TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

This news story claims he won a $1 million whistleblower lawsuit in California as well....

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

This news story claims he won a $1 million whistleblower lawsuit in California as well....

That may be the lawsuit I heard about, rather than one over the nude photographs.

Chas.

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

This news story claims he won a $1 million whistleblower lawsuit in California as well....

Wow. So he makes it up to CHP Division Chief, then wins $1M whistleblower lawsuit....and just then just decides to take a job in Austin? And as a Planning & Analysis Division Chief (according to his LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/pub/art-acevedo/41/498/b3), which is three rungs below the Commissioner, that qualifies him to take the Austin PD Chief slot? Interesting.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

This news story claims he won a $1 million whistleblower lawsuit in California as well....

That may be the lawsuit I heard about, rather than one over the nude photographs.

Chas.

Yeah, all I could glean was that he was sued by her for $5 million in damages, that she didn't accept the settlement offer, but I don't know what final disposition there was. Then the whistleblower suit...

None of this changes the fact there is overwhelming evidence he is a liar and deceptive and completely comes across wrong to me.

"Officials address concerns about Texas open carry"
http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/o ... pen-carry/

"Is campus carry headed to court?"
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/e ... 577760.php

"Open Carry will take effect in Jan. Do you support it?"
Kingswood, Texas
http://www.kingwoodunderground.com/topi ... d=11815617

"Willis City Council to hold Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 20th"
http://www.kstarcountry.com/news/willis ... ober-20th/

oljames3 wrote:"Officials address concerns about Texas open carry"
"Open Carry will take effect in Jan. Do you support it?"
Kingswood, Texas
http://www.kingwoodunderground.com/topi ... d=11815617

Lots of interesting and positive things being said down in Kingswood!

I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

I can't really say as the article doesn't let you read other than the first couple of sentences. But what was there seemed to indicate that the universities believe that they can ban guns in classrooms and dorms -- and I presume that they think that is "all" of those -- and that certainly doesn't match my recollection of what was discussed during the legislative session.

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

This is a rhetorical question, right ? We are talking about leftist libtards, even if they are Texas leftist libtards.

Glockster wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

I can't really say as the article doesn't let you read other than the first couple of sentences. But what was there seemed to indicate that the universities believe that they can ban guns in classrooms and dorms -- and I presume that they think that is "all" of those -- and that certainly doesn't match my recollection of what was discussed during the legislative session.

I read an article yesterday that went along the lines of anti folks using the phrase from the statute "reasonable restrictions". The legislative debate centered on sensitive areas such as labs and such. But some are saying that the way that the law is written could allow classrooms and offices to be considered sensitive areas and be determined off limits.

Glockster wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

I can't really say as the article doesn't let you read other than the first couple of sentences. But what was there seemed to indicate that the universities believe that they can ban guns in classrooms and dorms -- and I presume that they think that is "all" of those -- and that certainly doesn't match my recollection of what was discussed during the legislative session.

THIS ^^.

Here is what the law says http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011F.htm:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

• SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
  amended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:
  • Sec. 411.2031. CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON
    CERTAIN CAMPUSES.
    • (a) For purposes of this section:
      • (1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.
        (2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
        (3) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.
      (b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state.
      (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), (d-1), or (e), an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.
      (d) An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.
      (d-1) After consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution regarding the nature of the student population, specific safety considerations, and the uniqueness of the campus environment, the president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary for campus safety. The provisions take effect as determined by the president or officer unless subsequently amended by the board of regents or other governing board under Subsection (d-2). The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry.
      (d-2) Not later than the 90th day after the date that the rules, regulations, or other provisions are established as described by Subsection (d-1), the board of regents or other governing board of the institution of higher education shall review the provisions. The board of regents or other governing board may, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the board, amend wholly or partly the provisions established under Subsection (d-1). If amended under this subsection, the provisions are considered to be those of the institution as established under Subsection (d-1).
      
      ........
      
      (e) A private or independent institution of higher education in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by the institution.

TPC § 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Let them sue. The law seems pretty ironclad to me. It would be hard to argue that the legislature intended anything other than what they passed and the governor signed into law. The way the law is worded, a public university NOT allowed to post 30.06 in all buildings. As such, it wouldn't cost much in legal fees to take them to court because no judge could reasonably interpret the law to mean that they could establish a de facto banning of CHL from the buildings.....not the way the law is written, and certainly not in the absence of any Constitutional objections. Only the most hardcore leftist judge would fail to throw this out of court, and the ones that didn't might not be reelected.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Glockster wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

I can't really say as the article doesn't let you read other than the first couple of sentences. But what was there seemed to indicate that the universities believe that they can ban guns in classrooms and dorms -- and I presume that they think that is "all" of those -- and that certainly doesn't match my recollection of what was discussed during the legislative session.

THIS ^^.

Here is what the law says http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011F.htm:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

• SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
  amended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:
  • Sec. 411.2031. CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON
    CERTAIN CAMPUSES.
    • (a) For purposes of this section:
      • (1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.
        (2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
        (3) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.
      (b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state.
      (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), (d-1), or (e), an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.
      (d) An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.
      (d-1) After consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution regarding the nature of the student population, specific safety considerations, and the uniqueness of the campus environment, the president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary for campus safety. The provisions take effect as determined by the president or officer unless subsequently amended by the board of regents or other governing board under Subsection (d-2). The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry.
      (d-2) Not later than the 90th day after the date that the rules, regulations, or other provisions are established as described by Subsection (d-1), the board of regents or other governing board of the institution of higher education shall review the provisions. The board of regents or other governing board may, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the board, amend wholly or partly the provisions established under Subsection (d-1). If amended under this subsection, the provisions are considered to be those of the institution as established under Subsection (d-1).
      
      ........
      
      (e) A private or independent institution of higher education in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by the institution.

TPC § 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Let them sue. The law seems pretty ironclad to me. It would be hard to argue that the legislature intended anything other than what they passed and the governor signed into law. The way the law is worded, a public university NOT allowed to post 30.06 in all buildings. As such, it wouldn't cost much in legal fees to take them to court because no judge could reasonably interpret the law to mean that they could establish a de facto banning of CHL from the buildings.....not the way the law is written, and certainly not in the absence of any Constitutional objections. Only the most hardcore leftist judge would fail to throw this out of court, and the ones that didn't might not be reelected.

Yupper.

During the floor debate, there was some bleeding heart who talked about some super-sensitive lab at some college that if handguns were allowed, they might loose federal funds for research. Another brought up chemical labs where a gun going off might be bad and so on. That is what this was aimed at, to declare places off limits because there was an actual, physical danger to the presence of a handgun... not because of liberal feels.

I would have no problems not allowing a handgun in the nuke plant on A&M's campus, or in the chemistry department's storage room where there are hundreds of containers of various chemicals... but if they try to do crap like outlaw handguns in all of the buildings just because there is a janitor's closet with some Mr. Clean stored in it, that is not going to fly.

UTEP hS also discussed making various labs and day care facilities " gun free zones". After obtaining a minor in chemistry , I don't know of a single lab that didn't have an ignition point ( usually a Bunsen Burner). This includes Chemistry and Micro Chemistry labs .

I can't wait to OC.