CHL Carry on Colleges

[Aric]

I am not sure if this has already been discussed.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/120808/new_news6.shtml

AUSTIN - Last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns, some state legislators thought the high court's ruling affirmed Americans' right to own firearms and saw no need for any gun legislation in next year's session of the Texas Legislature.

But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, author of last year's castle doctrine law, which gives Texans the right to attack an intruder if they feel threatened at their home, business or car, says Texas needs at least one more gun law, and he is planning to author it.

The San Antonio Republican is drafting a bill that, if the Legislature approves and Gov. Rick Perry signs into law, would allow Texans with concealed-gun permits to carry their weapons on college campuses.

"I want to introduce this bill because I want the students to have a chance to live if something like that happens again," Wentworth said in reference to last year's shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, which claimed the lives of 32 and six people respectively. "Right now they are sitting ducks."

In addition, OpenCarry.org, a relatively new but well-organized group based in northern Virginia, has launched a major campaign to lobby the Texas Legislature to pass an "open carry" law which would let people wear their firearms in plain view, just like law enforcement officers in uniform do.

"Texas is only one of six states that does not allow people to wear their gun in plain view," said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of the group. "Texas sticks out like a sore thumb, which is ironic because it is a pro-gun state. Gun owners should have the choice of carrying their gun in public."

What Wentworth and OpenCarry.org have in mind may not necessarily mean a return to the gun-slinging days of the Wild West, as some gun-control advocates have suggested. But if nothing else, it could reinforce the stereotype that Texas is a trigger-happy state.

Reps. Joe Heflin and David Swinford, who have concealed-weapon permits, said if the bill should get to the House floor it would generate a passionate debate.

[GEM-Texas]

Will the suggested legislation differentiate between private and state campuses? If carry is allowed on private campuses doesn't that override the provisions for private places (as for example, stores) to post 30.06 signs? Private private purists would be upset about that (foolishly in my opinion). However, such a differentiation would simple hang targets on the private school.

Any info welcome.

[Pinkycatcher]

Will the suggested legislation differentiate between private and state campuses? If carry is allowed on private campuses doesn't that override the provisions for private places (as for example, stores) to post 30.06 signs? Private private purists would be upset about that (foolishly in my opinion). However, such a differentiation would simple hang targets on the private school.

Any info welcome.

It would probably just take away the restriction from schools. Which means public schools would be forced, and private schools would have to provide notice (under 30.06/student or staff handbooks/lots of verbal notice)

[Douva]

Will the suggested legislation differentiate between private and state campuses? If carry is allowed on private campuses doesn't that override the provisions for private places (as for example, stores) to post 30.06 signs? Private private purists would be upset about that (foolishly in my opinion). However, such a differentiation would simple hang targets on the private school.

Any info welcome.

It would probably just take away the restriction from schools. Which means public schools would be forced, and private schools would have to provide notice (under 30.06/student or staff handbooks/lots of verbal notice)

I haven't yet seen a draft of Senator Wentworth's forthcoming legislation, but that is essentially what I expect to see. If this is a cause you support, I strongly suggest that you take a look at the "SCCC Handbook: Texas Edition" so that you'll be better prepared to defend your position to voters and legislators, and I suggest that you consider ordering professionally printed and bound copies for both your State Representative and you State Senator.

[GEM-Texas]

Most colleges already have in their handbooks verbiage against firearms that would suffice as employee or student notice. So that point is moot.

The issues are:

1. Will state schools have the right to post 30.06 signs?
2. Will private and state schools still have the right to dismiss students or staff for carry (even if they cannot evoke criminal penalties)?

If they can still fire or expell you, then the 30.06 provision is nice but practically useless in allowing carry.

It might be a good first incremental step but ideal legislation would allow carry on all campus and disallow allow employment penalties.

However, as I said before - for private universities - controlling their property and employment rights is a big can of worms.

[Douva]

Most colleges already have in their handbooks verbiage against firearms that would suffice as employee or student notice. So that point is moot.

The issues are:

1. Will state schools have the right to post 30.06 signs?
2. Will private and state schools still have the right to dismiss students or staff for carry (even if they cannot evoke criminal penalties)?

If they can still fire or expell you, then the 30.06 provision is nice but practically useless in allowing carry.

It might be a good first incremental step but ideal legislation would allow carry on all campus and disallow allow employment penalties.

However, as I said before - for private universities - controlling their property and employment rights is a big can of worms.

Again, I haven't yet seen a draft of the legislation, but this is what we anticipate:

1. Will state schools have the right to post 30.06 signs?

No.

2. Will private and state schools still have the right to dismiss students or staff for carry (even if they cannot evoke criminal penalties)?

Private schools - Yes
State schools - No

[GEM-Texas]

To be ultimately pragmatic, legislation that only affects public / state schools and lets private schools continue to ban and fire, increases the risk at those latter schools. So in terms of risk management, why should students and staff at private schools support such discriminatory legislation and paint targets on themselves.

It is a general flaw of our CHL rules that allow places open to the public to ban CHL because of some conservative ranting about private property. Certainly, we don't allow discrimination based on race, etc. Thus, private properties rights are not absolute. The real reason for the private property ranting is that businesses and other institutions think the ban decreases their liability profiles. They really don't care about civil liberties.

[Pinkycatcher]

To be ultimately pragmatic, legislation that only affects public / state schools and lets private schools continue to ban and fire, increases the risk at those latter schools. So in terms of risk management, why should students and staff at private schools support such discriminatory legislation and paint targets on themselves.

It is a general flaw of our CHL rules that allow places open to the public to ban CHL because of some conservative ranting about private property. Certainly, we don't allow discrimination based on race, etc. Thus, private properties rights are not absolute. The real reason for the private property ranting is that businesses and other institutions think the ban decreases their liability profiles. They really don't care about civil liberties.

I think you just started a debate, but in a nutshell private property rights are pretty much more powerful than any other right in Texas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I feel that private schools should not be exempt from campus-carry legislation, as their students face the same threats as students in state-supported schools. However, the political reality is that this will be landmark legislation in Texas and that's code for "this is going to be one heck of a fight!" Making it cover private schools will almost guarantee a loss.

I am a very strong supporter of private property rights when it comes to non-commercial property. Commercial property is already regulated in ways that have far greater impact that a requirement to allow a CHL to be armed.

Chas.

[Douva]

To be ultimately pragmatic, legislation that only affects public / state schools and lets private schools continue to ban and fire, increases the risk at those latter schools. So in terms of risk management, why should students and staff at private schools support such discriminatory legislation and paint targets on themselves.

It is a general flaw of our CHL rules that allow places open to the public to ban CHL because of some conservative ranting about private property. Certainly, we don't allow discrimination based on race, etc. Thus, private properties rights are not absolute. The real reason for the private property ranting is that businesses and other institutions think the ban decreases their liability profiles. They really don't care about civil liberties.

The very reason for the existence of many private colleges is a desire by educators, students, and parents to have access to institutions of postsecondary education that are not beholden to the same regulations as state schools. If you want to teach at or attend a Christian school, you should be able to teach at or attend a private Christian school, and if you want to teach at or attend a gun-free school, you should be able to teach at or attend a private gun-free school. Gun ownership may be protected by the U.S. Constitution, but gun owners are not a protected class.

It's quite ironic (and telling) that many gun rights activists rant about how the government should stay out of people's business, until someone raises the issue of carrying firearms on private property. Then, in an abrupt about face, those same gun rights activists start citing other government restrictions on the rights of private property owners as justification for further government restrictions on the rights of private property owners. Such a discrepancy is almost enough to lead a casual observer to believe that those gun rights activists aren't as interested in preventing government interference as they are in being able to do whatever they please, whenever and wherever they please.

Before someone brings up the parking lot issue, I will preemptively point out that I view a person's automobile to be his or her personal embassy--his or her territory on foreign soil. If you allow the public to use your parking lot, you must accept both the cars and their contents. The same is not true of allowing individuals to enter your place of business. For instance, a shop owner should be able to say, "I'm sorry, but you can't bring that bull into my china shop."

[seamusTX]

Deleted. Should have a PM.

- Jim

[Keith B]

Such a discrepancy is almost enough to lead a casual observer to believe that those gun rights activists aren't as interested in preventing government interference as they are in being able to do whatever they please, whenever and wherever they please.

Exactly.

Plus, some of the same who want to carry everywhere talk about taking down the Maytag repairman if they "make" him in their home.

That's why I stay out of these discussions. They're always the same.

- Jim

We could be like Arkansas and have the restriction that you can't carry in someone elses home unless you advise them you are carrying and get their permission to enter.

[seamusTX]

We don't have that now and nobody seems to think we need it.

If you don't want people to carry in your house, all you have to do is ask them.

You can legally require people to submit to being frisked when they enter your house. I never heard of anyone that paranoid.

I didn't intend to post in this thread, but now that I have ... If this law gets passed, it will be based on the political reality of what can pass both houses of the Texas Legislature.

Requiring by law private schools to allow concealed carry will never pass. Too many powerful interests would be against it, and too many legislators wouldn't touch the issue. It's a non-starter.

Furthermore, even if PC 46.03 is amended to primary and secondary schools, every college has rules against firearms, and private colleges will be able to post 30.06.

Getting such a law passed will be only the first battle in a long fight.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

However, I do have a problem when my carry is restricted on *public* property that my money helped pay for. Hence, why I am strongly supporting being able to carry on any and all public property, such as state-funded universities, including private universities that receive *any* sort of state or local funding, ...

This is a very tricky area of law.

What constitutes "any" state funding? No property tax? Federal tuition scholarships or grants? Federal flood insurance?

Pretty soon, there is nothing anywhere that is not state-supported in some way. This would be great with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, but are you willing to see it extended to other areas that could be considered civil rights?

- Jim