TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:Maybe they can move to CA where they might find some more kindred spirits.

The prof's in CA already have their tenure and don't want or need the competition.

WildBill wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Maybe they can move to CA where they might find some more kindred spirits.

The prof's in CA already have their tenure and don't want or need the competition.

Plus it is legal to carry in schools in California if you can get a permit (although I suspect most/all colleges have a policy prohibiting it).

I agree with all the statements preceeding this, but does bring up a question (and I'm not enough of a lawyer and haven't read in detail the text of the bill to know the answer) ...

What is the penalty (for the professor) if a professor kicks someone out of class on suspicion of legally carrying a concealed weapon (suspicion, because they won't be able to KNOW who has a CONCEALED weapon). Is it just the loss of tenure/firing? Or is there some legal consequence to denying a CHL holder their rights under the law?

Furthermore, what in the bill is to stop a school from continuing to ban guns via student rules etc ... does the bill making do so against the law, thus any school attempting to enforce such is subject to legal or even criminal consequences for doing so?

Lastly, different subject/bill, but what is the penalty if a company continues to attempt to fire an employee for keeping a gun legally in a vehicle in the parking lot?

I guess my over-riding quesiton here is - do these bills have any teeth to enforce these rights?

hirundo82 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Maybe they can move to CA where they might find some more kindred spirits.

The prof's in CA already have their tenure and don't want or need the competition.

Plus it is legal to carry in schools in California if you can get a permit (although I suspect most/all colleges have a policy prohibiting it).

The only people who get CC permits in California are Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Sean Penn.

Refunds! If the the class/es are not taught that the student/parents paid for in advance, a refund with penalty and/or re-stocking charge is most definitely due the payee. IOW, follow the money.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's not across the board. My oldest is teaching college.......and has his CHL.

Oldgringo wrote:Refunds! If the the class/es are not taught that the student/parents paid for in advance, a refund with penalty and/or re-stocking charge is most definitely due the payee. IOW, follow the money.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Good luck with that. It is likely that the school administrators where a professor takes action will likely sympathize with the professor, not the student. I can hear it now:

"The professor has a right to be safe in his or her class If they don't feel safe, they cannot concentrate on their teaching and have chosen not to compromise the quality of their instruction."

chasfm11 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Refunds! If the the class/es are not taught that the student/parents paid for in advance, a refund with penalty and/or re-stocking charge is most definitely due the payee. IOW, follow the money.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Good luck with that. It is likely that the school administrators where a professor takes action will likely sympathize with the professor, not the student. I can hear it now:

"The professor has a right to be safe in his or her class If they don't feel safe, they cannot concentrate on their teaching and have chosen not to compromise the quality of their instruction."

And I assume they have someone else shop for their groceries, and live on campus. Because if not they're already rubbing elbows with us evil CHL holders.

austinrealtor wrote:What is the penalty (for the professor) if a professor kicks someone out of class on suspicion of legally carrying a concealed weapon (suspicion, because they won't be able to KNOW who has a CONCEALED weapon). Is it just the loss of tenure/firing? Or is there some legal consequence to denying a CHL holder their rights under the law?

Furthermore, what in the bill is to stop a school from continuing to ban guns via student rules etc ... does the bill making do so against the law, thus any school attempting to enforce such is subject to legal or even criminal consequences for doing so?

This language is from SB 350: "Except as provided by Subsection (e), an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution."

So if an instructor tries to take matters into his/her own hands, they would making up university policy (which they have no right to do) and violating state law. If it were me, I would then complain to Dept. Head, Dean, Provost, etc. Regardless of their 2nd Amendment sympathies, at some point up the administrative food chain, I expect they will care more about procedures, legislative relations, and what the lawyers tell them.

Anyway, the answer to your question is, I think, the teeth of the campus carry is bringing administrative heat on the non-compliant state employees, er... I mean elite members of the Academy.

Faculty tenure does not give anybody protection against violating system policy. Anybody around here can be fired for cause. In these tight budget times, that should give them pause. Maybe that'll keep them from flappin' their jaws (sorry, got carried away with the poetry).

One reason that schools fear carry (besides pure antigun sentiment) is liability. Professors deciding without evidence to adopt policies that prevent law abiding citizens from coming to class or throwing them out is an instant law suit. The risk management folks would quickly shut this down.

Let 'em try. One good lawsuit will quiet them down. Besides, as has been stated so eloquently here several times, they would have to know the person was carrying. What are they going to do? Pat downs when you show up for class?

Some would do pat downs if they think they can get away with it....especially the girls. That's the sick part.

Reloader wrote:Some would do pat downs if they think they can get away with it....especially the girls. That's the sick part.

That would be in direct violation of a persons U.S. Constitutional rights.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

MeMelYup wrote:

Reloader wrote:Some would do pat downs if they think they can get away with it....especially the girls. That's the sick part.

That would be in direct violation of a persons U.S. Constitutional rights.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I agree, but I'm sure someone could equate entering class to entering an aircraft. Apparently your rights are suspended if you have to travel.

How would they explain probable cause?