TexasCHLforum.com

I would be quite happy to file suit against UH on August 2, 2016 if they put anything remotely close to this into practice on August 1, 2016.

I find great comfort knowing you have filing suit as one of the solutions.

I posted this before I read it page by page. When I got the section where where they were claiming exemptions for practically every building on campus I couldn't help but laugh and cry (I'm a full time student who rides Metro through the 3rd Ward).

Charles ... thank you for putting/keeping this on your priority list. My fiancé is a 2L at UH Law Center right now. She just picked up a spring/summer clerkship with an older corporate immigration firm. Last year she interned with Fort Bend DA, and with the Honorable Judge Mike Engelhart (151st Civil).

For those of you who have an interest or investment in this cause (or University of Houston) remember the date: March 9 - 3 to 5pm. We could sure your voice and support at these meetings. In the past they either have a floating microphone, or two stationary microphones. They are opened minded with speaking time until some bed-wetting professor gets out of his/her fetal position to hog the mic or risks destroying it with tears.

The Campus Carry Work Group will hold an Open Forum on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 3-5 p.m.

My college has 2 associate deans with CHLs. One brought up the fact that they are improperly interpreting the law to ban carry in most buildings at one meeting.

eyedoc wrote:My college has 2 associate deans with CHLs. One brought up the fact that they are improperly interpreting the law to ban carry in most buildings at one meeting.

Thank you for posting your firsthand experience and knowledge.
I like to see evidence that contradicts the common notion that "academics" are some how different and have an irrational fear of guns.

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

"G. Verbal Reference to Firearms or Other Weapons: The declaration of handgun possession or CHL status may be considered a threat under some circumstances. See MAPP 02.08.01 for more information about responses to threats."

That one is interesting. If a person admits they have a LTC, that person is conveying a threat.

MeMelYup wrote:"G. Verbal Reference to Firearms or Other Weapons: The declaration of handgun possession or CHL status may be considered a threat under some circumstances. See MAPP 02.08.01 for more information about responses to threats."

That one is interesting. If a person admits they have a LTC, that person is conveying a threat.

We were told to call 911 on any person we find carrying. They want the police to determine if they are legal to carry.

E10 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

Well, obviously UH is not ignoring it, given the policy documentation that's been generated. Isn't local control the kind we prefer over dictates from feds or state??? I suspect UH is more concerned about the abstraction that might occur with open carry. I would not compare this policy with that of the local fast food joint - let's assume these folks are thoughtful and well informed in all administrative actions.

1966 Engineering Alumnus of UH

eyedoc wrote:We were told to call 911 on any person we find carrying. They want the police to determine if they are legal to carry.

That's as burdensome, as it is troublesome. I would find that an order of magnitude more disruptive to the educational process than merely the possession of a handgun by a LTC holder.

dale blanker wrote:

E10 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

Well, obviously UH is not ignoring it, given the policy documentation that's been generated. Isn't local control the kind we prefer over dictates from feds or state??? I suspect UH is more concerned about the abstraction that might occur with open carry. I would not compare this policy with that of the local fast food joint - let's assume these folks are thoughtful and well informed in all administrative actions.

1966 Engineering Alumnus of UH

They are totally ignoring the faculty and students who carry. My college has 2 associate deans with CHLs. An ex- faculty senate president with a CHL and at least 6 other faculty with them. Our building is a no carry zone with a bogus justification. They are not thoughtful or well informed. They ignore reason and facts.

dale blanker wrote:

E10 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

Well, obviously UH is not ignoring it, given the policy documentation that's been generated. Isn't local control the kind we prefer over dictates from feds or state??? I suspect UH is more concerned about the abstraction that might occur with open carry. I would not compare this policy with that of the local fast food joint - let's assume these folks are thoughtful and well informed in all administrative actions.

1966 Engineering Alumnus of UH

I respectfully disagree on your words that I highlighted in red above. Local control is all well and good with things like speed limits and school board policies, etc. But with criminal things (i.e. things that can get you a nice prison term), I prefer a more consistent interpretation across the state. For instance, I don't want to have a perfectly legal knife in Houston suddenly make me a criminal if I have it in San Antonio. I don't want my right to CC to be OK in Uvalde, but be a criminal activity in San Saba.

That's why we don't let local laws pre-empt our gun laws in this state. Local people in cities, counties, or other municipalities should NOT be empowered to make tighter gun laws than the state has already put in place. The same logic can be applied in our publicly funded colleges and universities as well.

dale blanker wrote:

E10 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

Isn't local control the kind we prefer over dictates from feds or state???

As for state control/laws, absolutely not! Not under any circumstances. The mantra "local control" is code for local tyranny. Would you want local control over licenses to carry, driver's license requirements, minimum age for consuming alcohol? The only issues that should be left to local government to control are things such as the municipal tax rate, speed limits on streets not funded with state or federal money, library fees, etc. Any issue or subject matter that has been addressed by the Texas Legislature should be off-limits to any unit of local government, as well as any issue the legislature has refused to regulate.

Chas.

Local control means inside your fence line. That is all you have control over, and even in this day it is less than you think.

Courtrooms (not court houses, or "offices of the court"), cell blocks and visitation areas of prisons / jails (Parking lot OK), Behind security at the airport: Only three places in the entire country where lawful carry of handguns should be prohibited, and not one single other place.

Who gives a hoot if there are animals used in a college laboratory? Are you afraid that a student over 21 is going to pull out a .45 and "bust a cap" in a lab rat?

Have we not learned from Sandy Hook that minors being present is a reason to allow cary, not to prohibit it?

Liberalism is a mental disease.

AJSully421 wrote:Courtrooms (not court houses, or "offices of the court"), cell blocks and visitation areas of prisons / jails (Parking lot OK), Behind security at the airport: Only three places in the entire country where lawful carry of handguns should be prohibited, and not one single other place.

Who gives a hoot if there are animals used in a college laboratory? Are you afraid that a student over 21 is going to pull out a .45 and "bust a cap" in a lab rat?

Have we not learned from Sandy Hook that minors being present is a reason to allow cary, not to prohibit it?

Liberalism is a mental disease.

The labs are access controlled. You need a special key card to get to the elevator to take you to the floor with the labs. The doors to that floor also require your special key card.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

E10 wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Just because they don't like a law doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

Why not? The President has been ignoring laws he doesn't like for more than seven years. They're just following his example. In this case, I sincerely hope the legislature doesn't follow the example of the Congress by letting them get away with it.

Isn't local control the kind we prefer over dictates from feds or state???

As for state control/laws, absolutely not! Not under any circumstances. The mantra "local control" is code for local tyranny. Would you want local control over licenses to carry, driver's license requirements, minimum age for consuming alcohol? The only issues that should be left to local government to control are things such as the municipal tax rate, speed limits on streets not funded with state or federal money, library fees, etc. Any issue or subject matter that has been addressed by the Texas Legislature should be off-limits to any unit of local government, as well as any issue the legislature has refused to regulate.

Chas.

Charles, your points are well taken as usual.

My intent was not clear. The "local control" that I was referring to with respect to the university is the setting of the academic environment to promote intellectual freedom and development, i.e. an environment that promotes debate as well as research and learning. Here's a quote from the president of UT: "Let me say that I do not believe handguns belong in a university setting, in a campus environment dedicated to education and research, but nevertheless as president of a public university, I am responsible for implementing the new law."

I understand that some professors are being advised to avoid very heated debates on sensitive issues. I believe a respected professor left UT because of campus carry. The carry law allows some exclusions, federal buildings, churches, etc. - why not for public universities as well as private?

I like to think my old alma mater still knows what it's doing but it's been a long while since I left and I could be wrong.