Update: Support HB972 - debate tomorrow (5/14)

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
terryg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:37 pm
Location: Alvin, TX

Update: Support HB972 - debate tomorrow (5/14)

#1

Post by terryg » Tue May 07, 2013 11:14 pm

Or at least not a complete dud.

This is mentioned in this thread. But given the significance of the discovery, I thought it warranted a new thread as a call to support.

Many have disparaged HB972 (including me) because the opt-out clause leaves it somewhat toothless. But it does do something significant in that it removes criminal penalties for those who would carry on campus. The opt-out provision allows the university to "adopt administrative rules and regulations". So a university employee carrying at work would risk termination but not criminal charges just like employees at other businesses. I suspect students similarly would risk expulsion.

baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
Last edited by terryg on Mon May 13, 2013 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
... this space intentionally left blank ...


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#2

Post by Bladed » Wed May 08, 2013 12:31 am

terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).

User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 10340
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#3

Post by jmra » Wed May 08, 2013 6:06 am

Bladed wrote:
terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).
So, let me see if I am understanding this bill if passed:
- Public university equals no 30.06.
- No longer a crime to carry in buildings as long as there is not a sporting event in progress.
- University may establish rules for staff and students that would result in Disciplinary action (no bearing on visitors such as parents).
- Private universities would have to give notice under 30.06. Could be done in orientation for staff and students but would have to be posted for visitors.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#4

Post by Bladed » Wed May 08, 2013 6:45 am

jmra wrote:
Bladed wrote:
terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).
So, let me see if I am understanding this bill if passed:
- Public university equals no 30.06.
- No longer a crime to carry in buildings as long as there is not a sporting event in progress.
- University may establish rules for staff and students that would result in Disciplinary action (no bearing on visitors such as parents).
- Private universities would have to give notice under 30.06. Could be done in orientation for staff and students but would have to be posted for visitors.
That's how I understood the explanation Rep. Fletcher gave on the House floor when one of his colleagues asked him to explain exactly what the bill would and wouldn't allow/prohibit.

User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#5

Post by jimlongley » Wed May 08, 2013 11:01 am

terryg wrote:Or at least not a complete dud.

This is mentioned in this thread. But given the significance of the discovery, I thought it warranted a new thread as a call to support.

Many have disparaged HB972 (including me) because the opt-out clause leaves it somewhat toothless. But it does do something significant in that it removes criminal penalties for those who would carry on campus. The opt-out provision allows the university to "adopt administrative rules and regulations". So a university employee carrying at work would risk termination but not criminal charges just like employees at other businesses. I suspect students similarly would risk expulsion.

baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
Back a long time ago we used to use the term "Positive negative report" to indicate that a report of a negative result was as necessary as that of a positive report. I would suggest that this law changes the "automatic" exclusion to a "positive negative" exclusion, that is, the individual schools have to positively opt to exclude CHL holders on campus. This leaves open a chance, admittedly small, that the administration of the school could be fought against if they decided to take the option.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#6

Post by RHenriksen » Wed May 08, 2013 12:39 pm

I could see A&M as a university which might possibly *not* opt out...
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#7

Post by J.R.@A&M » Wed May 08, 2013 1:57 pm

The opposition is currently calling for "Call your Senator" action against HB 972. https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense

Edited to include: "Dear Lt. Governor Dewhurst: I am asking you to support the recently passed HB 972 (campus carry bill) by facilitating its consideration by the full Senate. Campus carry is a straightforward and useful extension of the longstanding, successful policy of concealed carry in Texas."
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass


CJD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:38 pm
Location: Conroe

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#8

Post by CJD » Wed May 08, 2013 2:11 pm

But how would a public university opt out, when they can't post 30.06 because they are a governmental entity?


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#9

Post by RHenriksen » Wed May 08, 2013 2:18 pm

Have both emailed & called my senator.
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 19
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#10

Post by J.R.@A&M » Wed May 08, 2013 2:25 pm

CJD wrote:But how would a public university opt out, when they can't post 30.06 because they are a governmental entity?
As pointed out above by others, they can maintain their current policy prohibiting students and employees from carrying in buildings and System vehicles.
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#11

Post by baldeagle » Wed May 08, 2013 2:40 pm

The bill states that "For purposes of this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code."
Institution of higher education, then, means:
(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.
The bill then goes on to say:
(b) The president or other chief executive officer of an
institution of higher education in this state, on behalf of the
institution, and after consulting with law enforcement, students,
staff, and faculty of the institution, may adopt written rules or
regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on
premises owned or leased and operated by the institution
, 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. A written rule
or regulation adopted under this subsection may remain in effect
for not more than one year after the date of adoption and may be
renewed, reenacted, or reenacted and amended by the institution
only after consultation with students, staff, and faculty of the
institution.
(c) An institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule or regulation under Subsection (b), or a private or
independent institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule, regulation, or other provision or take any other action
described by Section 46.03(j), Penal Code, shall adopt written
rules or regulations concerning:
(1) the storage of handguns in dormitories or other
residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution; and
(2) the carrying of concealed handguns by license
holders at collegiate sporting events or other official mass
gatherings that take place on grounds or buildings owned or leased
and operated by the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting a student enrolled at that institution who
holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, from transporting or storing a
handgun of the same category the student is licensed to carry or
ammunition for that handgun in a locked, privately owned motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle leased by or for the student:
I don't see any way that can be read as to prohibit public institutions from preventing carry on their campuses.

Maybe someone can enlighten me? That may be what Fletcher said, but the bill was amended eight times before it was engrossed.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member


CJD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:38 pm
Location: Conroe

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#12

Post by CJD » Wed May 08, 2013 3:11 pm

They can prohibit it in their rules, but they could not make it "illegal" as I understand it.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17188
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#13

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed May 08, 2013 3:20 pm

CJD wrote:They can prohibit it in their rules, but they could not make it "illegal" as I understand it.
Correct.

Chas.
Image


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#14

Post by Bladed » Wed May 08, 2013 3:31 pm

baldeagle wrote:The bill states that "For purposes of this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code."
Institution of higher education, then, means:
(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.
The bill then goes on to say:
(b) The president or other chief executive officer of an
institution of higher education in this state, on behalf of the
institution, and after consulting with law enforcement, students,
staff, and faculty of the institution, may adopt written rules or
regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on
premises owned or leased and operated by the institution
, 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. A written rule
or regulation adopted under this subsection may remain in effect
for not more than one year after the date of adoption and may be
renewed, reenacted, or reenacted and amended by the institution
only after consultation with students, staff, and faculty of the
institution.
(c) An institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule or regulation under Subsection (b), or a private or
independent institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule, regulation, or other provision or take any other action
described by Section 46.03(j), Penal Code, shall adopt written
rules or regulations concerning:
(1) the storage of handguns in dormitories or other
residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution; and
(2) the carrying of concealed handguns by license
holders at collegiate sporting events or other official mass
gatherings that take place on grounds or buildings owned or leased
and operated by the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting a student enrolled at that institution who
holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, from transporting or storing a
handgun of the same category the student is licensed to carry or
ammunition for that handgun in a locked, privately owned motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle leased by or for the student:
I don't see any way that can be read as to prohibit public institutions from preventing carry on their campuses.

Maybe someone can enlighten me? That may be what Fletcher said, but the bill was amended eight times before it was engrossed.
The quoted section of CSHB 972 has absolutely no bearing on PC 30.06 or any other section of the Texas Penal Code. The Government Code governs the operation of governmental entities; it doesn't create or alter criminal law. The above addition to the Government Code would simply regulates what types of administrative policies a public college/university may create. Policies do not have the force of criminal law.

Under CSHB 972, the president or other chief executive of a public college/university could create policies prohibiting concealed carry on campus. He or she could go as far as to issue a criminal trespass notice to any person caught carrying on campus (thereby, permanently banning that person from the campus). He or she could even set up metal detectors and refuse to let anyone with a concealed handgun enter a campus building. However, he or she could not overrule PC 30.06(e) unless some sort of exception were created in the penal code, and CSHB 972--as it is currently written--would not create any such exception.

PC 30.06(e) invalidates any 30.06 notification on property that is "owned or leased by a governmental entity and [that] 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."

For example, a city council can post 30.06 at city council meetings because PC 46.035(c)--in combination with 46.035(i)--makes a posted governmental meeting a place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.035.

Nothing in PC 46.03 or 46.035, as amended by CSHB 972, would make the premises of a public college a place where a license holder is prohibited from carrying; therefore, nothing in CSHB 972 would allow a public college to post 30.06.

I know it's confusing. After Fletcher explained it, I had to read through the bill a couple of times before I got it.

User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!

#15

Post by baldeagle » Wed May 08, 2013 3:50 pm

So it's no longer illegal but they can still prohibit it. And as an employee I could be fired for violating policy. And that's called progress? {{{sigh}}} My gun still stays in the car, and I'm not better off than I was before this law was passed (if indeed it is passed.)
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”