Defining School

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6255
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Defining School

#1

Post by Liberty » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:22 am

It seems as though HB2112 has been put away. and I suppose thats a good thing. What I don't understand is why we are on the defensive and not on point. Why aren't we being more aggressive in this session about the schools. Once we let this short session slip by, its another 2 long years before we get to fix some broken issues regarding schools.

1: Letting teachers and staff carry in our public schools. Why are we so timid that we can't introduce a bill to help protect our children. We will never get this passed until we we try.

2: Defining schools, Some of the most dangerous places in Texas are our college campuses. The way the law is written its illegal to take a gun into an adult self defense class.

I realize that the importance of any bill is about perspective, but not having these law changes exposes our children to danger. We continue to leave our children exposed to anyone going going postal. Our college students are getting raped and mugged and we continue to leave victims without protection. While we neglect to protect the young folks and those resposible for them, we have made sure that we protected ourselves with the castle doctrine.

Just my thoughts
[/list]


CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Liberty, I feel your pain....sorry for the BC reference

#2

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:58 am

At the beginning of the last legislative session (79th) I had the pleasure, along with 10-12 others I had met on packing.org (when that was really alive), of meeting with Rep. Suzanna Hupp. We had a wish list of nearly 20 items to discuss with her regarding the possibility of them ever being enacted into law and when. If you think about your wishlist, I will bet the items were on there.

Things like open carry, castle doctrine, liability reform, legal carry at school, legal carry at university, LCRA carry, 51% not valid unless properly posted, car carry (traveling defined), carry at work, specific % alcohol for intoxicaton presumption, sanctions on improperly posted gov't buildings, and others too numerous to mention. Basically, she was fine with all of these, but she commented that some were do-able in the current circumstances and some were not.

As you can see by the progress made in this session and the last, things are changing for the better. Really, dramatically so in come cases. One of the things she said was NOT do-able at that time was 'school carry'. Primarily because the "politics" of it were so volatile. The propaganda potential for the 'antis' would be so strong and it would take SO MUCH education of the public that it would not make sense, and would actually harm progress on so many other items we wanted to accomplish. She did say that 'university carry' MIGHT be an area where progress could be made, but that there were other, more pressing, goals which should be accomplished before that should be tried.

I basically agreed with her logic. My personal top-of-the-list items were liability reform for defensive use of a firearm and some undefined version of what is now called 'castle doctrine'. Thank God those appear to be advancing nicely.

Rep. Hupp had a clever idea. It is one which could be tried and demonstrated with existing law and could serve as a guiding light if we could find the right venue for it. If you read the law , PC 46.03 (1) it states in summary that possession on the premisis of a school is prohibited...."UNLESS PURSUANT TO WRITTEN REGULATIONS OR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF THE INSTITUTION"...

Read this section carefully. If we could find just ONE school district in the State with the political 'juevos' and a secure enough hold on their office to give written authorization to a few select, trained volunteer teachers (maybe ex LEO or ex-Military to start) it could be a shining example to the rest of the State and to the Legislature of how this can really work.

I challenge all of us on this forum to scour the State and try to find this brave school board. It would probably be a small rural community, but it could also be someplace like Texas City which is supposed to have one of the highest per capita CHL populations in the State and a generally accepting attitude in regard to CHL holders.

Maybe this could be a work in progress to prepare for the 81st or 82nd legislature...

I hope this helps to answer some of your concerns from at least one perspective. I still have kids in college but no longer have any in K-12. I always wanted it too.

Let's go find that one special school.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Liberty, I feel your pain....sorry for the BC reference

#3

Post by seamusTX » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:50 am

CWOOD wrote:One of the things she said was NOT do-able at that time was 'school carry'. Primarily because the "politics" of it were so volatile. The propaganda potential for the 'antis' would be so strong and it would take SO MUCH education of the public that it would not make sense,...
This is also my take on the issue. Schools are at the crossroads of two beliefs that many people accept unthinkingly. The first is that making something illegal ensures that it will not happen. The second is that schools must be absolutely safe, safer than homes, hospitals, or airports.

Normally sensible people are almost insane when it comes to this issue.
CWOOD wrote:Rep. Hupp had a clever idea.... If we could find just ONE school district in the State with the political 'juevos' and a secure enough hold on their office to give written authorization to a few select, trained volunteer teachers (maybe ex LEO or ex-Military to start) it could be a shining example to the rest of the State and to the Legislature of how this can really work.
It is a good idea.

In addition to the school board, the school board's attorney has to agree with it. Attorneys are generally a cautious lot and recommend staying with the status quo.

Perhaps a private school will be the first to take this step, but even they would have a lot of resistance from their customers, the parents.

- Jim


lrb111
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

#4

Post by lrb111 » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:04 pm

Isn't Farmer's Branch trying to take back their schools from the government?
That makes them a candidate.

You know Texas 'regulates the wearing of arms with a view to crime prevention.' That language has been used to lo long as a tool to prevent wearing or arms. It needs to be used as a tool to incorporate more wearing of arms.
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#5

Post by seamusTX » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:14 pm

Isn't Farmer's Branch trying to take back their schools from the government?
I haven't heard of that, but it's not something I would pay attention to.

As far as I know, Texas cities have no role in education. School boards are independent. (Having lived in places where that was not the case, I think it's a good thing.)

- Jim


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#6

Post by txinvestigator » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:04 pm

lrb111 wrote:Isn't Farmer's Branch trying to take back their schools from the government?
That makes them a candidate.
How could they do that? Farmers Branch IS the government.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.

User avatar

Topic author
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6255
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Liberty, I feel your pain....sorry for the BC reference

#7

Post by Liberty » Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:03 pm

CWOOD wrote:At the beginning of the last legislative session (79th) I had the pleasure, along with 10-12 others I had met on packing.org (when that was really alive), of meeting with Rep. Suzanna Hupp. We had a wish list of nearly 20 items to discuss with her regarding the possibility of them ever being enacted into law and when. If you think about your wishlist, I will bet the items were on there.
I don't mean to belrlittle the accomplishments of 2005, and what looks to be a great year this year. We have made some inroads, and even more importantly held back the bad guys.
CWOOD wrote: As you can see by the progress made in this session and the last, things are changing for the better. Really, dramatically so in come cases. One of the things she said was NOT do-able at that time was 'school carry'. Primarily because the "politics" of it were so volatile. The propaganda potential for the 'antis' would be so strong and it would take SO MUCH education of the public that it would not make sense, and would actually harm progress on so many other items we wanted to accomplish. She did say that 'university carry' MIGHT be an area where progress could be made, but that there were other, more pressing, goals which should be accomplished before that should be tried.

I basically agreed with her logic. My personal top-of-the-list items were liability reform for defensive use of a firearm and some undefined version of what is now called 'castle doctrine'. Thank God those appear to be advancing nicely.
While castle doctrine and liability issues are nice to get. They are primarily about feeling good. We Texans have enjoyed practically the same protection as offered by these bills. I haven't heard about a whole of abuses in Texas of the system where these bills would make difference. However, I have read in this very group about the Crime in Texas A&M/ I know students in the Houston University's that are petrified of their campuses. Broad daylight rapes and muggings are almost an everyday events.

We are reading in the newspapers that terrorist groups have layouts of our schools and that they have members driving our school buses.

I have heard it expressed a few times. about the cost of losing the legislative battles. I must confess that I don't understand why pushing and possibly losing is worse than not trying at all. I will blame this on my lack of sophistication. I do understand that our children are in danger and the 80th legislature won't even try to do anything about it. I blame that on political cowardice.
CWOOD wrote:
Rep. Hupp had a clever idea. It is one which could be tried and demonstrated with existing law and could serve as a guiding light if we could find the right venue for it. If you read the law , PC 46.03 (1) it states in summary that possession on the premisis of a school is prohibited...."UNLESS PURSUANT TO WRITTEN REGULATIONS OR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF THE INSTITUTION"...

Read this section carefully. If we could find just ONE school district in the State with the political 'juevos' and a secure enough hold on their office to give written authorization to a few select, trained volunteer teachers (maybe ex LEO or ex-Military to start) it could be a shining example to the rest of the State and to the Legislature of how this can really work.

I challenge all of us on this forum to scour the State and try to find this brave school board. It would probably be a small rural community, but it could also be someplace like Texas City which is supposed to have one of the highest per capita CHL populations in the State and a generally accepting attitude in regard to CHL holders.

Maybe this could be a work in progress to prepare for the 81st or 82nd legislature...

I hope this helps to answer some of your concerns from at least one perspective. I still have kids in college but no longer have any in K-12. I always wanted it too.

Let's go find that one special school.
This sounds like a good idea if it can be done. Putting off doing anything for another 2 years might is apt to be very costly.


CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Liberty, I don't disagree with what you said or want

#8

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:03 pm

I do feel that the accomplishments of this and the 79thLegislature were quite impressive regarding gun rights. Not all inclusive but pretty darn good.

As far as waiting until the next session. we have no choice but to wait for legislation. The deadline has passed for filing bills in this session.

However, I may have expressed myself poorly. I do not suggest waiting to take action for two more years. In regard to schools and universities, I suggest that we start looking for the proper venue NOW!!...so that we can be prepared for the next sesson of the Legislature.

As I mentioned, the law NOW provides that individuals with CHL's can carry on school premisis if they have written permission. Our job is to use any influence we may have to locate and educate those courageous individuals in authority who can and will learn and will then take action to start this process.

As for pushing and losing a legislative/political battle, I have no problem fighting the good fight but if I am to be whooped I want it to count. It has been my observation that much of politics deals with momentum, timing, and perception in addition to courage and strategy. It takes all of these and more to win. Even a politician as Pro 2nd A as Rep. Hupp knew that you need to strike while the iron is hot and not before. If you lose due to poor timing or strategy, you can also lose mometum and perception of being a winner. It can harm you in the next fight, and it gets worse each time you lose I just don't want to lose for the sake of losing, when there are several winnable battles that need to be fought

I know that I am wording this poorly, so forgive my lack of skill at this. I want what you want. I just think it might be wise to find a location to demonstrate to the anti's (who won't believe it) and to the middle of the roaders (yuppies, soccer mom's and disadvantaged) who might be persuaded, that this thing can and has worked with no bad results.

I think we agree on concept but perhaps differ on strategy. Let's hope we both win.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

User avatar

Topic author
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6255
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Liberty, I don't disagree with what you said or want

#9

Post by Liberty » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:58 pm

CWOOD wrote:I do feel that the accomplishments of this and the 79thLegislature were quite impressive regarding gun rights. Not all inclusive but pretty darn good.
The 80th is shaping up to be a positive also.
CWOOD wrote: As far as waiting until the next session. we have no choice but to wait for legislation. The deadline has passed for filing bills in this session.
This is frustrating ...
CWOOD wrote: However, I may have expressed myself poorly. I do not suggest waiting to take action for two more years. In regard to schools and universities, I suggest that we start looking for the proper venue NOW!!...so that we can be prepared for the next sesson of the Legislature.
I appreciate you staying with me on an explanation, and helping me understand.
CWOOD wrote: As I mentioned, the law NOW provides that individuals with CHL's can carry on school premisis if they have written permission. Our job is to use any influence we may have to locate and educate those courageous individuals in authority who can and will learn and will then take action to start this process.

As for pushing and losing a legislative/political battle, I have no problem fighting the good fight but if I am to be whooped I want it to count. It has been my observation that much of politics deals with momentum, timing, and perception in addition to courage and strategy. It takes all of these and more to win. Even a politician as Pro 2nd A as Rep. Hupp knew that you need to strike while the iron is hot and not before. If you lose due to poor timing or strategy, you can also lose mometum and perception of being a winner. It can harm you in the next fight, and it gets worse each time you lose I just don't want to lose for the sake of losing, when there are several winnable battles that need to be fought

I know that I am wording this poorly, so forgive my lack of skill at this. I want what you want. I just think it might be wise to find a location to demonstrate to the anti's (who won't believe it) and to the middle of the roaders (yuppies, soccer mom's and disadvantaged) who might be persuaded, that this thing can and has worked with no bad results.

I think we agree on concept but perhaps differ on strategy. Let's hope we both win.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I'm hoping that an eggy school district shows up, Most of them that I'm familiar with don't like rocking the boat until it's bond issue time. I can see where this would be a big help in breaking the ice for this to be public discussion. This of course does little to promote concealed carry into university campuses.

I sure appreciate your explaining this strategy to me. Political strategy isn't my forté, and I am a bit frustrated by the misalignment of what I see as prioritys and the Lege's. It does help to see this from your perspective.

My Sincere Thanks ..


lrb111
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

#10

Post by lrb111 » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:52 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
lrb111 wrote:Isn't Farmer's Branch trying to take back their schools from the government?
That makes them a candidate.
How could they do that? Farmers Branch IS the government.
From what I understand they are trying to get their schools operating solely on local money. Even getting donations. That means they can cut the ties and control of the feds in their affairs.
If they can do that, then they might also be in line to circumvent the "gun free school zone /soft target" scenario.

I just saw another news bit this morning where a couple of kids were arrested, for planning/ attempting to take guns into school for a spree last week.

I sure wish the folks that push these rules would put signs in their front yards that they have gun free houses. Just prove it's a good idea to me.
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor


CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

irb111, I doubt that they can make a clean break.

#11

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:14 pm

Years ago I was with DPS and stationed in George West. The town of Tilden was the county seat of the neighboring McMullen County. Just to give you an idea of the mindset of the folks there, they used to have a sign as you passed the county line coming from the town of Three Rivers which read, "Welcome to the Free State of McMullen County". You may recall from your early Texas history that one of the original land grants in the time of Stephen F. Austin was to the McMullen-McGloin party. Their history goes way back. There were about 2000 souls in Tilden and about 2600 folks in the entire county. Anyway....

They too tried to seperate from the state and national school system and had the funds to operate independently without outside tax money. Their goal was to do away with all the imposed rules and regulations from these other agencies. They were not successful.

Although McMullen ISD had funding and quality education, they were forced to relent because the state and the feds were threatening to with hold accreditation. This would mean that even though the kids were well educated, they would never "officially" graduate because their school would no longer be "recognized" as a proper school. No college, military, or other employment opportunities requiring a Hich School education would have been open to them. It was a cruel hard lesson and painful to watch.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#12

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:42 pm

Every legislative session, we have far more on our plate than we can get passed, so we have to prioritize. To move up the priority list, an issue must be both important and winnable. I’m not talking about winnable for face-saving purposes, but so we make the best use of our time, resources and political goodwill. I’m not even talking about winnable in one legislative session, but achievable over time. We lost employer parking lots, but we’re back again. We lost CHL for many years, but we kept at it because we knew we could do it. I’ll be very candid, I have a few issues I want to see addressed and one of them is very important to me. However, there simply wasn’t time to add it to the menu this session, so it will have to wait. I wish we could get it in, but that’s reality and I have to understand and keep working on the “official� agenda.

Our friends in the House and Senate also have a huge number of bills to deal with, so there is only so much time they can devote to our legislative agenda. We must be considerate of their other obligations and issues, or we will quickly be perceived as overly-demanding and unconcerned about their schedules and commitments. If that happens, it takes years to shed that reputation and regain their trust and cooperation.

As for school carry, I’m not sure I will live long enough to see that come about, if it ever does. Perhaps at the college/university level it’s doable, with a lot of work, but even that will be a much tougher battle than employer parking lots and CHL itself. It would have to be severely limited to keep guns our of frat houses, parties, etc.

Chas.


CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Well Put!

#13

Post by CWOOD » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:46 pm

Thanks for saying it better than I.


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#14

Post by txinvestigator » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:56 pm

lrb111 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
lrb111 wrote:Isn't Farmer's Branch trying to take back their schools from the government?
That makes them a candidate.
How could they do that? Farmers Branch IS the government.
From what I understand they are trying to get their schools operating solely on local money. Even getting donations. That means they can cut the ties and control of the feds in their affairs.
.
Schools get about 37% from local funds, 57% from the state and only 9% Federal money.

The federal govt. has little input over schools.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.

User avatar

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

#15

Post by jimlongley » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:07 pm

txinvestigator wrote:The federal govt. has little input over schools.
That is until they extort them with threats as exemplified above.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”