TexasCHLforum.com

I'm reading how there is a provision for private universities to Opt Out of the campus carry law.

I've read through the bill several times and I only see where the university admins have to come up with a plan and justification for barring concealed firearms in certain areas and to establish rules for storage.

I don't see anywhere that it says private universities can ignore the law if they want to.

Here's the version I read. I'm assuming it's the latest.

http://openstates.org/tx/bills/84/SB11/

I did a search on this and couldn't find this topic so if this has been hashed, just block the thread and give me a link.

thanks.

Here is the text of the enrolled version of the bill: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... navpanes=0

Starting at the bottom of page 3:

(e)A private or independent institution of highereducation in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by the institution.

Edit: The same paragraph is the enrolled version at the link you provided.

My wife teaches at a private catholic University. I'm sure they will opt out.

Why should a private college or university be any different than any other privately run business? I mean, I wouldn't cry too much if we got rid of 30.06 and 30.07, as a number of other states do not have any way for a business to provide legal notice prohibiting carry by posting any sort of sign, and they seem to do fine. But as long as we do have 30.06 and 30.07, it should be applied equally.

I would like to carry, but I respect their property rights.

The private law school I attend already has 30.06 signs up and the dean has apparently fought off any possibility of it changing.

I understand respecting private property rights, but I'm still annoyed that the 30.06 penalty for private colleges will still be a Class A misdemeanor after Jan 1, whereas every other 30.06 location goes down to a Class C.

I'm still waiting for my University to "consult ... with students, staff, and faculty".

oohrah wrote:I'm still waiting for my University to "consult ... with students, staff, and faculty".

Nothing says they have to conform with the results of consulting with students, staff and faculty.

It's matter of private property rights, which I value the same as I value the right to keep and bear arms. If I own a university, it is my property and I can make the rules. If I own a place of business I can make the rules.
I just try to avoid places which disagree with my view on firearms and self defense.

RossA wrote:It's matter of private property rights, which I value the same as I value the right to keep and bear arms. If I own a university, it is my property and I can make the rules. If I own a place of business I can make the rules.
I just try to avoid places which disagree with my view on firearms and self defense.

Do private property rights trump the rights of self defense? If I am standing on your property have I lost the right to defend myself? Self defense is a birth right- it's part of our instincts. Property rights are only what the legislature defines and are not all inclusive. This debate will go on forever. I fail to see the logic that these universities use to essentially ban "self defense" on campus.

rotor wrote:

RossA wrote:It's matter of private property rights, which I value the same as I value the right to keep and bear arms. If I own a university, it is my property and I can make the rules. If I own a place of business I can make the rules.
I just try to avoid places which disagree with my view on firearms and self defense.

Do private property rights trump the rights of self defense? If I am standing on your property have I lost the right to defend myself? Self defense is a birth right- it's part of our instincts. Property rights are only what the legislature defines and are not all inclusive. This debate will go on forever. I fail to see the logic that these universities use to essentially ban "self defense" on campus.

In the case of private property you have the option of being there, if the property owner says you can't be there unless you meet specific conditions then you have no rights to be there if you do not meet those conditions. There are a very few legal exceptions to this, such as protected classes can not be prevented based only on the fact they are a member of a protected class.

G.A. Heath wrote:

rotor wrote:

RossA wrote:It's matter of private property rights, which I value the same as I value the right to keep and bear arms. If I own a university, it is my property and I can make the rules. If I own a place of business I can make the rules.
I just try to avoid places which disagree with my view on firearms and self defense.

Do private property rights trump the rights of self defense? If I am standing on your property have I lost the right to defend myself? Self defense is a birth right- it's part of our instincts. Property rights are only what the legislature defines and are not all inclusive. This debate will go on forever. I fail to see the logic that these universities use to essentially ban "self defense" on campus.

In the case of private property you have the option of being there, if the property owner says you can't be there unless you meet specific conditions then you have no rights to be there if you do not meet those conditions. There are a very few legal exceptions to this, such as protected classes can not be prevented based only on the fact they are a member of a protected class.

My issue was only which right trumps the other. You don't always elect to be at a gun free private property. An ambulance may bring you to a gun free hospital for example. The rights of private property are defined by the legislators. Government routinely takes away private property and calls it eminent domain. Police confiscate private property for certain criminal acts. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens to private property. Self defense though is a birthright. I will not knowingly go into a 30.06 signed business but I don't believe that if I am in one by mistake that I have surrendered my rights of self defense. I believe it was earlier this year that a physician in a hospital pulled his pistol and killed a psychotic patient that was trying to kill everyone. The physician was in violation of the hospital rules but he did not give up his right to self defense by breaking the law. I don't think he was convicted either.

rotor wrote:My issue was only which right trumps the other. You don't always elect to be at a gun free private property. An ambulance may bring you to a gun free hospital for example. The rights of private property are defined by the legislators. Government routinely takes away private property and calls it eminent domain. Police confiscate private property for certain criminal acts. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens to private property. Self defense though is a birthright. I will not knowingly go into a 30.06 signed business but I don't believe that if I am in one by mistake that I have surrendered my rights of self defense. I believe it was earlier this year that a physician in a hospital pulled his pistol and killed a psychotic patient that was trying to kill everyone. The physician was in violation of the hospital rules but he did not give up his right to self defense by breaking the law. I don't think he was convicted either.

If you are transported to the ER in an ambulance trespass is probably not going to be a charge your likely to receive. It's hard to see any postings on the property when your carried in horizontally on a cart, and even then your weapon is likely to be turned over to LE for safekeeping. Government taking property doesn't apply to this argument, nor does confiscation, not does tax seizures.

It can be argued that self defense is an outgrowth of property rights. I heard this argument from the instructor in a class I took, although I don't remember which one, essentially the logic logic is that you have a right to defend yourself based on the fact you own yourself. In the case of the physician he would probably have what is called a necessity defense, look into that one a little closer for more details. As for which right trumps the other the answer is: "It Depends."

The physician in PA didn't get convicted because he didn't commit a crime. Violating a hospital policy is not considered criminal trespass in PA. Your "private" property rights (which amendment was that...?) don't necessarily compel the police power of the state on your behalf.

I'm going back to work for a private university police department as a reserve officer for the time being and I'm eager to see what their stance is on campus carry. If I had to guess they will opt out.