Page 2 of 3
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:44 pm
by TREKFAN
Wow UTSA is gonna have to post like 30 - 30.06 signs and god help them if they are not 100 percent valid. Ill carry right past them in a heart beat .
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:42 pm
by UTMacGuy
willfullyconcerned wrote:I work on a college campus in Houston and the police chief has already said they want to opt out. It makes absolutely no sense to me, especially with everything that has been happening. My gun is literally 40 feet away in my car, but i cannot carry inside my building.
I work for UT-Austin and I won't keep mine in the car for one big reason - cars get broken into all the time on campus especially in the parking garages - just another reason for campus carry to pass. If you plan on keeping one in your car, bolt a good safe in there to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:04 pm
by Monkey404error
TREKFAN wrote:Wow UTSA is gonna have to post like 30 - 30.06 signs and god help them if they are not 100 percent valid. Ill carry right past them in a heart beat .
That's probably for downtown. Heck, the UC building alone has like 15 entrances not including all the underground service tunnels that some people use.
And yes, I've talked to the UTSA police chief, he's all in favor of students being limited to at most, pepper spray, but ideally only a whistle to try and stop any attack.
And while I hope 3218 is the main one that passes this session, at least this one is a step in the right direction. Need to get back our rights in increments.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:28 pm
by artx
TREKFAN wrote:Wow UTSA is gonna have to post like 30 - 30.06 signs and god help them if they are not 100 percent valid. Ill carry right past them in a heart beat .
Imagine UT Austin or TAMU...you are talking about thousands of signs. Imagine trying to justify that one to the board of regents....well, um, we need 300k to buy these signs here...um... Not to mention how bad those signs would look...
I'm more concerned (not yet worried :) ) about the house calendars committee and the Senate and their 2/3rds rule.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:04 am
by TREKFAN
I'd settle for this one because anything else is a long shot. At least they will have a hard time opting out and posting proper verbiage.baby steps.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:10 am
by Purplehood
Rep Patricia Harless sends out constant e-mail updates to her constituents and each one normally has a survey regarding a particular piece of pending legislation.
One of her more recent questions was along the lines of "would you support College Campus carry?".
The most recent update showed the results as along the lines of 55% against and 45% for.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:59 am
by baldeagle
Purplehood wrote:Rep Patricia Harless sends out constant e-mail updates to her constituents and each one normally has a survey regarding a particular piece of pending legislation.
One of her more recent questions was along the lines of "would you support College Campus carry?".
The most recent update showed the results as along the lines of 55% against and 45% for.
And you can bet that all the legislators are aware of that as well.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 10:34 pm
by terryg
Update on HB 972.
The NRA-ILA update this evening highlighted something about this bill that I either did not catch before, or has been added. I have been very disappointed at the opt-out provision. But according to the NRA, this bill would remove criminal penalties for carrying on campus. When schools opt-out, they are essentially creating employee and/or student regulations ... with no criminal penalties. It may not seem like much, but this is huge. It now means that faculty and staff only face termination for violating university policy if they choose to carry rather than criminal prosecution.
Please correct if I have read this wrong. I think this is a fantastic first step bill!
House Bill 972 by state Representative Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress) and state Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) eliminates the criminal prohibition on the possession of firearms on public and private college campuses for Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees. As passed in the House, schools may adopt administrative rules and regulations restricting licensees in campus buildings, but only after consulting annually with campus law enforcement, faculty, staff and students. HB 972 also now contains language from SB 1907 by Senator Glenn Hegar prohibiting public and private institutions of higher education from adopting or enforcing policies banning students who are CHLs from transporting and storing handguns and ammunition in their privately-owned motor vehicles while driving through or parking on campus
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:03 pm
by baldeagle
terryg wrote:Update on HB 972.
The NRA-ILA update this evening highlighted something about this bill that I either did not catch before, or has been added. I have been very disappointed at the opt-out provision. But according to the NRA, this bill would remove criminal penalties for carrying on campus. When schools opt-out, they are essentially creating employee and/or student regulations ... with no criminal penalties. It may not seem like much, but this is huge. It now means that faculty and staff only face termination for violating university policy if they choose to carry rather than criminal prosecution.
Please correct if I have read this wrong. I think this is a fantastic first step bill!
House Bill 972 by state Representative Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress) and state Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) eliminates the criminal prohibition on the possession of firearms on public and private college campuses for Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees. As passed in the House, schools may adopt administrative rules and regulations restricting licensees in campus buildings, but only after consulting annually with campus law enforcement, faculty, staff and students. HB 972 also now contains language from SB 1907 by Senator Glenn Hegar prohibiting public and private institutions of higher education from adopting or enforcing policies banning students who are CHLs from transporting and storing handguns and ammunition in their privately-owned motor vehicles while driving through or parking on campus
I believe that is correct.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal
knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the [physical] premises of a school or
[educational] institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education, any grounds or
building on which an activity sponsored by a school or
[educational] institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education is being conducted, or
a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or [educational]
institution of higher education or private or independent
institution of higher education, whether the school or
[educational] institution is public or private, unless:
(A) pursuant to written rules or regulations or
written authorization of the school or institution; or
(B) the person possesses or goes on premises
owned or leased and operated by an institution of higher education
or private or independent institution of higher education, on any
grounds or building owned or leased by the institution and on which
an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or on a
passenger transportation vehicle of the institution with a
concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry pursuant to a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
If I'm understanding this correctly, possessing a firearm on the premises of an institution of higher education is no longer a violation of the penal code. This means, literally, it is not a violation of the law to carry on a campus
unless the school has posted 30.06 signs. Then it would become trespass and a Class A misdemeanor.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:07 pm
by terryg
baldeagle wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, possessing a firearm on the premises of an institution of higher education is no longer a violation of the penal code. This means, literally, it is not a violation of the law to carry on a campus unless the school has posted 30.06 signs. Then it would become trespass and a Class A misdemeanor.
Which might be mildly expensive considering the sheer number of buildings and doors they would have to contend with. But more importantly, it would be very aesthetically distasteful.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 12:31 am
by Bladed
baldeagle wrote:terryg wrote:Update on HB 972.
The NRA-ILA update this evening highlighted something about this bill that I either did not catch before, or has been added. I have been very disappointed at the opt-out provision. But according to the NRA, this bill would remove criminal penalties for carrying on campus. When schools opt-out, they are essentially creating employee and/or student regulations ... with no criminal penalties. It may not seem like much, but this is huge. It now means that faculty and staff only face termination for violating university policy if they choose to carry rather than criminal prosecution.
Please correct if I have read this wrong. I think this is a fantastic first step bill!
House Bill 972 by state Representative Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress) and state Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) eliminates the criminal prohibition on the possession of firearms on public and private college campuses for Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees. As passed in the House, schools may adopt administrative rules and regulations restricting licensees in campus buildings, but only after consulting annually with campus law enforcement, faculty, staff and students. HB 972 also now contains language from SB 1907 by Senator Glenn Hegar prohibiting public and private institutions of higher education from adopting or enforcing policies banning students who are CHLs from transporting and storing handguns and ammunition in their privately-owned motor vehicles while driving through or parking on campus
I believe that is correct.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal
knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the [physical] premises of a school or
[educational] institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education, any grounds or
building on which an activity sponsored by a school or
[educational] institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education is being conducted, or
a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or [educational]
institution of higher education or private or independent
institution of higher education, whether the school or
[educational] institution is public or private, unless:
(A) pursuant to written rules or regulations or
written authorization of the school or institution; or
(B) the person possesses or goes on premises
owned or leased and operated by an institution of higher education
or private or independent institution of higher education, on any
grounds or building owned or leased by the institution and on which
an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or on a
passenger transportation vehicle of the institution with a
concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry pursuant to a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
If I'm understanding this correctly, possessing a firearm on the premises of an institution of higher education is no longer a violation of the penal code. This means, literally, it is not a violation of the law to carry on a campus
unless the school has posted 30.06 signs. Then it would become trespass and a Class A misdemeanor.
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).
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 12:59 am
by JKTex
terryg wrote:baldeagle wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, possessing a firearm on the premises of an institution of higher education is no longer a violation of the penal code. This means, literally, it is not a violation of the law to carry on a campus unless the school has posted 30.06 signs. Then it would become trespass and a Class A misdemeanor.
Which might be mildly expensive considering the sheer number of buildings and doors they would have to contend with. But more importantly, it would be very aesthetically distasteful.
Not for students or faculty. Effective notice can be part of registration. Done. If there are public entrances they cover the general public with posting those doors. If they want to prohibit carry, I think they can and will. At least it's not the same penalty...it sounds like anyway.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 7:59 am
by terryg
JKTex wrote:terryg wrote:baldeagle wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, possessing a firearm on the premises of an institution of higher education is no longer a violation of the penal code. This means, literally, it is not a violation of the law to carry on a campus unless the school has posted 30.06 signs. Then it would become trespass and a Class A misdemeanor.
Which might be mildly expensive considering the sheer number of buildings and doors they would have to contend with. But more importantly, it would be very aesthetically distasteful.
Not for students or faculty. Effective notice can be part of registration. Done. If there are public entrances they cover the general public with posting those doors. If they want to prohibit carry, I think they can and will. At least it's not the same penalty...it sounds like anyway.
Good point. But apparently only for private universities. It seems that public colleges would not be allowed to 30.06 up.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 8:42 am
by chamberc
TREKFAN wrote:Wow UTSA is gonna have to post like 30 - 30.06 signs and god help them if they are not 100 percent valid. Ill carry right past them in a heart beat .
They only have to post 1. There has never been a test case saying it has to be posted everywhere.
Re: Committee substitute for HB 972 passes committee
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 6:27 pm
by Monkey404error
chamberc wrote:TREKFAN wrote:Wow UTSA is gonna have to post like 30 - 30.06 signs and god help them if they are not 100 percent valid. Ill carry right past them in a heart beat .
They only have to post 1. There has never been a test case saying it has to be posted everywhere.
To properly post 30.06 signs, it must be on every entrance available as far as I know (there are a million posts elsewhere, describing exactly this conundrum), although being a school, it might be different set of rules.