TexasCHLforum.com

this thread reminded me of a conversation i had this past weekend, but i did not want to hijack: viewtopic.php?f=90&t=43831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm quite certain it was off the record, so the college, town or his position does not matter.

this college is also very concerned about the campus carry bill. they are doing the following.
1) all unarmed security guards will get armed
2) they will get vests for all security and campus police
3) they will re-write action plans and approached every call as if there is a gun present.

this was a conversation between a good friend of mine who is a teacher at this college and the administrator, both know I carry and I've had conversations with both about getting CHL. I know the teacher will get CHL if the bill is passes, and says will carry to class.

interestingly enough the administrator is the one who brought it up. but did a great job of dodging questions when i lightly probed for more info. He feels there are more important things for legislature to be messing with, and i can't say i disagree. He also feels each school should get to decide, but i disagree, state funds = state rules... don't like it make your school privet.

I did not point out to him that when CHL become law, the mall security guards did not arm themselves or get vests.

Thus far, the only intelligent objection I have heard to campus carry regards faith-based institutions being able to opt out if their religion prohibits weapons and/or self defense. I agree they should have the ability to opt out on First Amendment grounds, provided it's tied to the institution not having armed campus police.

I'd say it out to be also tied to them not receiving any public money to fund their agenda.

JCole wrote:I'd say it out to be also tied to them not receiving any public money to fund their agenda.

I agree, but aren't most faith-based colleges/universities private anyway?

austinrealtor wrote:I agree, but aren't most faith-based colleges/universities private anyway?

Probably, and I don't care if they opt out, if they receive absolutely no state money for anything.

What alot of folks don't realize is that most private schools do recieve some money from the state in the form of a grant. Although it looks like that money might be going away because of cuts, I'd say they fall into the non opt out area as well!

WacoCarry wrote:What alot of folks don't realize is that most private schools do recieve some money from the state in the form of a grant. Although it looks like that money might be going away because of cuts, I'd say they fall into the non opt out area as well!

I think if "opt out" is allowed, it should be all or nothing

"opt out of allowing concealed carry and all State funding of any kind including all tax breaks, retirement fund eligibility, benefits etc..effectively seceding from the State of Texas and agree to not voice opinions on legislation of any nature in the future, we desire to be our own sovereign lands whereby the magic invisible fence and our defense force makes us feel safe"

jus mah pinion.

austinrealtor wrote:

JCole wrote:I'd say it out to be also tied to them not receiving any public money to fund their agenda.

I agree, but aren't most faith-based colleges/universities private anyway?

AFAIK there is only one college in the US that does not accept any federal funds - Hillsdale College in south central Michigan. Their students can't even get federal grants or scholarships. Every other college, public or private, accepts students who get money for college from the federal government. That means that those schools are subject to all the strings that are attached - he who owns the gold makes the rules. So, IMNSHO, no college other than Hillsdale, should have any authority to prevent campus carry.

Of course, the legislators of Texas obviously disagree, since they are willing to allow the "private" colleges and universities to prevent campus carry.

Federal money to colleges and universities comes in many forms; scholarships and grants for students, research grants for faculty, incentive programs to encourage certain types of behaviors, etc., etc. So, again, IMNSHO, there really is no such thing as a private institution, except for Hillsdale.

Amazing how they are making CHL holders seem like common criminals...

Should a pro-life Christian college be forced to provide an abortion clinic on campus because some of their students have state grants? Should you be forced to not smoke or dip tobacco because you use city sewage to your house? Should Ford be required to produce only electric vehicles because they have a piece of art on loan in their lobby through a grant of the National Endowment for the Humanities? Should your mother be forced to accept a death panel's ruling because the hospital she's in has doctors going to school on federal loans? Should your daughter be forbidden from joining a labor union when she moves to Hollywood because her husband is buried in Arlington National Cemetery? Should your local grocery store be forbidden from carrying any product with trans fats because some of the people who shop there have HUD houses?

All of these would have to be answered with a yes by the way I understand the underlying argument being made here. It doesn't seem consistent with the larger political philosophies on the role of government, especially regarding the sovereignty of private businesses, families, and individuals, that are typically expressed on this forum.

It seems to me that a more consistent argument would be that there are certain basic, unalienable rights that all United States citizens have and the US government has a responsibility to protect those rights at all times. Same outcome (no private property exemption), but consistent political philosophy in order to get there without opening the door to all the other extrajurisdictional craziness.

RPB wrote:

WacoCarry wrote:What alot of folks don't realize is that most private schools do recieve some money from the state in the form of a grant. Although it looks like that money might be going away because of cuts, I'd say they fall into the non opt out area as well!

I think if "opt out" is allowed, it should be all or nothing

"opt out of allowing concealed carry and all State funding of any kind including all tax breaks, retirement fund eligibility, benefits etc..effectively seceding from the State of Texas and agree to not voice opinions on legislation of any nature in the future, we desire to be our own sovereign lands whereby the magic invisible fence and our defense force makes us feel safe"

jus mah pinion.

Schools don't get to "opt out" of other anti-discrimination laws, and they shouldn't get to opt out of this one.

I doubt that schools on sovereign Indian land get to discriminate, and must submit to regulations of State and Federal Agencies.

RPB wrote:I doubt that schools on sovereign Indian land get to discriminate, and must submit to regulations of State and Federal Agencies.

That's a very interesting train of thought! It made me curious if that's so.

I haven't found much, but what I'm finding seems to say that the Bill of Rights does not apply to Native Americans who are on sovereign tribal land. I haven't found how it applies to non-NAs on tribal land. The anecdotal stories I've heard in the past say there is considerable autonomy, but I haven't come across a reliable source on the topic of how much autonomy in these areas in the 3 minutes of googling I've done.

Do you know any more or where to look to find it?

Dunno, I know State of Texas forced ...disallowed/closed down gambling near Livingston, due to treaty,
I have a cousin working in Washington at Bureau Indian Affairs
http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/ServiceOver ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I really hadn't given a lot of thought.

I find interesting the "forced to/allowed to

Universities Forced to allow (someone else to have) guns
versus
CHLs Forced to store in cars and forced to be defenseless


All are basic Oliver Wendall Holmes "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" issues, one side or the other will feel "forced" one way or the other.

In School Year 2007-2008, the 183 Bureau-funded elementary and secondary schools, located on 64 reservations in 23 states, served approximately 42,000 Indian students. Of these, 59 are BIE-operated and 124 are tribally operated under BIE contracts or grants. The Bureau also funds or operates off-reservation boarding schools and peripheral dormitories near reservations for students attending public schools. The BIE also serves American Indian and Alaska Native post secondary students through higher education scholarships and support funding for tribal colleges and universities. The fiscal year 2009 funding is provided to 26 tribal colleges and universities. The BIE directly operates two post secondary institutions: the Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.


see http://www.bie.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bureau of Indian Education
"Doing what's best for Students"

Currently, the Bureau of Indian Education oversees a total of 183 elementary, secondary, residential and peripheral dormitories across 23 states. 124 schools are tribally controlled under P.L. 93-638 Indian Self Determination Contracts or P.L. 100-297 Tribally Controlled Grant Schools Act. 59 schools are operated by the Bureau of Indian Education. The Bureau of Indian Education also oversees 2 post-secondary schools.

http://www.bie.edu/Schools/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;