Page 1 of 6
Update: Support HB972 - debate tomorrow (5/14)
Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 11:14 pm
by terryg
Or at least not a complete dud.
This is mentioned in this
thread. But given the significance of the discovery, I thought it warranted a new thread as a call to support.
Many have disparaged HB972 (including me) because the opt-out clause leaves it somewhat toothless. But it does do something significant in that it removes criminal penalties for those who would carry on campus. The opt-out provision allows the university to "adopt administrative rules and regulations". So a university employee carrying at work would risk termination but not criminal charges just like employees at other businesses. I suspect students similarly would risk expulsion.
baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 12:31 am
by Bladed
terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 6:06 am
by jmra
Bladed wrote:terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).
So, let me see if I am understanding this bill if passed:
- Public university equals no 30.06.
- No longer a crime to carry in buildings as long as there is not a sporting event in progress.
- University may establish rules for staff and students that would result in Disciplinary action (no bearing on visitors such as parents).
- Private universities would have to give notice under 30.06. Could be done in orientation for staff and students but would have to be posted for visitors.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 6:45 am
by Bladed
jmra wrote:Bladed wrote:terryg wrote:baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
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).
So, let me see if I am understanding this bill if passed:
- Public university equals no 30.06.
- No longer a crime to carry in buildings as long as there is not a sporting event in progress.
- University may establish rules for staff and students that would result in Disciplinary action (no bearing on visitors such as parents).
- Private universities would have to give notice under 30.06. Could be done in orientation for staff and students but would have to be posted for visitors.
That's how I understood the explanation Rep. Fletcher gave on the House floor when one of his colleagues asked him to explain exactly what the bill would and wouldn't allow/prohibit.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 11:01 am
by jimlongley
terryg wrote:Or at least not a complete dud.
This is mentioned in this
thread. But given the significance of the discovery, I thought it warranted a new thread as a call to support.
Many have disparaged HB972 (including me) because the opt-out clause leaves it somewhat toothless. But it does do something significant in that it removes criminal penalties for those who would carry on campus. The opt-out provision allows the university to "adopt administrative rules and regulations". So a university employee carrying at work would risk termination but not criminal charges just like employees at other businesses. I suspect students similarly would risk expulsion.
baldeagle points out the 30.06 postings would still apply.
Back a long time ago we used to use the term "Positive negative report" to indicate that a report of a negative result was as necessary as that of a positive report. I would suggest that this law changes the "automatic" exclusion to a "positive negative" exclusion, that is, the individual schools have to positively opt to exclude CHL holders on campus. This leaves open a chance, admittedly small, that the administration of the school could be fought against if they decided to take the option.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 12:39 pm
by RHenriksen
I could see A&M as a university which might possibly *not* opt out...
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 1:57 pm
by J.R.@A&M
The opposition is currently calling for "Call your Senator" action against HB 972.
https://www.facebook.com/txgunsense
Edited to include: "Dear Lt. Governor Dewhurst: I am asking you to support the recently passed HB 972 (campus carry bill) by facilitating its consideration by the full Senate. Campus carry is a straightforward and useful extension of the longstanding, successful policy of concealed carry in Texas."
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 2:11 pm
by CJD
But how would a public university opt out, when they can't post 30.06 because they are a governmental entity?
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 2:18 pm
by RHenriksen
Have both emailed & called my senator.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 2:25 pm
by J.R.@A&M
CJD wrote:But how would a public university opt out, when they can't post 30.06 because they are a governmental entity?
As pointed out above by others, they can maintain their current policy prohibiting students and employees from carrying in buildings and System vehicles.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 2:40 pm
by baldeagle
The bill states that "For purposes of this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code."
Institution of higher education, then, means:
(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.
The bill then goes on to say:
(b) The president or other chief executive officer of an
institution of higher education in this state, on behalf of the
institution, and after consulting with law enforcement, students,
staff, and faculty of the institution, may adopt written rules or
regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on
premises owned or leased and operated by the institution, on any
grounds or building owned or leased by the institution and on which
an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or on a
passenger transportation vehicle of the institution. A written rule
or regulation adopted under this subsection may remain in effect
for not more than one year after the date of adoption and may be
renewed, reenacted, or reenacted and amended by the institution
only after consultation with students, staff, and faculty of the
institution.
(c) An institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule or regulation under Subsection (b), or a private or
independent institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule, regulation, or other provision or take any other action
described by Section 46.03(j), Penal Code, shall adopt written
rules or regulations concerning:
(1) the storage of handguns in dormitories or other
residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution; and
(2) the carrying of concealed handguns by license
holders at collegiate sporting events or other official mass
gatherings that take place on grounds or buildings owned or leased
and operated by the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting a student enrolled at that institution who
holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, from transporting or storing a
handgun of the same category the student is licensed to carry or
ammunition for that handgun in a locked, privately owned motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle leased by or for the student:
I don't see any way that can be read as to prohibit public institutions from preventing carry on their campuses.
Maybe someone can enlighten me? That may be what Fletcher said, but the bill was amended eight times before it was engrossed.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:11 pm
by CJD
They can prohibit it in their rules, but they could not make it "illegal" as I understand it.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:20 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
CJD wrote:They can prohibit it in their rules, but they could not make it "illegal" as I understand it.
Correct.
Chas.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:31 pm
by Bladed
baldeagle wrote:The bill states that "For purposes of this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code."
Institution of higher education, then, means:
(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.
The bill then goes on to say:
(b) The president or other chief executive officer of an
institution of higher education in this state, on behalf of the
institution, and after consulting with law enforcement, students,
staff, and faculty of the institution, may adopt written rules or
regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on
premises owned or leased and operated by the institution, on any
grounds or building owned or leased by the institution and on which
an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or on a
passenger transportation vehicle of the institution. A written rule
or regulation adopted under this subsection may remain in effect
for not more than one year after the date of adoption and may be
renewed, reenacted, or reenacted and amended by the institution
only after consultation with students, staff, and faculty of the
institution.
(c) An institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule or regulation under Subsection (b), or a private or
independent institution of higher education that does not adopt a
rule, regulation, or other provision or take any other action
described by Section 46.03(j), Penal Code, shall adopt written
rules or regulations concerning:
(1) the storage of handguns in dormitories or other
residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the
institution; and
(2) the carrying of concealed handguns by license
holders at collegiate sporting events or other official mass
gatherings that take place on grounds or buildings owned or leased
and operated by the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or other provision or take
any other action, including posting notice under Section 30.06,
Penal Code, prohibiting a student enrolled at that institution who
holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, from transporting or storing a
handgun of the same category the student is licensed to carry or
ammunition for that handgun in a locked, privately owned motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle leased by or for the student:
I don't see any way that can be read as to prohibit public institutions from preventing carry on their campuses.
Maybe someone can enlighten me? That may be what Fletcher said, but the bill was amended eight times before it was engrossed.
The quoted section of CSHB 972 has absolutely no bearing on PC 30.06 or any other section of the Texas Penal Code. The Government Code governs the operation of governmental entities; it doesn't create or alter criminal law. The above addition to the Government Code would simply regulates what types of administrative
policies a public college/university may create. Policies do not have the force of criminal law.
Under CSHB 972, the president or other chief executive of a public college/university could create policies prohibiting concealed carry on campus. He or she could go as far as to issue a criminal trespass notice to any person caught carrying on campus (thereby, permanently banning that person from the campus). He or she could even set up metal detectors and refuse to let anyone with a concealed handgun enter a campus building. However, he or she could
not overrule PC 30.06(e) unless some sort of exception were created in the penal code, and CSHB 972--as it is currently written--would not create any such exception.
PC 30.06(e) invalidates any 30.06 notification on property that is "owned or leased by a governmental entity and [that] is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035."
For example, a city council can post 30.06 at city council meetings because PC 46.035(c)--in combination with 46.035(i)--makes a posted governmental meeting a place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.035.
Nothing in PC 46.03 or 46.035, as amended by CSHB 972, would make the premises of a public college a place where a license holder is prohibited from carrying; therefore, nothing in CSHB 972 would allow a public college to post 30.06.
I know it's confusing. After Fletcher explained it, I had to read through the bill a couple of times before I got it.
Re: Support HB972 - not a dud!
Posted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:50 pm
by baldeagle
So it's no longer illegal but they can still prohibit it. And as an employee I could be fired for violating policy. And that's called progress? {{{sigh}}} My gun still stays in the car, and I'm not better off than I was before this law was passed (if indeed it is passed.)