TexasCHLforum.com

Can a Special Session even be called in an off-year?

Even if it can, I doubt this is gonna happen.

To answer my own question, I guess he can:
From the Texas Constitution:

Sec. 8. CONVENING LEGISLATURE ON EXTRAORDINARY OCCASIONS. (a) The Governor may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Legislature at the seat of Government, or at a different place, in case that should be in possession of the public enemy or in case of the prevalence of disease threat. His proclamation therefor shall state specifically the purpose for which the Legislature is convened.

It appears no limit is set on when he may do this.


I really don't see him doing this for campus carry tho.

ELB wrote:To answer my own question, I guess he can:
From the Texas Constitution:

Sec. 8. CONVENING LEGISLATURE ON EXTRAORDINARY OCCASIONS. (a) The Governor may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Legislature at the seat of Government, or at a different place, in case that should be in possession of the public enemy or in case of the prevalence of disease threat. His proclamation therefor shall state specifically the purpose for which the Legislature is convened.

It appears no limit is set on when he may do this.


I really don't see him doing this for campus carry tho.

You didn't actually read the statement, did you?

When you post stuff like this, it would be handy for some of us if you actually put something in the form of a short summary and link, etc. I'm not tracking.

If i'm going to google it,... what's the point.

SCC is Students for Concealed Carry.

http://concealedcampus.org/2016/01/scc- ... l-session/

"AUSTIN, TX – Although the committees and working groups tasked with developing campus carry policies at Texas universities have thus far eschewed such obvious nonstarters as banning licensed concealed carry in classrooms and banning concealed carry campus-wide during final exams, major universities such as the University of Texas at Austin, the University of North Texas, Texas Tech, and the UT Medical Branch at Galveston are considering policies that would prohibit concealed carry by large segments of the campus community, prohibit concealed carry in large areas where concealed handguns present no unique threat to public safety, or require license holders to carry handguns in a manner that conflicts with basic firearms training. For this reason, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) calls on Governor Greg Abbott to include an order to clarify the state’s campus carry law—specifically, the scope and intent of the “reasonable rules” university presidents are allowed to make—in any 2016 special session of the Texas Legislature."

In My Opinion this could be settled with an Attorney General Opinion. Charles is the authority on this though he may differ.

tlt wrote:When you post stuff like this, it would be handy for some of us if you actually put something in the form of a short summary and link, etc. I'm not tracking.

If i'm going to google it,... what's the point.

SCC is Students for Concealed Carry.

http://concealedcampus.org/2016/01/scc- ... l-session/

"AUSTIN, TX – Although the committees and working groups tasked with developing campus carry policies at Texas universities have thus far eschewed such obvious nonstarters as banning licensed concealed carry in classrooms and banning concealed carry campus-wide during final exams, major universities such as the University of Texas at Austin, the University of North Texas, Texas Tech, and the UT Medical Branch at Galveston are considering policies that would prohibit concealed carry by large segments of the campus community, prohibit concealed carry in large areas where concealed handguns present no unique threat to public safety, or require license holders to carry handguns in a manner that conflicts with basic firearms training. For this reason, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) calls on Governor Greg Abbott to include an order to clarify the state’s campus carry law—specifically, the scope and intent of the “reasonable rules” university presidents are allowed to make—in any 2016 special session of the Texas Legislature."

In My Opinion this could be settled with an Attorney General Opinion. Charles is the authority on this though he may differ.

I posted a link. If you can't see it, the problem must be with your device.

An attorney general opinion doesn't settle anything. An attorney general opinion is just that--an opinion.

Nope, can't see it at all-- No offense. Standard PC, browser.. Sorry about that..

Bladed wrote: You didn't actually read the statement, did you?

Yes I read it and no, I don't see the Guv calling a special session for campus carry, neither as an addition nor by itself. There's more to it than $$$s.

Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

jb2012 wrote:Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

How is waiting two years and then trying again with an unknown legislature during a regular session in which opponents can surreptitiously run out the clock by simply scheduling other bills first better than trying again during a special session of the same legislature that passed campus carry but was forced to accept a vaguely worded eleventh-hour compromise after opponents surreptitiously ran out the clock by scheduling other bills first?

Bladed wrote:

jb2012 wrote:Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

How is waiting two years and then trying again with an unknown legislature during a regular session in which opponents can surreptitiously run out the clock by simply scheduling other bills first better than trying again during a special session of the same legislature that passed campus carry but was forced to accept a vaguely worded eleventh-hour compromise after opponents surreptitiously ran out the clock by scheduling other bills first?

because after two years with more than likely zero issues (as occurred in all other states with campus carry) there should be far less opponents to campus carry. You even acknowledge that the opponents were forced to "surreptitiously" attempt to run out the clock on this bill, don't you think that they are going to do everything in their power to "surreptitiously" remove the entire bill if not make even more restricting provisions? It would make much more sense to hold the ground we have now then to attempt to gain more ground at the risk of losing what we have. We won a major battle in 2015 with campus carry and the way things currently sit via the bill itself and the AG opinion on how schools are to conduct themselves, we sit in a very good position as is. Your comment on the unknown legislature while true is not likely to change drastically in two years. I can't find the state statistic at this time but incumbents are very highly likely to hold their position when facing a new candidate. I don't see our state house/senate changing so much that we would elect such people that would be up for changing a law that has served to protect the youth of our state, without incident (which I feel very comfortable saying).

There is an expected call for a special session caused by the upcoming ruling by the State Supreme Court about education. What SCCC is asking for is if one is called than Campus Carry should be addressed.

jb2012 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

jb2012 wrote:Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

How is waiting two years and then trying again with an unknown legislature during a regular session in which opponents can surreptitiously run out the clock by simply scheduling other bills first better than trying again during a special session of the same legislature that passed campus carry but was forced to accept a vaguely worded eleventh-hour compromise after opponents surreptitiously ran out the clock by scheduling other bills first?

because after two years with more than likely zero issues (as occurred in all other states with campus carry) there should be far less opponents to campus carry. You even acknowledge that the opponents were forced to "surreptitiously" attempt to run out the clock on this bill, don't you think that they are going to do everything in their power to "surreptitiously" remove the entire bill if not make even more restricting provisions? It would make much more sense to hold the ground we have now then to attempt to gain more ground at the risk of losing what we have. We won a major battle in 2015 with campus carry and the way things currently sit via the bill itself and the AG opinion on how schools are to conduct themselves, we sit in a very good position as is. Your comment on the unknown legislature while true is not likely to change drastically in two years. I can't find the state statistic at this time but incumbents are very highly likely to hold their position when facing a new candidate. I don't see our state house/senate changing so much that we would elect such people that would be up for changing a law that has served to protect the youth of our state, without incident (which I feel very comfortable saying).

Not only will we have several months without incident, we will have evidence that some schools have abused the discretion given to them by the Legislature. That never sells well with the Legislature. Addressing the issue during a special session before the Bill even goes into effect will be useless.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jb2012 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

jb2012 wrote:Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

How is waiting two years and then trying again with an unknown legislature during a regular session in which opponents can surreptitiously run out the clock by simply scheduling other bills first better than trying again during a special session of the same legislature that passed campus carry but was forced to accept a vaguely worded eleventh-hour compromise after opponents surreptitiously ran out the clock by scheduling other bills first?

because after two years with more than likely zero issues (as occurred in all other states with campus carry) there should be far less opponents to campus carry. You even acknowledge that the opponents were forced to "surreptitiously" attempt to run out the clock on this bill, don't you think that they are going to do everything in their power to "surreptitiously" remove the entire bill if not make even more restricting provisions? It would make much more sense to hold the ground we have now then to attempt to gain more ground at the risk of losing what we have. We won a major battle in 2015 with campus carry and the way things currently sit via the bill itself and the AG opinion on how schools are to conduct themselves, we sit in a very good position as is. Your comment on the unknown legislature while true is not likely to change drastically in two years. I can't find the state statistic at this time but incumbents are very highly likely to hold their position when facing a new candidate. I don't see our state house/senate changing so much that we would elect such people that would be up for changing a law that has served to protect the youth of our state, without incident (which I feel very comfortable saying).

Not only will we have several months without incident, we will have evidence that some schools have abused the discretion given to them by the Legislature. That never sells well with the Legislature. Addressing the issue during a special session before the Bill even goes into effect will be useless.

Chas.

August can't come soon enough. Looking at my schedule this semester I'll be waking back & forth from one side of campus to the other, typically alone. I'm just glad my latest class is out at 5:15. Park the truck close & hopefully avoid that parking lot experience after dark.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jb2012 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

jb2012 wrote:Honestly I would rather hold the ground that we do have for 2 years and let the smoke blow over, much in the same way as open carry. I am more nervous about losing the ground we have made on campus carry at least at my school (I know it's selfish) that I think in two years when the house and senate meet again we could gain much more ground than we could lose from a special session.

How is waiting two years and then trying again with an unknown legislature during a regular session in which opponents can surreptitiously run out the clock by simply scheduling other bills first better than trying again during a special session of the same legislature that passed campus carry but was forced to accept a vaguely worded eleventh-hour compromise after opponents surreptitiously ran out the clock by scheduling other bills first?

because after two years with more than likely zero issues (as occurred in all other states with campus carry) there should be far less opponents to campus carry. You even acknowledge that the opponents were forced to "surreptitiously" attempt to run out the clock on this bill, don't you think that they are going to do everything in their power to "surreptitiously" remove the entire bill if not make even more restricting provisions? It would make much more sense to hold the ground we have now then to attempt to gain more ground at the risk of losing what we have. We won a major battle in 2015 with campus carry and the way things currently sit via the bill itself and the AG opinion on how schools are to conduct themselves, we sit in a very good position as is. Your comment on the unknown legislature while true is not likely to change drastically in two years. I can't find the state statistic at this time but incumbents are very highly likely to hold their position when facing a new candidate. I don't see our state house/senate changing so much that we would elect such people that would be up for changing a law that has served to protect the youth of our state, without incident (which I feel very comfortable saying).

Not only will we have several months without incident, we will have evidence that some schools have abused the discretion given to them by the Legislature. That never sells well with the Legislature. Addressing the issue during a special session before the Bill even goes into effect will be useless.

Chas.

If the bill had gone into effect January 1, I might agree. However, when the session starts, Texas universities will have only held class for four months under the new law. Therefore, it's going to be a lot easier to argue that it's too soon to know what effect campus carry will have than that opponents' concerns were unwarranted.

By the end of the first semester, the dust will have barely settled on the protests by professors and students angry about the new law taking effect. Rather than everyone having had time to cool down a bit, everyone will still be fired up and looking for a fight. Given how easy it is to throw obstacles in front of a bill during a regular session, my concern is that opponents in the legislature will play on their colleagues' campus-carry fatigue, to keep the issue on the back burner.