Carrying a gun at college
- Thread starter Adionik
- 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:
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
You CAN legally carry on campus with a CHL, unless you attend a private school that has given you 30.06 notice.
Of course, you cannot carry in a building or a portion of a building
Of course, you cannot carry in a building or a portion of a building
As a student, I see no reason to take a gun to school if it's not on my person IN class...
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
OK by me. I am just pointing out THE LAW.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The bill to change the law about carrying on campus died in the last legislature. It is still a Third-Degree felony to carry on the premises of an educational institution, at any off-campus event sponsored by an educational institution, or at any athletic even sponsored by an educational institution or the UIL. "Premises" is defined as building or portion thereof. It is legal to have a gun in parking lots, on streets, or sidewalks, but there is still the matter that most colleges will expel a student or fire an employee who has a gun in their car. I follow this closely, since I teach at a small, private university. TX Investigator is right about on campus as long as you don't enter a "building or portion thereof". But, if you walk into the building, even with a CHL, you can be toasted.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Perhaps you should work harder on your reading comprehension. I was completely accurate, and nothing I wrote was "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" To help you, here is a quote of my post. Read carefully
txinvestigator said:
I'm from Canada, but I have a funny story. I worked in a fitness center at a university I went to. Somebody dislocated their shoulder so a campus security guard was sent (I don't know why b/c the guy ended up driving himself to hospital anyways). I ended up talking to the security guard. He was wearing a bullet proof vest so I asked him "why". He said, for protection. I asked him why he didn't carry a gun instead. He responded that campus security didn't need to carry guns because they could radio campus security HQ if there was a problem, then CSHQ would monitor the incident on camera while they contacted Toronto Police Services and waited for them to respond.
Not even a week later, there was a shooting on this university campus. It happened in the University's club which is in the basement of one of the campus buildings. One of the security guards ended up getting shot (wasn't wearing a vest). Other security personnel then attempted to contact campus security HQ but couldn't because the radio signal couldn't get through the basement of a concrete building to the other side of the university. The shooter (who wasn't a student) ended up fleeing. When Campus Security HQ finally got word, they contacted Toronto Police Services. When TPS showed up, which was well after the culprit fled, they tried to analyze the video footage. But they couldn't because the cameras didn't work.
It's a good thing security doesn't need guns because everything worked out great...for the bad guy.
Campus Security............Fail
Communication..............Fail
Toronto Police...............Fail
Security Cameras..........Fail
Apprehending Shooter....Fail
Crime Prevention Policy...FAIL!!!
Not even a week later, there was a shooting on this university campus. It happened in the University's club which is in the basement of one of the campus buildings. One of the security guards ended up getting shot (wasn't wearing a vest). Other security personnel then attempted to contact campus security HQ but couldn't because the radio signal couldn't get through the basement of a concrete building to the other side of the university. The shooter (who wasn't a student) ended up fleeing. When Campus Security HQ finally got word, they contacted Toronto Police Services. When TPS showed up, which was well after the culprit fled, they tried to analyze the video footage. But they couldn't because the cameras didn't work.
It's a good thing security doesn't need guns because everything worked out great...for the bad guy.
Campus Security............Fail
Communication..............Fail
Toronto Police...............Fail
Security Cameras..........Fail
Apprehending Shooter....Fail
Crime Prevention Policy...FAIL!!!
I went to college in FL. Carrying was illegal anywhere on campus, indoors or out, even with a CCW. But it was totally legal to keep a gun in the car in the parking lot. I figured a gun within 2 minutes sprint is better than a gun at home. I also liked having it for the drive to and from school. It was against school policy, and the "gun club" on campus was told as much by the chief of campus security. Would've been expelled. But couldn't be arrested.
Good topic, just found this thread. My thoughts.....
I think it's criminal NOT to allow legal, law-abiding CCW permit holders to carry concealed into a Gun Free Kill Zone. Hopefully this will be corrected in the next legislature.
Just to show you how mindless some of the people are. It was last year where an obscure school in Texas, can't recall just where, voted to allow faculty and personnel to carry where legalized. It didn't get much press but it did make the paper down here. I was in a Post Office and a teller and customer were talking about it. An older woman asked me, "Does this mean that there will be guns in all the schools"? I told her that it was only a small school where the police are miles away. She seemed to "breathe a sign of relief".
Another more personal story. I had my CCW the first year out. In about 1998, while unemployed I was doing some Substitute Teaching. On the street they have those signs "Gun Free Zone". I asked my CCW Instructor about this, since I parked my vehicle in a school parking lot. He said that as long as it was locked in my vehicle, that vehicle is an extension of my home, even on school property. Of course it was out of sight under the seat. But I bet if anyone knew about it they would have screamed "GUN!! GUN!!! GUN!!!".
I think it's criminal NOT to allow legal, law-abiding CCW permit holders to carry concealed into a Gun Free Kill Zone. Hopefully this will be corrected in the next legislature.
Just to show you how mindless some of the people are. It was last year where an obscure school in Texas, can't recall just where, voted to allow faculty and personnel to carry where legalized. It didn't get much press but it did make the paper down here. I was in a Post Office and a teller and customer were talking about it. An older woman asked me, "Does this mean that there will be guns in all the schools"? I told her that it was only a small school where the police are miles away. She seemed to "breathe a sign of relief".
Another more personal story. I had my CCW the first year out. In about 1998, while unemployed I was doing some Substitute Teaching. On the street they have those signs "Gun Free Zone". I asked my CCW Instructor about this, since I parked my vehicle in a school parking lot. He said that as long as it was locked in my vehicle, that vehicle is an extension of my home, even on school property. Of course it was out of sight under the seat. But I bet if anyone knew about it they would have screamed "GUN!! GUN!!! GUN!!!".
I would just be curious as to what law they quote...most CCW instructors I know are on the right track but quote non-existent law. The "castle doctrine law" actually varies from state to state. While in Texas you can carry in your vehicle, I dont know of any law that states your vehicle is an "extension of your home". What is DOES say is that you can use deadly force if someone is during the comission of several different crimes, tries to get to you in your vehicle, essentially Texas withdrew any "requirement to retreat" if you are in a place in which you are legally entitled to be.
If this is what he is refering to then I guess he is right. But understand you have many more rights in your home than in your car.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2)did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3)was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (e)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f)For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C)was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2)did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3)was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor]. (c)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
I always recommend checking on stuff you hear from an instructor (or read on a forum) unless they quote the source
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
No. The Castle Doctrine did not extend your home anywhere, nor did it make you car and extension of anything. The Castle Doctrine made two changes to our use of force laws and one change to the civil code.
The Motorist Protection Act made changes to the Unlawful Carry Weapon law. Part of that change was car carry for most law abiding citizens without a CHL. Section 46.03 of the penal code (Places Weapons Prohibited) specifically excludes parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, etc.
The Newest Bill....
HB-1815 passed in 2007 covers having a weapon in a vehicle...
A person commits an offense if the person [he] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1)on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2)inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
Also, further down it covers the part about It cannot be in plain view, plus one cannot be involved in criminal activity, etc..
I believe this additional bill was brought about by the illegal confiscation of guns of drivers going through Houston.
HB-1815 passed in 2007 covers having a weapon in a vehicle...
A person commits an offense if the person [he] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1)on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2)inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
Also, further down it covers the part about It cannot be in plain view, plus one cannot be involved in criminal activity, etc..
I believe this additional bill was brought about by the illegal confiscation of guns of drivers going through Houston.
