SB11 & HB910 This week....

[v7a]

Did SCC issue a new statement? This one sounds a bit more optimistic than the the one they had yesterday

WSJ: Texas Lawmakers Expand Right to Carry Guns on College Campuses

It “is an excellent first step,” said gun-rights group Students for Concealed Carry, in a statement. “We are looking forward to the next few years…[in which] we will work to finish the job and ensure licensed, law-abiding adults are not prohibited from defending themselves simply because they chose to pursue higher education.”

[rp_photo]

I realize it's a lofty goal that will meet some stiff resistance, but one of the next goals should be challenging the validity of 30.06 with the argument that a CHL or someone otherwise legally carrying is a "protected person" much as someone with a service animal who can't be barred from public accommodation. Another and more subtle strategy would be placing increased liability on those who choose to post and providing immunities to those who don't.

[nobius]

Once the bills are received by the governor, how long does he have to sign/veto the bills?

Technically, if he doesn't sign the bill, it still will become law.

Upon receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature... If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within 10 days, the bill becomes a law.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10 Calendar days or business days?

[Bladed]

It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I think when your platform is as narrow as SCCC is then it's difficult to accept the step forward even when it's much smaller than you were hoping for and smaller than what you expected at one point in the process.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad practice to declare defeat when you just got 80% of what you wanted.

I think the people calling this an 80% victory and talking about "legislative intent" either haven't read the bill or don't understand the impact of legislative intent. Legislative intent can be considered by a judge or jury when interpreting vague or ambiguous language, but legislative intent does not change the meaning of words or the interpretation of clearly phrased statutes. What Senator Birdwell intended for this law to accomplish does not change what the law says and will not dictate how it is implemented or enforced. If you honestly believes that, come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities or that, come the 2017 Texas Legislative Session, campus carry advocates will only have to work 20% as hard as they did this session, you're either kidding yourself or know something I don't know.

SCC's statement was a tad harsh, but they're right that this is a very minor victory at best. If the Texas Legislature doesn't further expand campus carry rights in 2017, the only thing that will change on most campuses is an influx of 30.06 signs.

Minor victory? I disagree.
Let's look at the facts:
Presidents can not create a defacto ban on CC.
CHL holders will be able to carry in more places than they did before.
The board of regents are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature (at least that is my understanding).This is why Legislative intent is extremely important in this bill. Even if the Presidents are willing to defy the intent, there is no incentive for the board of regents to do so. http://www.tsus.edu/leadership/regents.html
Anyone who has observed several sessions of the Texas legislature understands that the legislature changes laws in incremental steps. The first step is always the most difficult.

All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before. The only time the board of regents comes into play is if a supermajority opposes the concealed carry policies created by the college president or chief executive officer.

If you honestly think two-thirds of most boards of regents are in favor of campus carry, you haven't spent much time in the world of academia. And as I said before, legislative intent isn't binding or enforceable; it just provides guidance if a judge or jury is asked to interpret vague or ambiguous language. For example, if the bill said that president must have "good cause," to ban concealed carry in a campus building, that is an instance in which a judge or jury might test a challenged policy against the intent of the law. However, nothing in the bill provides a vague standard such as that.

[Bladed]

Where some people see defeat in SB11 I think I might see a touch of brilliance. As we all know you never get everything you want in a bill, especially in a bill that makes significant changes in what has been previously viewed as untouchable. In this case by giving some form of local control universities are given just enough rope to hang themselves. If presidents defy the legislative intent we may well see changes to the bill in 2017 that would not have been possible without that defiance.
I also believe that The board of regents are not going to be the rubber stamp that everyone assumes they will be. They are after all appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature.

Again, the board of regents only comes into play if two-thirds disagree with the president's policies. That's a pretty high bar.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Did anyone actually see the alleged negative statement by Students for Concealed Carry posted anywhere other than on the TexasTribune.com website? I'm suspicious for three reasons: 1) It was posted on the TexasTribune.com webiste; 2) it did not identify the person allegedly making the statement, much less their position with SCC; and 3) it contradicts what is posted on the SCC website.

The as-passed version of SB11 is not what we wanted. It does have value in that any school that violates the spirit of the Bill will make it easier to amend the law in 2017. As soon as SB11 goes into effect, I will start sending Open Records Requests for a number of documents (won't say what) and preparing an analysis for the 2017 legislative session. When the legislature grants discretion, it typically does not respond well when that discretion is abused. Schools have the ability to act in good faith, or they can lay the foundation of their own downfall. Like Bladed, I expect the latter.

Chas.

[J.R.@A&M]

All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before.

Except that posting 30.06 on every building would "...generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." Most students, staff, and faculty are required to be inside a building. If that building, or if most buildings, are posted 30.06, then these CHLs are effectively prohibited. And that is expressly disallowed by Sec. 411.2031.3.d1.

Granted, it would have been better if Sec. 411.2031.3.d1 had used the word "buildings". And it would have been better if some standard had been specified (e.g., "no less than 80% of the buildings"). Still, if they post every building 30.06 they are clearly breaking the letter of the law.

Short of a lawsuit, I am not sure how to enforce it except with saber rattling by the Attorney General and supportive Legislators.

[joelamosobadiah]

Did anyone actually see the alleged negative statement by Students for Concealed Carry posted anywhere other than on the TexasTribune.com website? I'm suspicious for three reasons: 1) It was posted on the TexasTribune.com webiste; 2) it did not identify the person allegedly making the statement, much less their position with SCC; and 3) it contradicts what is posted on the SCC website.

The as-passed version of SB11 is not what we wanted. It does have value in that any school that violates the spirit of the Bill will make it easier to amend the law in 2017. As soon as SB11 goes into effect, I will start sending Open Records Requests for a number of documents (won't say what) and preparing an analysis for the 2017 legislative session. When the legislature grants discretion, it typically does not respond well when that discretion is abused. Schools have the ability to act in good faith, or they can lay the foundation of their own downfall. Like Bladed, I expect the latter.

Chas.

Morgan Smith, reporter for the Texas Tribune tweeted it and replied to somebody telling them that SCC sent the statement to reports. Other than that, I don't see anything else that matches the wording or sentiment from SCC.

[ELB]

...
The as-passed version of SB11 is not what we wanted. It does have value in that any school that violates the spirit of the Bill will make it easier to amend the law in 2017. .... Schools have the ability to act in good faith, or they can lay the foundation of their own downfall. Like Bladed, I expect the latter.

Chas.

This.^^^

If it's not written in the law, it ain't gonna happen. "Legislative intent" is mighty weak tea. And that Democrat legislator quoted earlier in the thread, can'at remember his name, gave a perfect example of why relying on legislative intent to guide the university is a fool's game. They'll just choose the intent they want.

I think the universities believe that because they have successfully stalled campus carry for four sessions now and the only this watered down version has made it so far, why should they knuckle under now? They probably think they have a good shot at stalling any serious changes in the next session, particularly if their guy is back in a position of power.

As I said earlier, the only thing that will fire up the legislature enough to clamp down on them is for them to be publicly and loudly caught thumbing their noses at the Leg's power, and making legislators mad. Mr. Cotton's effort will help with that.

So would SCC documenting testimony for individual students about what a pain in the constitutional tookus campus concealed regulations are, and having those individuals ready to testify next legislature. This is tough for students because they are their for only a relatively short time, and if they have any sort of serious degree, they should rightfully be spending their time on getting that done, graduated, and on to bigger and better things. But hopefully there are some who would be willing to come back and testify even if it won't help them directly any more.

[Bladed]

All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before.

Except that posting 30.06 on every building would "...generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." Most students, staff, and faculty are required to be inside a building. If that building, or if most buildings, are posted 30.06, then these CHLs are effectively prohibited. And that is expressly disallowed by Sec. 411.2031.3.d1.

Granted, it would have been better if Sec. 411.2031.3.d1 had used the word "buildings". And it would have been better if some standard had been specified (e.g., "no less than 80% of the buildings"). Still, if they post every building 30.06 they are clearly breaking the letter of the law.

Short of a lawsuit, I am not sure how to enforce it except with saber rattling by the Attorney General and supportive Legislators.

What the bill says is that they can make regulations regarding concealed carry on the campus, including posting 30.06 on buildings, but can't prohibit concealed carry on the entire campus. Therefore, a college might need to bring its policy more into line with the prior state law (concealed carry allowed on the grounds but not in buildings), but there is nothing to stop them from prohibiting it in all of the buildings.

I agree with Charles that keeping a record of the colleges that ban concealed carry in all buildings will help make a strong case to the 2017 Texas Legislature, but that's not the same as having campus carry now.

[mr1337]

All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before.

Except that posting 30.06 on every building would "...generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." Most students, staff, and faculty are required to be inside a building. If that building, or if most buildings, are posted 30.06, then these CHLs are effectively prohibited. And that is expressly disallowed by Sec. 411.2031.3.d1.

Granted, it would have been better if Sec. 411.2031.3.d1 had used the word "buildings". And it would have been better if some standard had been specified (e.g., "no less than 80% of the buildings"). Still, if they post every building 30.06 they are clearly breaking the letter of the law.

Short of a lawsuit, I am not sure how to enforce it except with saber rattling by the Attorney General and supportive Legislators.

What the bill says is that they can make regulations regarding concealed carry on the campus, including posting 30.06 on buildings, but can't prohibit concealed carry on the entire campus. Therefore, a college might need to bring its policy more into line with the prior state law (concealed carry allowed on the grounds but not in buildings), but there is nothing to stop them from prohibiting it in all of the buildings.

I agree with Charles that keeping a record of the colleges that ban concealed carry in all buildings will help make a strong case to the 2017 Texas Legislature, but that's not the same as having campus carry now.

From the bill:

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.

Prohibiting it from all of the buildings has the effect of generally prohibiting from the campus.

[J.R.@A&M]

All the bill says is that they can't ban concealed carry on the entire campus. There is nothing to stop university presidents from posting 30.06 on every campus building, resulting in concealed carry being legal/illegal in exactly the same places as before.

Except that posting 30.06 on every building would "...generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." Most students, staff, and faculty are required to be inside a building. If that building, or if most buildings, are posted 30.06, then these CHLs are effectively prohibited. And that is expressly disallowed by Sec. 411.2031.3.d1.

Granted, it would have been better if Sec. 411.2031.3.d1 had used the word "buildings". And it would have been better if some standard had been specified (e.g., "no less than 80% of the buildings"). Still, if they post every building 30.06 they are clearly breaking the letter of the law.

Short of a lawsuit, I am not sure how to enforce it except with saber rattling by the Attorney General and supportive Legislators.

What the bill says is that they can make regulations regarding concealed carry on the campus, including posting 30.06 on buildings, but can't prohibit concealed carry on the entire campus. Therefore, a college might need to bring its policy more into line with the prior state law (concealed carry allowed on the grounds but not in buildings), but there is nothing to stop them from prohibiting it in all of the buildings.

I agree with Charles that keeping a record of the colleges that ban concealed carry in all buildings will help make a strong case to the 2017 Texas Legislature, but that's not the same as having campus carry now.

From the bill:

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.

Prohibiting it from all of the buildings has the effect of generally prohibiting from the campus.

That's what I was trying to say. Prohibiting it from most/all the buildings has the general effect of prohibiting carrying on the campus for those folks who are required by job/school obligations to spend their day inside the buildings. And that violates more than the spirit of the law. It violates Sec. 411.2031.3.d-1.

[TinaMiB]

This went out to UT Faculty and Staff this afternoon. I am sure they are receiving a few phone calls.

[juno106]

[img]
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGbd3PJUYAA3oTE.jpg" width="100%" alt="Embedded image permalink" style="margin-top: -15px;">
[/img]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGbd3PJUYAA3oTE.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://twitter.com/LiberalDarling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Aggie_engr]

This went out to UT Faculty and Staff this afternoon. I am sure they are receiving a few phone calls.

Hmmm doesn't sound too promising for tu students...