TexasCHLforum.com

This is how I read it. If either of these bills become law, institutions of higher education generally, will no longer be legally prohibited places. Public institutions will not be permitted to opt out of the new law as is true of any other government organization which is not included in the list of prohibited places. Since only private institutions will have that option, it would seem to me, that they, too, should have to comply with the same 30.06 notice requirements as any other private property owner must, in order to LEGALLY prohibit CHL carry.

Obviously, these private institutions will be able to have policies to admonish students, staff and faculty who have possession of firearms, but to provide criminal penalties, they should have to post proper notice.

I would recommend that any who testify at the upcoming hearing suggest that the topic be addressed. I will be contacting Sen. Wentworth who happens to be my Senator.

And what is your point, what is your concern with the bill? That private institutions can post 30.06 or would penalize the student who legally carry?

Sorry if I worded it poorly.

My hope is that, like any other private entity, since thy would no longer be a prohibited place, they would be REQUIRED to post 30.06 notice for CHL's generally to LEGALLY prohibit CHL carry.

Obviously, they would still be permitted to regulate staff and students through policy.

cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.

This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.

CWOOD wrote:

cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.

This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.

I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

I'm also really amused by the "Easter Egg" in these bills.

apostate wrote:

CWOOD wrote:

cbr600 wrote:It looks like the law (46.03) would be changed to remove the statutory prohibition for CHL (but not long guns) so it wouldn't be a crime to carry concealed with a CHL unless they give notice according to 30.06, no different from any other private business.

This is my read on it also. I am simply wondering if it should be specifically noted in the legislation or at least discussed in committee or on the floor to establish legislative intent.

With their new status as a NON prohibited location, I am sure that they will resist this new requirement.

Thanks for all input above.

I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

I'm also really amused by the "Easter Egg" in these bills.

Apostate is right. These are good bills. They've been looked at by a lot of attorneys and a lot of experts on Texas law. Don't start creating problems where there are none--doing so will just hurt us in the long run.

Private colleges would have the Opt-out capability anyway, but I would think a publicly funded college would fall under the Government Building clause and a 30.06 would not be valid anyway.

Keith B wrote:Private colleges would have the Opt-out capability anyway, but I would think a publicly funded college would fall under the Government Building clause and a 30.06 would not be valid anyway.

I think it goes one step further. Not only would a 30.06 be invalid on premises owned or leased by a tax funded entity, but it looks like it would prevent publicly funded colleges from having HR policies and student codes of conduct that administratively punish concealed carriers. That's great for students and faculty, and I wish the legislature would make tax funded hospitals play by those rules.

apostate wrote:I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

Perhaps we could present it as a feature rather than a bug. By having colleges post the "Big Ugly Sign" to be off limits, their students can see it and get warm fuzzy feelings knowing that nobody is legally carrying in the building. After all, "Feeling Safe" is all they seem to care about.[/color]

hirundo82 wrote:

apostate wrote:I welcome correction from those with legislative or lobbyist experience, but I believe the less said the better. The opponents of classroom carry are already riled up enough without reminding them of The Big Ugly Sign requirement.

Perhaps we could present it as a feature rather than a bug. By having colleges post the "Big Ugly Sign" to be off limits, their students can see it and get warm fuzzy feelings knowing that nobody is legally carrying in the building. After all, "Feeling Safe" is all they seem to care about.

I'm trying to picture 30.06 signs on buildings at Rice.

Let's just go with HB 86 and we don't have to worry about the 30.06 signs! I am not a fan of private schools being able to opt out.

WacoCarry wrote:Let's just go with HB 86 and we don't have to worry about the 30.06 signs! I am not a fan of private schools being able to opt out.

unless they reject payment from Government Grants, Gov't insured loans, etc etc etc Cut gov't funds to zero for so-called "private" schools, no tax breaks, nada, then I'll say ok.