The "As Introduced" version of HB 1893 can be found here. The "Committee Substitute" that has been sent on to Calendars can be found here. (both files are .pdf).
The changes to the bill basically accomplish two things.
First, the changed bill allows private or independent institution of higher education to set their own policies concerning allowing CHL holders to carry firearms on campus.
Second, the changes grant certain immunities against liability for campuses that do allow licensed concealed carry.
I am going to cover the first change, allowing private or independent institution of higher education to set their own policies concerning allowing CHL holders to carry firearms on campus.
Here is the text from the bill:
(e) A private or independent institution of higher education in this state may, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on premises that are owned or operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution. For purposes of this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035,Penal Code.I understand that this verbiage was inserted to satisfy the private property rights crowd. This change is not as it appears at first glance. Basically it puts private or independent institutions of higher education on the same footing as private businesses, with a couple of very important differences.
Most noticeable is the fact that a private business does not have to consult with its employees before establishing rule and regulations that prohibit license holders from carrying handguns on company property.
The next difference between a private or independent institution of higher education, and a private business, can be determined from an earlier paragraph in the bill:
(c) 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.Okay now, this is a test of your Texas CHL law legalese. Do you see where a CHL holding employee of a private or independent college will be treated different than an employee of a private business under current law?
I'll let you think about it for awhile before I post the answer in the comments.
Note: PC 30.06 was brought up in comments to an earlier post. If a college decides to prohibit CHL holders from carrying firearms in the buildings of that facility, that college would still be required to inform CHL holders of that fact via PC 30.06.
Note #2: Two co-sponsors of HB 1893 have changed their minds and have dropped off of the bill.
Representative Fred Brown from Bryan and College Station (District 14) and Representative Ismael 'Kino' Flores the Mission, Hidalgo and Pharr area (District 36) are no longer supporting campus carry. If you are in their districts, you just might want to give them a call and let them know your thoughts on this issue. Remember to be polite, professional and stead fast in your communications.