TexasCHLforum.com

Will hb910 be amended when it gets to the senate? If so does it go back to the house?

mojo84 wrote:Nope! I don't know how many will take advantage of either. I do know that OC will be available to all 800,000+ CHLs where ever it's legal if they so choose to open carry. I'm pretty confident not all 800,000+ CHLs spend time on college campuses.

You seem to think I am disputing you. I just asked a question.

OC will not change where someone can legally carry with a CHL. Thus it really changes nothing. Campus carry would allow carry where it was prohibited before. Therefore if even one person carries on campus, it is one more than what OC would accomplish in regards to where one can carry. So IMO adding more places to carry is better then just changing how one can carry.

poppo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Nope! I don't know how many will take advantage of either. I do know that OC will be available to all 800,000+ CHLs where ever it's legal if they so choose to open carry. I'm pretty confident not all 800,000+ CHLs spend time on college campuses.

You seem to think I am disputing you. I just asked a question.

OC will not change where someone can legally carry with a CHL. Thus it really changes nothing. Campus carry would allow carry where it was prohibited before. Therefore if even one person carries on campus, it is one more than what OC would accomplish in regards to where one can carry. So IMO adding more places to carry is better then just changing how one can carry.

That's not what is being discussed. You are trying to argue something completely different.

I challenged his definitive statement that he knows in which scenario more people WILL benefit. Do you know how many will carry on campus vs how many will open carry? I don't. Again, not asking which bill is better or which one you prefer.

I think the removal of prohibited places would have been better than campus carry and OC combined and could have benefited ALL chl holders. Not necessarily true with campus carry.

poppo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Nope! I don't know how many will take advantage of either. I do know that OC will be available to all 800,000+ CHLs where ever it's legal if they so choose to open carry. I'm pretty confident not all 800,000+ CHLs spend time on college campuses.

You seem to think I am disputing you. I just asked a question.

OC will not change where someone can legally carry with a CHL. Thus it really changes nothing. Campus carry would allow carry where it was prohibited before. Therefore if even one person carries on campus, it is one more than what OC would accomplish in regards to where one can carry. So IMO adding more places to carry is better then just changing how one can carry.

"Better" was not part of the discussion, it was which bill impacted more CHL holders. One is objective and the other is subjective. I'm not going to argue with "better" which is a matter of opinion.

SB 17 will impact all CHLs regardless of whether they decide to OC or not. Even if you don't blatently OC, you won't have to wear a jacket or heavy shirt in the summer. (Don't even start with fanny packs). Is my shirt too tight? What if I reach up and grab something off the top shelf. All of that is gone. I know it's not illegal now for the most part, but I'd say you're lying if it's not something you contemplate before you leave the house. That's all 800K+ CHLs now.

SB 11 is a good bill, but it impacts far fewer people. First of all, there's an opt-out for private universities. So, take the people at public universities, you have the teachers and the students. (This isn't about being outside, just in a building) The percentage of students that are over 21 AND CHL holders is minuscule.

Both should pass, but saying SB 11 has a wider impact than SB 17 makes no logical sense at all.

louisf1 wrote:Will hb910 be amended when it gets to the senate? If so does it go back to the house?

I will defer to those more knowledgeable of the Texas legislative process if what follows is not correct, but I believe if there are any amendments to HB910 (assuming it passes the House next week) once it gets to the Senate, then I think there would be a conference committee made up of both House and Senate members that would be convened to work out a compromise between the House and Senate versions of HB910. Both the House and the Senate would then have to approve the compromise bill which might be dicey to get done before the Legislature adjourns. As it stands right now, the language in the committee substitute of HB910 is almost identical to SB17 language as already passed in the Senate. Unless there are significant amendments required to pass HB910 next week in the House, I would anticipate that the Senate would pass HB910 without any further amendments. All of the preceding is my opinion only. I don't have any inside information and would welcome anyone who has such info to share it with the forum if possible.

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do!

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do!

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

My two (mostly zinc) cents worth: if open carry passes, I'm buying an OWB holster. I'll still wear my untucked shirt over it because I feel that's the prudent thing to do, but I won't have to put up with that IWB stuff anymore.

CJD wrote:

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do.

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

Perhaps I, alone, see the distinction. I shall not repeat it.

I just hope HB910, along with 226, 308, 905 and 937 all reach the governor's desk prior to pumpkin time.

thechl wrote:

CJD wrote:

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do.

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

Perhaps I, alone, see the distinction. I shall not repeat it.

I just hope HB910, along with 226, 308, 905 and 937 all reach the governor's desk prior to pumpkin time.

I see what you are saying. Other than schools and universities, concealed carry is legal but employers can still prohibit as part of their employee rules. Your concern seems to be that the university could make a rule prohibiting their employees from carrying while working. Correct?

If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

The difference is the lege can't tell private employers what their rules are, but they can public universities.

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do!

That provision serves no other purpose if it doesn't prevent colleges and universities from creating administrative policies against students, faculty, and/or staff carrying on campus.

The provision isn't needed to decriminalize campus carry (the changes to PC Sec. 46.03 do that), and the provision isn't needed to prohibit public colleges from posting 30.06 (PC Sec. 30.06[e] already does that), so the only purpose the provision serves is to stop universities and colleges from creating anti-campus-carry administrative policies.

This isn't a point of contention--everybody involved in the process (on both sides) agrees that this provision would prohibit colleges and universities from creating anti-campus-carry administrative policies.

The difference between carrying at your place of employment and carrying on a college campus is that your employer clearly has a rule prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns, AND there is no law saying that your employer "may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns."

mojo84 wrote:

thechl wrote:

CJD wrote:

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n 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.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do.

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

Perhaps I, alone, see the distinction. I shall not repeat it.

I just hope HB910, along with 226, 308, 905 and 937 all reach the governor's desk prior to pumpkin time.

I see what you are saying. Other than schools and universities, concealed carry is legal but employers can still prohibit as part of their employee rules. Your concern seems to be that the university could make a rule prohibiting their employees from carrying while working. Correct?

If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

The difference between most employers and public colleges is that public colleges are STATE institutions, and their campuses are STATE property.

Your comment on guns in employees' cars isn't very clear, but state law currently prohibits public AND private employers from restricting the possession of firearms in employees' cars, and state law currently prohibits public AND private colleges from restricting the possession of firearms in the cars of CHL holders (including students), so a law prohibiting PUBLIC colleges from restricting concealed carry by students, faculty, and staff is not unprecedented.