(courtesy umtb.edu)

Click here and then click on the right side of the home page – Campus Carry Map – to download the full image. Meanwhile, a TTAG reader and UTMB worker comments: “Of the few buildings left where they want to permit carry, only #121 and #55 are significantly large, #12 is executive admin building, and the rest have either small staffing or are primarily storage. I can’t even store in my office if I wanted to carry and had to go to a non-carry building, I’m not sure how this is allowing any sort of campus carry.”

Recommended For You

21 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: University of Texas Medical Branch Campus Carry Map Edition

  1. Let the lawyers sue the lawyers. They get rich and we get another temporary decision to appeal and make more lawyers rich.

    • I hope this gets very expensive for UTMB. Keep a running tab of their yearly costs for defending the GFZs. As lawsuits move along, inform the students of the approx. amount of their student loan debt was foolishly wasted fighting “settled law”.

  2. An obvious attempt to circumvent the law. Why didn’t the drafters anticipate this? It should have been obvious they would do this.

    • Because all in all the Texas legislature is a bunch of big government rinos who don’t care about individual rights and certainly didn’t want open carry. They only “allowed” this because our worthless legislature *really* doesn’t want constitutional carry, and the huge loss of free money to the government and the loss of power to the DPS that would come with it.

    • It was obvious they would do this and the bill’s author anticipated it.

      In fact, Texas State Senator Birdwell spoke into the record the detailed legislative intent behind the bill. He argued that campus presidents may only designate areas of campus “gun free” on a case by case basis with specific and tenable rationale supporting the designations. They may not arbitrarily make such designations with the effect of thwarting the law through abuse of their discretion.

      The purpose behind this, again, was to establish the legislative intent so that when the presidents overreach and ban arbitrarily, the future litigants will have more ammunition in their lawsuits. ShootingTheBull wrote a TTAG article on point back in May when the Senate passed the campus carry bill.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/shootingthebull410/breaking-texas-senate-approves-campus-carry/

  3. Meh, carrying against a 30.06 is only a ticket-able, class C misdemeanor. It doesn’t even worry me anymore. I’m more concerned about speeding tickets because of insurance premiums.

    • That’s lessening of the punishment is nice win, which a lot of people may not even be aware of.

      Still, I wonder if picking up one or two citations for blowing off a 30.06 sign might come back to haunt a carrier after a defensive gun use. Might the prosecutor argue that the carrier has a blithe attitude toward firearms law compliance, and invite the jury to conclude that might also apply to his actual use of force decision?

      • Huge win, indeed.

        A prosecutor will use anything and everything against. From your ammo choice to what you had for breakfast, if he or she is really looking to hang your.

  4. Probably another map showing where ammo is allowed! Really, if they turn the whole thing into a joke like this it will defeat their purpose.

  5. The intellectual dishonesty is evidenced in their color key: 1) the categories. 2) the colors.

    If the map were three colors: carry ok (green), no carry (red), and storage only (yellow)… The map would be a lot easier to consume for anyone.

    But they wouldn’t want it to be that obvious (even though it is), right?

  6. What exactly does “risk of widespread harm” mean? Sounds like they are acknowledging that these are areas where an attacker with a gun could do a lot of harm? Seems odd then that these are marked as exclusion zones. If a CHL holders is attacked or injured there seems like grounds to sue the school negligence to me.

    • that’s what stood out to me. Exactly who gets to determine that, anyway? “Patient care” is a fairly simple metric (though it can be abused) but how widespread is widespread? And what is harm?

      • So how does carrying a gun interrupt patient care? I know a lot of doctors, nurses, paramedics, and EMTs, etc, who have CHLs and should be allowed to carry their weapons on the job.

  7. It looks like a hopscotch board designed by someone under the influence of psilocybin. Which might not be too far from the truth.

  8. Only have to wait for a jihadist to ID the map, select the gun free zone and kill a number of citizens. The the smug administrators will sleep well knowing their policy killed a few. No apology expected from them nor will any be given.

  9. “Which o’ de buildin’s got de colored people water fountin’s, please?”

    This is nothing more than Jim Crow for gun owners.

  10. Just ignore the law, everyone else will be.

    When you right laws that you know can not be enforced nor followed, what have you really accomplished?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *