So, will EVERY professor be required to put this in their syllabus?
Campus carry syllabus post-SB-11
- Thread starter TexasProf
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
So, will EVERY professor be required to put this in their syllabus?
OP - serious question:
What makes you think that you can (or should) deviate from your campus policy? The school administration is required to take a stance on the whole campus carry law. Seems to me (and I bet it's in your contract) that you are responsible to support and enforce the SCHOOL POLICY. Also seems to me that you face actions from the administration if you deviate from their direction.
What makes you think that you can (or should) deviate from your campus policy? The school administration is required to take a stance on the whole campus carry law. Seems to me (and I bet it's in your contract) that you are responsible to support and enforce the SCHOOL POLICY. Also seems to me that you face actions from the administration if you deviate from their direction.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
1. Thank you for attempting to research. If you get hostility its because: A. TGT tends to have a laissez faire view of posting; and B. Gun owners are constantly having to defend themselves from people who are ignorant of the law.
2. The law is already in place. CHLers know what the law is, and that law already covers your statements. By putting something in the syllabus you're effectively making yourself look slightly silly to any actual CHLer. They are not going to brandish. They are not going to bring it up. If your coursework is for undergrads odds are there will never be one as CHLs are limited to 21 or over.
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Ok we disagree on much, but if he has to put something, thats pretty good.
Mexican_Hippie
TGT Addict
Yeah I'm concerned that people think CC in college buildings starts Jan 1 vs Aug 1.
Doesn't hurt to have some awareness. Really though, the University administration should be putting together verbiage and communications so they're consistent.
Doesn't hurt to have some awareness. Really though, the University administration should be putting together verbiage and communications so they're consistent.
Agreed.
Part of what I am curious about is this. If they ate so good at research, why are they having so much trouble figuring out what they even need to write. It's not that complicated and the law is pretty easy to find on the internet. The campus library should have it as well.
Really, it only needs to be in the campus policy. When I was in college, the class syllabus was to describe what would be covered in the class. Not campus policy. Class policy, same as campus policy.
sent from an idgit coffeeholic
Part of what I am curious about is this. If they ate so good at research, why are they having so much trouble figuring out what they even need to write. It's not that complicated and the law is pretty easy to find on the internet. The campus library should have it as well.
Really, it only needs to be in the campus policy. When I was in college, the class syllabus was to describe what would be covered in the class. Not campus policy. Class policy, same as campus policy.
sent from an idgit coffeeholic
Mexican_Hippie
TGT Addict
A more poignant warning In the syllabus would warn of the dangers of student loans and getting degrees in worthless fields.
Probably help folks more.
Probably help folks more.
And getting credit cards....
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
Ixnay on the graveytrainey...
I thought the whole point of a syllabus was to outline what the class will be covering for the semester, academically...I see no reason to include campus policy in it. Why do you feel you HAVE to include such information?
My stance is the professor is there to enforce the rules and teach. There's no need for you to inject your politics into an area you have no legal footing - despite how neutral you may think you're being. They're adults; they've been notified (or should have been) of the rules at orientation.
My stance is the professor is there to enforce the rules and teach. There's no need for you to inject your politics into an area you have no legal footing - despite how neutral you may think you're being. They're adults; they've been notified (or should have been) of the rules at orientation.
The law didn't define it well - the legislature seems to have intentionally kept the guardrails on this pretty wide, apart from the comment of "you can't do anything that would effectively prohibit 'everywhere.' Patterson has made similar comments in the open discussions UT has held around the subject with the public... paraphrased to "if you try to make it everywhere, the legislature will take the power to choose away from you."
The law does require them to be permanent and marked, that's for sure. I don't know if pep rallies would be considered part of an athletic/sporting event - if so, that venue/event would already be off limits. Given the competitive nature of cheerleading (and competitions), I wouldn't personally take the chance of carrying at a pep rally, because I don't know if that's recognized as a sporting event or part of one (not that I'm likely to attend a collegiate pep rally anyway).
The whole ranked/scored list is probably a bit much. Some places will be obvious: UT Southwestern Medical Center has an animal research facility on a secured floor. Although not open to the general public, I think it's probably a place the legislature would consider it valid to restrict CHL carriers (who might happen to work there). Perhaps you could argue that the campus medical clinic/facility should be gun-free because of dangers from MRI machines, the necessity of disrobing for some exams, the stressful nature of medical conditions, etc.
You're right that I, as a CHL'er (and parent of a college student at a Texas university), don't see the need for exclusion zones. I'm not the one likely to be DOING harm - I'm likely to be preventing it for myself, my family, and depending on the situation, perhaps others. Gun-free zones just give those with bad intentions softer targets.
The legislature left that pretty open. I think, and this is just speculation, it was because there are a number of specialized facilities on campus that they knew they didn't know about, so they didn't want to just open the floodgates and face the pushback they'd get, so they left this in to see what WOULD get excluded so they can use those exclusions for further lawmaking in the future.
Remember, too, that any time you require a person to transition from carry to storage and back, you're actually increasing the chance of a negligent discharge. It's actually in your best interest, safety-wise, to minimize the transitions.
TexasProf,
The plain TRUTH is that CHL licensees are near you all the time NOW at the grocery store, department store, movie theater, car dealership, cafe, service station, The Alamo Shrine & essentially everywhere else where carrying a firearm is lawful.
(Are you worried about those licensees OR think that it's necessary for a retail merchant to post their policy on weapons??)
As a retired State/federal peace officer (and occasional instructor at a community college), I suspect that campus carry will be (and remain) a "non-event" except to a relative handful of arrogantly ignorant, LOUD-mouthed, leftist extremists who are against anyone owning/carrying firearms anywhere.
(At "The 40 Acres", several "anti-carry activists", who were at a "NO campus carry" rally, admitted that they are against ANYBODY having access to firearms ANY time or place & some said that they want the POLICE to be DISARMED.)
IF you would take my advice, you would say/post nothing at all, as saying/posting anything will improve NOTHING whatever & will likely cause needless controversy in your classroom.
(In the event that someone brings up "carrying firearms" in your classes, I suggest that you simply tell the "questioner" that TX law allows concealed campus carry by CHL holders after 01AUG16 [or after 01AUG17 on CC campuses] & that your college abides by the laws & then say NOTHING more.)
just my OPINION, satx
The plain TRUTH is that CHL licensees are near you all the time NOW at the grocery store, department store, movie theater, car dealership, cafe, service station, The Alamo Shrine & essentially everywhere else where carrying a firearm is lawful.
(Are you worried about those licensees OR think that it's necessary for a retail merchant to post their policy on weapons??)
As a retired State/federal peace officer (and occasional instructor at a community college), I suspect that campus carry will be (and remain) a "non-event" except to a relative handful of arrogantly ignorant, LOUD-mouthed, leftist extremists who are against anyone owning/carrying firearms anywhere.
(At "The 40 Acres", several "anti-carry activists", who were at a "NO campus carry" rally, admitted that they are against ANYBODY having access to firearms ANY time or place & some said that they want the POLICE to be DISARMED.)
IF you would take my advice, you would say/post nothing at all, as saying/posting anything will improve NOTHING whatever & will likely cause needless controversy in your classroom.
(In the event that someone brings up "carrying firearms" in your classes, I suggest that you simply tell the "questioner" that TX law allows concealed campus carry by CHL holders after 01AUG16 [or after 01AUG17 on CC campuses] & that your college abides by the laws & then say NOTHING more.)
just my OPINION, satx
Last edited:
TexasProf & All,
Before you believe that ANY college campus (or anyplace else) can be made "SAFE" from an "active shooter", consider the following incident:
On 11JUN1941, a Mrs. Hilda Kleist, the estranged wife of a civilian clerk, penetrated GESTAPO Headquarters in Berlin as she was angered by his adultery with a co-worker.
(GESTAPO HQ was in 1941 likely the most secure place on Planet Earth, as it was surrounded by several "layers of physical security barriers", had the latest in electronic intrusion alarm systems & was guarded by SS men of both uniformed/non-uniformed sorts, who had immediate access to handguns, rifles & machine weapons of several types.)
Frau Kleist got into the building with a handgun, killed her husband & four other people in that office immediately. The sound of gunfire brought an SS Corporal (armed with a submachine gun) to the area to investigate.
Thereupon, Frau Kleist killed the Corporal, took his MP38, exited the office & then wounded 9 other people in an adjacent hallway.
The woman then exited the HQ building & was shot/killed by an SS 1LT an hour later, when she was several blocks away.
This incident should tell any thinking person that:
1. NO place can be made "safe" from armed intruders, who are determined to commit mass murder.
2. NO nation has ever been able to disarm their career criminals, armed lunatics or terrorists, even using paid informers, warrantless raids, torture, secret police, military troops, execution without trial or any other "technique" that various tyrannical nations have tried to disarm the ruthless criminals & the mentally deranged.- Therefore, NO civilized or relatively free nation has a prayer of disarming their own criminal underclass.
and
3. "Gun Control" is a FRAUD & a KNOWING LIE, perpetrated upon the naïve & unthinking persons of the general public by fools, liars & tyrants.
ImVho, ALL that can be done to minimize such incidents is to attempt to quickly detect mass crimes, minimize the likely casualties by immediate armed response & IMPRISON violent felons & dangerous lunatics for long periods of confinement, until they are unwilling/unlikely to repeat their violent crimes.
(In a democratic country, NOTHING can be done before a person commits a violent crime to prevent their bloody deeds, except remain watchful & allow trusted persons to wear/use firearms for home & self defense.)
Note: Here in Bexar County, an armed civilian stops a home invasion by an armed criminal about once per day.
Most such incidents are ended without gunfire/bloodshed & with the felon fleeing the crime scene (or in police custody), when the criminal encounters a resolute householder, who has a firearm.
(In this county, in most of these interrupted armed home invasions, the householder is armed with a shotgun or rifle.)
yours, satx
Before you believe that ANY college campus (or anyplace else) can be made "SAFE" from an "active shooter", consider the following incident:
On 11JUN1941, a Mrs. Hilda Kleist, the estranged wife of a civilian clerk, penetrated GESTAPO Headquarters in Berlin as she was angered by his adultery with a co-worker.
(GESTAPO HQ was in 1941 likely the most secure place on Planet Earth, as it was surrounded by several "layers of physical security barriers", had the latest in electronic intrusion alarm systems & was guarded by SS men of both uniformed/non-uniformed sorts, who had immediate access to handguns, rifles & machine weapons of several types.)
Frau Kleist got into the building with a handgun, killed her husband & four other people in that office immediately. The sound of gunfire brought an SS Corporal (armed with a submachine gun) to the area to investigate.
Thereupon, Frau Kleist killed the Corporal, took his MP38, exited the office & then wounded 9 other people in an adjacent hallway.
The woman then exited the HQ building & was shot/killed by an SS 1LT an hour later, when she was several blocks away.
This incident should tell any thinking person that:
1. NO place can be made "safe" from armed intruders, who are determined to commit mass murder.
2. NO nation has ever been able to disarm their career criminals, armed lunatics or terrorists, even using paid informers, warrantless raids, torture, secret police, military troops, execution without trial or any other "technique" that various tyrannical nations have tried to disarm the ruthless criminals & the mentally deranged.- Therefore, NO civilized or relatively free nation has a prayer of disarming their own criminal underclass.
and
3. "Gun Control" is a FRAUD & a KNOWING LIE, perpetrated upon the naïve & unthinking persons of the general public by fools, liars & tyrants.
ImVho, ALL that can be done to minimize such incidents is to attempt to quickly detect mass crimes, minimize the likely casualties by immediate armed response & IMPRISON violent felons & dangerous lunatics for long periods of confinement, until they are unwilling/unlikely to repeat their violent crimes.
(In a democratic country, NOTHING can be done before a person commits a violent crime to prevent their bloody deeds, except remain watchful & allow trusted persons to wear/use firearms for home & self defense.)
Note: Here in Bexar County, an armed civilian stops a home invasion by an armed criminal about once per day.
Most such incidents are ended without gunfire/bloodshed & with the felon fleeing the crime scene (or in police custody), when the criminal encounters a resolute householder, who has a firearm.
(In this county, in most of these interrupted armed home invasions, the householder is armed with a shotgun or rifle.)
yours, satx
That might be a good way of getting one of your students shot and killed. I suggest that if this were to happen, if you were that concerned, talk to the student privately after class, mention that you or other students saw this and suggest that he/she does a better job of concealing.
Don't go running to the police saying one of your students has a gun. This situation has the potential of ending badly.
CHL holders have been killed, one in Vegas at a Costco I recall, because some nosy a-hole called the cops because they saw someone's CCW.
Notice the semantics here. He said "can not," but meant "will not." He's certainly capable of doing exactly that, but couched his aversion and/or irrational fear in a "can't" statement.
Not very honest, IMHO... and gets to the core of the real desire - to assuage his own irrational fear about CC by CHL'ers.
OK, I'm back, some very interesting discussion here.
It may be that there will be required syllabus language. If so the CC Task Force I'm on will be drafting it. Mostly though professors are responsible for their own syllabus as long as it's within the law. It's often the point of a syllabus to say what laws, policies and rules apply in the classroom, so that all students know what the expectations of behavior (on both sides of the lectern) are.
I'm accused of "overthinking": Hello, I'm a professor. Overthinking is my job. I'll accept that one.
Important point about Jan 1. On that day, the border of campus becomes the end of OC in Texas. But that border is much more porous, poorly defined and difficult to identify than most people think. I think there's a very real possibility that somebody is going to accidentally OC right onto campus, or even right into a classroom. I don't think our University Counsel or Police chief has really thought about that, they certainly haven't said anything.
How do we alert people (especially non-chl) about the change of laws?
It may be that there will be required syllabus language. If so the CC Task Force I'm on will be drafting it. Mostly though professors are responsible for their own syllabus as long as it's within the law. It's often the point of a syllabus to say what laws, policies and rules apply in the classroom, so that all students know what the expectations of behavior (on both sides of the lectern) are.
I'm accused of "overthinking": Hello, I'm a professor. Overthinking is my job. I'll accept that one.
Important point about Jan 1. On that day, the border of campus becomes the end of OC in Texas. But that border is much more porous, poorly defined and difficult to identify than most people think. I think there's a very real possibility that somebody is going to accidentally OC right onto campus, or even right into a classroom. I don't think our University Counsel or Police chief has really thought about that, they certainly haven't said anything.
How do we alert people (especially non-chl) about the change of laws?
My understanding is that I can't demand to see a chl if a gun is revealed in the classroom. Only a law enforcement officer can do that, I was told. Leave the room, call a cop is what I was told to do in that case.
Why should I assume that every weapon is legal and its owner well intentioned?
Why should I assume that every weapon is legal and its owner well intentioned?
If they are a criminal there to do harm, by the time you will probably see the gun, you are already to late. If it's someone preparing for class, probably preoccupied and got careless. In which case a friendly reminder will be embaressment enough.
My question is, why should you assume it's illegal and the student a criminal? Do you have that little faith in your students?
Abruptly leaving class and calling the police for what most likely is perfectly legal, especially if you convey that the person's behavior alarms you, you could be setting them up for a very bad situation for no reason other than fear.
And so far, it sounds like you are looking for a way to express your fears to the students without looking like you are.
If you want to say something, without appearing scared of them, just remind them of the law and campus policy to keep it concealed. Infractions will be reported for disciplnary action.
If you want, put the part in about don't ask, don't tell.
By the way, in case you had thought of this. If yu leave abruptly and call the police to come into class and confront them, what if it is a crimnal and you just set them off and abandoned your class to save yourself? If it is a criminal and they wern't even going to use it on campus, but you just gave them no choice? And endangered your class. Calling attentuon to an exposed firearm that is most likely legal could have dire consequences for everyone involved. Unless there is a reason to suspect immidiate danger, it seems the best course would be to wait for a more opportune time with as few people around as possible and it can be handled more discreetly.
from an idgit coffeeholic
My question is, why should you assume it's illegal and the student a criminal? Do you have that little faith in your students?
Abruptly leaving class and calling the police for what most likely is perfectly legal, especially if you convey that the person's behavior alarms you, you could be setting them up for a very bad situation for no reason other than fear.
And so far, it sounds like you are looking for a way to express your fears to the students without looking like you are.
If you want to say something, without appearing scared of them, just remind them of the law and campus policy to keep it concealed. Infractions will be reported for disciplnary action.
If you want, put the part in about don't ask, don't tell.
By the way, in case you had thought of this. If yu leave abruptly and call the police to come into class and confront them, what if it is a crimnal and you just set them off and abandoned your class to save yourself? If it is a criminal and they wern't even going to use it on campus, but you just gave them no choice? And endangered your class. Calling attentuon to an exposed firearm that is most likely legal could have dire consequences for everyone involved. Unless there is a reason to suspect immidiate danger, it seems the best course would be to wait for a more opportune time with as few people around as possible and it can be handled more discreetly.
from an idgit coffeeholic
You haven't shared where in our great state you're located, but if you're in the Houston area and you can break away, I'd be more than happy to spend some time with you, whether for discussion or some range time. We do lunch get-togethers too, I guarantee you'll have a good time if you can make it to one.
You brought up the point of "only 4 hours of class time" and making the assumption nobody could possibly grasp the extent of the laws governing the legal carry of a handgun. You're partially, perhaps even mostly, RIGHT. The truth is CHL holders will tend to spend a LOT of time outside of that course reviewing the laws, asking questions on forums such as this, some even retaining legal counsel to advise them (e.g. Texas Law Shield, a contributing sponsor of this website). Firearm advocates by and large know these laws more than any other law. There's dozens of people here who can recite large portions of section 411 of the Texas Government Code, but couldn't tell you squat about where it's legally permissible to make a U-turn on a roadway. In case you're curious, I didn't have to look it up that it's section 411.
Granted, not all will be so well versed. However, the bulk are, or are at the very least concerned about the legal ramifications of carrying improperly or in the wrong place and will err on the side of caution.
I also would like to throw my $0.02 in the hat regarding making certain things off limits - specifically areas where there are children. Being a father of 3, I've put a LOT of thought into this. Many folks who are ignorant about guns in general will tend to err on what they feel is being 'safe' by excluding legal firearm carry in locations where children are to be expected. This accomplishes the opposite of what we want. We cannot legislate good behavior into existence, any more than we can legislate a cow into laying eggs. We can only legislate the actions of those willing to follow, and determine repercussions for those who will not. Put dead simply, a law can't stop a bullet from being fired. Why are these horrific well publicized events happening in "gun free zones"? I understand the concern for accidents (negligent discharges and such), but in practice these just don't happen. Guns cannot fire on their own, and when holstered they are functionally inert. You can drop them, throw them, fall down on them, all without risk of it "going off." The gun community has a phrase that pretty well sums it up "keep your booger hook off the bang switch."
I'm impressed by your efforts to engage folks here. All too often conversations degrade before any real knowledge is shared because people stubbornly stick by their preconceived notions. Coming here and asking says a lot, and hopefully you stick around beyond this discussion.
You brought up the point of "only 4 hours of class time" and making the assumption nobody could possibly grasp the extent of the laws governing the legal carry of a handgun. You're partially, perhaps even mostly, RIGHT. The truth is CHL holders will tend to spend a LOT of time outside of that course reviewing the laws, asking questions on forums such as this, some even retaining legal counsel to advise them (e.g. Texas Law Shield, a contributing sponsor of this website). Firearm advocates by and large know these laws more than any other law. There's dozens of people here who can recite large portions of section 411 of the Texas Government Code, but couldn't tell you squat about where it's legally permissible to make a U-turn on a roadway. In case you're curious, I didn't have to look it up that it's section 411.
Granted, not all will be so well versed. However, the bulk are, or are at the very least concerned about the legal ramifications of carrying improperly or in the wrong place and will err on the side of caution. I also would like to throw my $0.02 in the hat regarding making certain things off limits - specifically areas where there are children. Being a father of 3, I've put a LOT of thought into this. Many folks who are ignorant about guns in general will tend to err on what they feel is being 'safe' by excluding legal firearm carry in locations where children are to be expected. This accomplishes the opposite of what we want. We cannot legislate good behavior into existence, any more than we can legislate a cow into laying eggs. We can only legislate the actions of those willing to follow, and determine repercussions for those who will not. Put dead simply, a law can't stop a bullet from being fired. Why are these horrific well publicized events happening in "gun free zones"? I understand the concern for accidents (negligent discharges and such), but in practice these just don't happen. Guns cannot fire on their own, and when holstered they are functionally inert. You can drop them, throw them, fall down on them, all without risk of it "going off." The gun community has a phrase that pretty well sums it up "keep your booger hook off the bang switch."
I'm impressed by your efforts to engage folks here. All too often conversations degrade before any real knowledge is shared because people stubbornly stick by their preconceived notions. Coming here and asking says a lot, and hopefully you stick around beyond this discussion.
- Status
