30.06 required to opt out?

#14

Post by RPB » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:48 pm

WacoCarry wrote:Let's just go with HB 86 and we don't have to worry about the 30.06 signs! I am not a fan of private schools being able to opt out.
:iagree: unless they reject payment from Government Grants, Gov't insured loans, etc etc etc Cut gov't funds to zero for so-called "private" schools, no tax breaks, nada, then I'll say ok.
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"

Locked

Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”