Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:54 am
The opposition ( https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense?fref=ts ) is urging their folks to call Whitmire. Sounds like a good idea to me, too.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
The opposition ( https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense?fref=ts ) is urging their folks to call Whitmire. Sounds like a good idea to me, too.
IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “
It is not meaningless in that it is no-longer a felony if licensed student or employee chooses to carry despite a school's administrative policies. This puts University employees on the same playing field as nearly all other employees in the state of Texas. It becomes a personal choice whether to risk termination (or in cases of posted 30.06, misdemeanor charges) if discovered carrying.GEM-Texas wrote:IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “
Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.
I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.
I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.
This bill decriminalized carry on public campuses! HUGE step!GEM-Texas wrote:IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “
Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.
I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.
I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.
Bear in mind that under HB 972, as passed by the House, public colleges would not be able to give 30.06 notice, so there could be no charges for carrying on a public college campus unless you carried at a sporting event, bar, or primary/secondary school. This would be a huge step in the right direction.terryg wrote:It is not meaningless in that it is no-longer a felony if licensed student or employee chooses to carry despite a school's administrative policies. This puts University employees on the same playing field as nearly all other employees in the state of Texas. It becomes a personal choice whether to risk termination (or in cases of posted 30.06, misdemeanor charges) if discovered carrying.GEM-Texas wrote:IMHO - this will make the bill meaningless. The vast majority of schools will opt out. The discussions will be pro forma. Staff will not go against antigun administrations.“The House bill allows public universities to opt out, and allows private schools to opt in, so the presidents of each campus can make the decision. That’s better than (state Sen. Brian) Birdwell’s bill that doesn’t allow that. “
Also, future attempts to have carry in the future where an antigun president cannot decide for all will be blocked. The option program will be seen as 'reasonable'. The opposition to carry was unreasonable and that's why a legislative mandate was need to override administrations at colleges.
I might be wrong but I don't see this as much use given what I know of administrations.
I am not in favor of administrators decided my basic rights. It should be the realm of the legislative process.
J.R.@A&M wrote:If HB 290 passes, it would be possible for non-staff, non-student CHL folks to legally carry in public university buildings, WITH NO RESTRICTION.
My bad. 290 is a Highway that I drive frequently. HB 972.jmra wrote:J.R.@A&M wrote:If HB 290 passes, it would be possible for non-staff, non-student CHL folks to legally carry in public university buildings, WITH NO RESTRICTION.
HB 290
Relating to school district selection of assessment instruments in place of state-administered assessment instruments.
Again, welcome to the same boat the majority of employees in the state of Texas are in. If I were to carry at my work and it was found out, I would be fired and my life-long career ruined, no one in industry would touch me for being fired for violation of company policies.GEM-Texas wrote:I'm sorry but if for faculty and staff - you can be terminated for carry, it effectively negates legal carry. If you were fired for such as a faculty member, you could kiss getting another academic job good-bye.
A life-long career is ruined. That's a mighty effective sanction. With or without signs makes little difference for the faculty/staff member.
It's nice that visitors might be able to carry. But that isn't not a giant breakthrough for the people who spend most time on campus. The visitor doesn't have to go to campus. Fac/staff do.
Will it lead to change later - that's an interesting question. As I said before, the reasonable restriction of letting anitgun administrators make that restriction will probably take away the impetus for further legislative action.
Folks let us not forget about HB508. "Government entities" do indeed improperly post 30.06 signs. Without HB508, which may be dead, government entities, including public universities may indeed post whatever they like without fear of punishment and the uninformed won't know any better. Just because the informed know the signs are invalid, doesn't mean the general public, or even campus LEO's, know.Bladed wrote:Per Rep. Fletcher's description of the amended bill at third reading, nothing in the bill (as passed by the House) would allow a public college or university to post 30.06 on campus buildings. The relevant language is in the amended Penal Code. The amended Government Code has no bearing on a public college's ability to post 30.06, only on a public college's ability to create administrative policies (which do not have force of criminal law). Nothing in the amended Penal Code would exempt a public college from the "governmental entity" restriction created by PC 30.06(e).terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
In fact, it almost seems these bills were made for each other. I've been pushing 508 heavily. I don't see any indication that it's dead, however. It's moving about the same pace as 972.2firfun50 wrote:Folks let us not forget about HB508. "Government entities" do indeed improperly post 30.06 signs. Without HB508, which may be dead, government entities, including public universities may indeed post whatever they like without fear of punishment and the uninformed won't know any better. Just because the informed know the signs are invalid, doesn't mean the general public, or even campus LEO's, know.Bladed wrote:Per Rep. Fletcher's description of the amended bill at third reading, nothing in the bill (as passed by the House) would allow a public college or university to post 30.06 on campus buildings. The relevant language is in the amended Penal Code. The amended Government Code has no bearing on a public college's ability to post 30.06, only on a public college's ability to create administrative policies (which do not have force of criminal law). Nothing in the amended Penal Code would exempt a public college from the "governmental entity" restriction created by PC 30.06(e).terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
In my humble opionion, we must have both HB972 (its a start) and HB508. If we don't, we'll have a tread about universities improperly posting 30.06.