TexasCHLforum.com

Like the title indicates, the AG issued his non-binding opinion on some parts of campus carry. Looks pretty good. I do not know how to get it over here but the article is on the front page of this mornings edition of the Austin newspaper at statesman.com

Running here: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=81137

Also, dhoobler made a thread regarding the latest firearm opinions that are/were pending: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=81012

I found the opinion interesting and fairly well written and logical. I would expect no less of the OAG in this duty though. I was surprised by how much weight the news media have given to the dorms part while ignoring the rest. It seemed to me that this opinion was written almost directly as a smack at the UT recommendations. I know the request was written before the recommendations came out and this answer must have been prepared fairly well in advance also, but the timing and the answers certainly seem suspicious to me.

For example, I saw the answer about professors deciding on their own about their classrooms. The same logic would apply to their offices since that was part of the UT recommendations also. The dorm part was poorly written in the recommendations but I took it as not banning the carry int he dorm. They said they wanted to ban the carry in the dorm but not in the common areas and then allowed specific gun safes in the rooms. Well, that means they have to be able to carry it to the room, doesn't it?

I also noted the comment at the bottom that he pointed out but did not specifically answer about method of carry. Am I the only one that read that as his saying it would be illegal based on pre-emption laws?

And the big news I saw was that he specifically said that I could sue the university if they violated the rules. I can't sue for financial damages but I can sue to get the rules thrown out and an injunction against enforcing them. To me, that was more surprising and bigger news than the dorms, and the media ignored it.

srothstein wrote:I found the opinion interesting and fairly well written and logical. I would expect no less of the OAG in this duty though. I was surprised by how much weight the news media have given to the dorms part while ignoring the rest. It seemed to me that this opinion was written almost directly as a smack at the UT recommendations. I know the request was written before the recommendations came out and this answer must have been prepared fairly well in advance also, but the timing and the answers certainly seem suspicious to me.

For example, I saw the answer about professors deciding on their own about their classrooms. The same logic would apply to their offices since that was part of the UT recommendations also. The dorm part was poorly written in the recommendations but I took it as not banning the carry int he dorm. They said they wanted to ban the carry in the dorm but not in the common areas and then allowed specific gun safes in the rooms. Well, that means they have to be able to carry it to the room, doesn't it?

I also noted the comment at the bottom that he pointed out but did not specifically answer about method of carry. Am I the only one that read that as his saying it would be illegal based on pre-emption laws?

And the big news I saw was that he specifically said that I could sue the university if they violated the rules. I can't sue for financial damages but I can sue to get the rules thrown out and an injunction against enforcing them. To me, that was more surprising and bigger news than the dorms, and the media ignored it.

I hope that the potential for being sued wasn't lost on the universities as some students have plenty of time and might even consider that to be a potential educational opportunity. I wonder if that then also applies to any government that illegally posts a building?

casp625 wrote:Running here: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=81137

Also, dhoobler made a thread regarding the latest firearm opinions that are/were pending: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=81012

Closing this as a duplicate Topic.