UT Attorney Complicates Defense in Profs’ Campus Carry Suit

b0ed2585-ebf3-40b6-925b-59a83fb508d7-large16x9_texas_1

By Louis K. Bonham

As TTAG readers are no doubt aware, Texas passed a law last year authorizing LTC (license to carry) holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. While the law allowed private universities to opt out, state institutions are generally required to allow concealed carry on campus by license holders.

This produced no small amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth at the University of Texas. UT professors have issued calls for “action” to defy the law, which in turn produced not-so-veiled threats from state officials who control UT’s funding.

Ultimately, after months of navel-gazing, the UT administration grudgingly implemented procedures that appear to follow the law. Concealed carry is allowed in classrooms, with professors prohibited from forbidding concealed carry in  “their” classes. Under certain conditions, professors can prohibit concealed carry in their offices (certain other areas of campus are also off limits). But by and large licensed concealed carry is authorized on campus.

Outraged by this development, three UT professors recently filed suit in federal court, seeking to block campus carry implementation. A hearing on their request for a preliminary injunction was held yesterday.

In advance of the hearing, I reviewed the papers filed by the parties. It looked like it would be a cakewalk for the defendants.

The plaintiffs’ legal theories in the lawsuit are a real stretch, to put it mildly. For purposes of the preliminary injunction hearing they were only arguing that (1) campus carry violates their purported rights to “academic freedom” because their fear of a student going postal will cause them to curtail their teaching, and (2) because campus carry is prohibited in some areas (hazardous labs, sporting events) but not others, not allowing professors to “opt out” is a violation of their equal protection rights.

The office of the Texas Attorney General, a named defendant, filed a tour de force response adroitly pointing out the crucial factual and legal flaws in the plaintiffs’ position. The other defendants — UT and its administration — were represented by different attorneys who filed a much weaker response. Indeed they appeared to commit a serious “own goal” that came back to bite them at the hearing.

In support of their “academic freedom” arguments, the plaintiffs cited two Supreme Court cases that struck down laws prohibiting the teaching of “subversive” topics. Counsel for UT asserted that those cases were distinguishable because they involved threats to fire the professors for certain speech, whereas in the present case, UT asserted that its professors purportedly faced no threat of firing or other disciplinary action if they prohibited concealed carry from their classes.

In other words, there would be no consequences for faculty who refused to comply with and accommodate the new campus carry law. Big mistake.

Federal courts strictly require there’s an actual “case or controversy” before them. If UT professors can violate the UT policy with impunity, then there’s no actual controversy, as they face no real threat of harm. In such a case, the court would likely not have jurisdiction to do anything. UT would be stuck, at least temporarily, with its admission that professors could get away with thumbing their noses at official UT policy, which would unravel the campus carry policy.

At the hearing, counsel for the professors immediately pounced on that shocking admission, causing the court to interrupt its plan for the hearing in order to deal with it. In a truly painful performance, the young attorney for UT appeared completely flummoxed and unable to answer direct questions from the court on this subject, ultimately trying to walk back her admission that there would be no adverse consequences for professors violating the UT campus carry policies.

In my opinion, it looked like UT sent in the JV team on this one. Draw your own conclusions as to why UT, which is on record as opposing campus carry anyway, might have done so.

In any case, the poor performance clearly frustrated the court, which called a recess after an hour of largely pointless meandering and asked the parties to try and agree whether or not there was, in fact, a UT policy in place that would put the professors at actual risk if they violated it.

After the break, Prerak Shah, senior counsel for the Texas Attorney General, stepped up to the plate and quickly got things back on track. Nevertheless, the “own goal” by UT’s counsel created a new issue in the case: whether UT’s policies were in fact so vague as to be unconstitutional. The fact that UT’s own counsel had difficulty identifying and articulating its policy didn’t exactly help matters.

The balance of the hearing went as expected: plaintiffs’ counsel candidly admitting that there wasn’t any real case law supporting his positions (but he went long on emotion, delighting “Gun Free UT” supporters in the gallery). The counsel for the Texas Attorney General made brief but very effective arguments against them. The attorney for UT recovered somewhat from her rocky start, but never seemed to be hitting her marks even though the law was very clearly on her side.

Again, why UT chose to send a five-year attorney to argue a high-profile case in federal court seems fishy to this old litigator, especially given the university’s stated opposition to the campus carry law. Compare and contrast with the caliber of attorneys UT enlisted when it had to defend another of its policies (affirmative action), challenged in federal court as unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel didn’t rule from the bench (not unexpected, as he has a reputation of being very careful and thorough). But Judge Yeakel indicated that he would issue a ruling as soon as possible, after the parties submitted additional briefing on the issue created by UT’s “own goal.”

From what I’ve seen and read to date, my prediction: the court will likely rule that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the very high burden that’s required for preliminary injunctive relief, especially proof that they demonstrated a “likelihood of success on the merits.” Thus the law will continue in force.

Nevertheless, what should have been a chip shot for the defendants was made considerably more difficult by what appear to me to have been unforced errors by UT’s counsel.

We’ll see whether that affects the case — and the rights of UT students — as well as whether UT’s counsel’s position was just a mistake or evidence of the UT administration’s mask slipping.

comments

  1. avatar C.S. says:

    How exactly is the faculty supposed to “violate” the campus carry policy??

    1. By declaring their classrooms off limits to concealed carry. That’s in direct violation of the university’s written policy as it currently stands.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        How exactly is it that stupid people become University professors? And how exactly did the university not recognize that these supposed intellectuals were in fact stupid people before they were hired?

        It seems to me that a university or college that presents itself as a bastion of education and learning is shooting itself in the foot by admitting that its faculty is a bunch of whiny cowards afraid to present their knowledge to students for fear of being shot!

        Begging the question as posed in the article above, the students are allowed to carry concealed weapons in class. Concealed. How does the professor know, #1 – the student is carrying, #2 the student is legally carrying (State permission slip), or #3 the student is illegally carrying and has been all along, regardless of the law?

        If the professor somehow, through the carelessness of the student, determines that they have a concealed weapon in the classroom, what will they do? They obviously don’t have the balls to confront such a student directly, they might get shot! They might bar the student from the class in the future, but where is their proof that the offense occurred? If the student is barred from the class for carrying a firearm, wouldn’t the professor then be constantly in fear of reprisal until said student was removed from the campus permanently? Would a Restraining Order be appropriate? Would being barred from one class have a ripple effect where other anti-2A professors would then bar that student from their classrooms as well?

        Now I could see not only a student, but possibly a parent who was paying the outrageous tuition for that university arriving on campus and mad enough to shoot people. But they probably wouldn’t. They would be smart enough to know that nothing good was being taught there and the smart thing would be to spend their money at a better school.

        Speaking of which, where do the UT alumni stand on this issue?

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          They’re not stupid, they’re completely indoctrinated.

          Liberals love to point out that college educated people tend to be more liberal. The conclusion that they draw from that is that liberals are smarter.

          That’s not the case IMHO. They’ve just drunk more Koolaid than non college students and been sheltered from the real world longer.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          How exactly is it that stupid people become University professors? And how exactly did the university not recognize that these supposed intellectuals were in fact stupid people before they were hired

          A feature that accompanies hiring progtards.

      2. And…
        The gun owner can go to class anyway. What can the professor do at that point? I don’t see why there has to be case or controversy based solely on a verbal request to not bring a gun to class. Now when the professor uses force to remove an armed student, there’s your controversy. Charge him with any number of crimes not limited to assault. False arrest, kidnapping, trespassing. Nail him for civil rights violation. Lawyers are good at trumping up charges. What’s the problem here?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          This should be simple. If a professor bars concealed carry in his/her classroom and a student (lawfully carrying) violates it, what could the professor do? Clearly, the professor could try to bar the student from the classroom, but the student could ignore this ban as the student would be acting within his rights to concealed carry. Could the university remove the student? Obviously not. Least ways not without violating his rights under the law.
          So what can the professor do? He could theoretically fail the student no matter what the level of performance. Alternately, the professor could refuse to teach and leave the classroom–and THAT could lead to being fired.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Concealed”. The prof can put all the signs up he likes, students can ignore them, as always. Concealed is concealed. If caught, student can actually *refuse* to leave, since the prof does not own the classroom, and his stupid sign is not in any way legally binding. No trespassing, no violation of anything, just a “screw you!” to that prof.

        3. avatar FiftycalTX says:

          This is a huge state school. Some classes can have hundreds of people. It would take HOURS to “search” all of them or millions of dollars of metal detectors to screen them every 60 minutes. The only reliable way to make sure nobody is carrying an eeeeeeeeeeevil gun is to make all the students come to class NAKED.

      3. avatar B says:

        If a professor were to do this, would they be subject to the same penalties as an illegal posting at a city hall or whatever? Daily compounding fine until they comply? And if so, would it be the professor or the uni that would pay the fine?

        1. avatar LKB says:

          I believe that law applies only to improper posting of 30.06/30.07 signs. The UT policy has already forbidden faculty from posting 30.06/30.07 signs (perhaps for this very reason), but they are free to post generic “no guns” signs on their individual offices. The policy has warned faculty that such signs have no legal impact (oral notice is required to create the individual office GFZ), but UT is willing to allow hoplophobic professors to bark at the moon if they so wish.

          If a faculty member actually posted a 30.06 notice (a 30.07 notice is superfluous, as open carry isn’t allowed on campus anyway), I suspect a complaint to the AG’s office would trigger a letter to UT, which would then trigger a directive from UT to the faculty member to remove the 30.06 notice. Where the rubber meets the road will be what UT would do if the faculty member refused to remove it.

          Again, UT’s supplemental filings may provide some clue of what UT says it will do to recalcitrant faculty.

      4. avatar MattG says:

        That off limit declaration wouldnt carry the force of law would it? Concealed is concealed for one, and if it’s not concealed, on what grounds could the professor punish the student? I mean just because someone declares that the sky is green doesn’t mean it’s so.

      5. avatar Tyler London says:

        “How exactly is it that stupid people become University professors?”

        The same way they often become CEOs, millionaires, and Presidents. They are “Educated morons” who get where they are by joining the right cliques and knowing the right people. College Professors are usually great test takers who couldn’t figure their way out of a paper bag.

        They can argue philosophical paradoxes, recite the first 100 numbers of pi, and give 2 hour long lectures on why radical Islam isn’t a threat to the world, but ask them to fix a clogged sink, change a spark plug, or set up a surround sound system and they’re clueless. All book smarts and absolutely no real world smarts or experience.

    2. avatar LKB says:

      UT’s announced policy is very clear that professors are NOT allowed to “ban” lawful carry in their classrooms, or to purport to exclude lawful carriers from taking their classes. These professors (as well as others) say they want to do just that. On paper, doing so would thus violate an official policy of UT, which should subject violators to discipline.

      I’ve always been skeptical that regardless of what official policies it adopts, UT would likely never follow through on any kind of real enforcement of policies that require faculty to respect the law and allow campus carry in their classes. That UT’s counsel wrote that the plaintiffs do not really face any disciplinary sanction (even though she tried mightily to walk that back at the hearing) doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that UT really intends to do anything to faculty who simply ignore or even openly defy the policy.

      We’ll see what UT says say in its supplemental briefs.

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        So lets run through a scenario.

        UT policy says professors may not ban legal carry. They also unofficial state they intend not to enforce it.
        Professor Strawman lists in his course’s syllabus that students in his class may not carry. Perhaps he also posts a notice on the board or door. At this point we have a violation of policy, but again no action would come of it being reported.
        In response to the notice, a student who is licensed to carry tells the professor they intend to carry while in attendance of lecture.

        What happens next?
        If the professor attempts action against the student for disobeying the professor’s syllabus, what does the university do? The student has not violated any policy and yet the faculty has violated at least one, if not two, policies. If the school takes any action against the student and not the professor they will be in a harsh spotlight (if not worse).

        Let’s say they do not take action, but now the student feels their work is being unfairly evaluated due to bias, and goes through the grading dispute process (which will elevate to the department chair, and then the dean). The expectation is the dean will side with the faculty, so a good “test case” student will have prepared to show in a public forum how identical work received a different grade. More harsh spotlighting, if not action from the legislators.

        1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

          I think your point is quite clear. While students will surely win in any of those cases, they could just tell Dr. Simpleton what he/she wants to hear if asked, then shut up and carry anyway with the law on their side. No sense giving yourself more headaches.

  2. avatar Chief Master says:

    Also, I don’t understand why it really matters how effectively (or ineffectively) UT is implementing the law. Their incompetent fumbling of a constitutional law does not make that law unconstitutional.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It is difficult to believe that UT actually has a law school. At this point, My kids would certainly not go there on my dime.

  3. avatar Tom in NC says:

    I am shocked – SHOCKED, I tell you – that an antigun administration at UT would send a less than stellar attorney to argue that the law they don’t agree with should be upheld.

    Also, if I read the FAQ’s correctly, the sign in the picture accompanying this has no legal effect – only oral notification can prohibit guns in single member faculty offices, and other sign have to correspond to 30.06 and 30.07. Did I get the right?

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Partially. Faculty can post “no guns” signs, but they have no legal effect. Faculty must give oral notice to every person who they wish to charge with notice (and also provide for an alternate location to meet).

      However, they cannot post 30.06/30.07 notices, as their offices are on state property.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        What gives them the authority to tell any individual not to carry a gun? I don’t recall that provision of the law. The classroom is not their property, they are government employees. Bake the cake. Issue the marriage license or go to jail.

        1. avatar LKB says:

          The UT policy allows faculty to make their individual offices GFZ’s. This provision is currently being challenged as inconsistent with the Campus Carry law, but that’s not at issue in this lawsuit.

          Posting signs or otherwise attempting to declare CLASSROOMS to be GFZ’s, however, is prohibited by the UT policy. The Plaintiffs are seeking to overturn the UT policy so that, somehow, they will have the power to do so.

        2. avatar Red in CO says:

          They can declare their offices to be GFZ’s (but only if it’s an INDIVIDUAL office, rather than a shared one), but if they do that, they have to make reasonable accommodations to meet with students elsewhere on campus.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      The sign pictured in the window is literally meaningless, as far as Texas carry laws are concerned. It basically means you cannot carry a gun, unless you can carry a gun.

      Also, utterly meaningless, yet all to common is,” The unlicensed possession of a weapon on these premises is a felony with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $10,000.”

      Once again, you cannot carry a gun, unless you can carry a gun. Both signs are not worth the paper they’re printed on.

  4. avatar Flynn says:

    The adverse consequences of disobeying the UT policy is a nice lawsuit against both the professor and the school for failing to uphold the law. Should put a few professors in financial trouble, with any luck. I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to fight such a suit, but I imagine that when it eventually works its way through the legal system years later, they won’t be so happy.

  5. avatar Chief Master says:

    Also, I just finished reading The Texas Attorney General’s (“TTAG”, whaddaya know) brief, and it is on point! Hit every nail right on the head.

  6. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    They can piss and moan all the want, I’m still going to carry my gun; rules be damned.

    And, there’s a good chance I’ll be finishing up some courses at UT Arlington before too long.

    I shall take great pleasure in carrying; I might carry several.

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    I don’t imagine that being a five year lawyer has much to do with it. They probably picked someone with a poor record in court and vetted her to make sure she was basically ignorant on this area of law before sending her into the court room.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      But, in doing that, the University of Texas undermined their own anti-gun position. By setting the context that there is no controversy, the University of Texas has positioned the case for the court to dismiss it and the University of Texas professors to LOSE.

      Did you catch that? The University of Texas flubs the case and the professors lose their lawsuit. That doesn’t make any sense because the University of Texas administration/Board of Regents do NOT want concealed carry on their campus. They would want the professors’ lawsuit to succeed. And yet they just sabotaged the case. It makes no sense.

      Either the University of Texas just made a huge, stupid error sending an incompetent attorney to argue the case, or the University of Texas secretly wants concealed carry in their classrooms and wants their professors to lose the lawsuit.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        You make the mistake of assuming the people who run UT really care passionately either way.

        These people likely have quite good counsel in house. That counsel likely advised them that the lawsuit is unwinnable. Either way, what the school wants in certainty going forward not some legal mess where the outcome is unknown and students are already carrying on campus and professors are wetting themselves.

        So, they procure other counsel they know will lose the case so that they 1) make this go away ASAP and 2) appease the professors by actually creating the appearance of doing something in their favor. Now the issue disappears but the professor’s can’t bitch that the university didn’t take their side. That’s how politics works inside a university.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      In my experience, junior attorneys in large law firms often get very limited or meaningful courtroom experience, usually just attending minor law and motion hearings, and getting to watch the partner perform in all big cases and most depositions. Motions to dismiss are considered “minor” hearings, since the judge in federal court usually allows the plaintiff a second bite at the apple anyway, so it doesn’t really matter what the lawyer has to say. [I remember one federal judge, an old curmudgeon, who really didn’t want the lawyers to argue at all, as he’d already written out his decision in long hand.] So law and motion hearings on motions to dismiss (demurrers in most state courts) are where young attorneys cut their teeth arguing cases. It does take practice and preparation.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The politics of a university demand that the administration be seen as “backing” professors in nearly all circumstances lest the professors revolt.

        People seem to assume that UT wanted to win this case. I think they likely don’t care about the outcome very much. As I noted in another post just above this what they really want is for this mess to go away as quickly as possible but not have to worry that the professors are going to cry that the university didn’t support them. The administration also likely has in house or on call counsel that’s very, very good. That counsel likely explained to them that this case is basically a loser.

        To satisfy both ends the university pulls the strings to make sure the case goes down in flames ASAP but that the professors can’t claim they weren’t supported by the university. To accomplish this they hire a poor lawyer or hire a firm and explain to them what they want, the firm then picks the “doomed spy” as it were, and they are allowed or perhaps pushed to completely fuck the case up because that’s what the client actually wants. An outcome is what is desired, what that outcome happens to be is irrelevant. Just get it over with.

        School administrators want smooth operations even if they’re piss poor operations. It’s a go along to get along type of thing for the admins. Making waves is not appreciated. This lawsuit makes waves.

      2. avatar LKB says:

        Agreed that motions to dismiss are often good “training wheels” exercises for young attorneys (but few federal judges give you the chance to argue them any more).

        However, this wasn’t a motion to dismiss — it was a motion for a preliminary injunction. And when UT had to defend a policy that UT really wanted to protect (e.g., affirmative action / Fisher case), you can be sure they didn’t put the JV team on the field . . . .

  8. avatar john thomas says:

    heres what i dont get. if i were a UT student and chose to carry a concealed firearm in the classroom, and my professor put up no gun signs and verbally informed me of his or her no guns in class policy, in violation of the law, so what? there is no way that i can see for him or her to enforce his or her little tyranny, even if he or she did know i was carrying a gun.

    and yeah, “own goal” by UT attorney is obviously on purpose.

    1. avatar AhClem says:

      Well, the prof could retaliate against you if you flagrantly violated their (improper) policy. You might need the grade you earned some day.

      What confuses me: these profs are EMPLOYEES who choose to violate UT policy and state law; surely they’d be subject to disciplinary action/termination. Let ’em find work at a private school!

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      That will work the way it always has: scumbag professor detects you oppose his political viewpoint and finds ways to zap your grade in his class. This can be a large problem if it is a required class for your major, and worse if this is the only person who teaches it.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        It’s called lying – maybe you’ve hear of it – it’s a two way street.

        I’m not above telling halfwit, liberal professors whatever they want to hear to obtain a passing grade in a required course.

        Academia pretends to have integrity, but it does not, far from it in fact. Do what you have to do.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “I’m not above telling halfwit, liberal professors whatever they want to hear to obtain a passing grade in a required course.”

          Good. I learned this lesson the hard way.

        2. avatar john thomas says:

          isnt it hilarious that professors will use the threat of grading you poorly to stifle your “academic freedom”, then in the next moment claim that “campus carry violates their purported rights to ‘academic freedom’ because their fear of a student going postal will cause them to curtail their teaching”?

          the hypocrisy is so delicious, it might spoil my supper.

  9. avatar NorincoJay says:

    I don’t understand the professors’ idea that CCW will create an environment where they are afraid to openly teach. First, no one will know if any student is armed. Second, if a student loses it what difference does it make if CCW is allowed on campus or not? The nutter doesn’t care.

    If anything it will reduce the amount of carnage. Getting a CCW in most states isn’t a simple 5 minute NICS check. There are classes, paperwork, fingerprints everything the anti gunners say will keep people safe.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      They flipped out about this in Colorado too. It’s been years now with no CCW holders going postal in college.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        That point was made at the hearing yesterday (by the UT lawyer, so she got that right) . . . that eight other states have campus carry, and there have been NO instances of on-campus gun violence by licensed carriers.

        Judge Yeakel is very hard to read, but it appeared to me that that evidence mattered to him.

  10. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    So my professor posts his class as a GFZ. The administration knows about that, but does not fire him or take other action against him. I carry in class anyway knowing that the law and school policy is on my side. It seems to me that the professor won nothing with his declaration. What am I missing?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      He won his feelz.

    2. avatar LKB says:

      Don’t lose sight of the fact that the plaintiffs in this case want the court to throw out the current UT policy, so that their unilateral GFZ designations WOULD have the force of law.

      In other words, assume that under the current policy, Prof gives you oral notice that his office is a GFZ (allowed under current policies). You ignore the notice and carry anyway. You are violating the law (and if you are a student and are caught will likely be expelled; if you an employee you will likely be terminated).

      Under the system the plaintiffs seek to obtain in the lawsuit, Prof similarly can declare “his” classroom to be a GFZ. If you carry there and get caught, same result as above.

      You are correct, however, that under the current policy, a prof’s improper classroom GFZ designation is of no moment and has zero legal impact on carriers. However, is it really too much to ask that public employees be required to obey the law, and suffer consequences if they refuse to do so?

      1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        However, is it really too much to ask that public employees be required to obey the law, and suffer consequences if they refuse to do so?

        Why? Hillary Clinton has made it fashionable to thumb your nose at the law. It’s just going to get worse.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Bingo.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        How, exactly, might you be “caught” in a professor’s office? While he is attempting to rape you? We are inventing threats, here.

  11. avatar waffensammler98 says:

    These profs aren’t actually frightened by concealed carry, oh no. It has been legal in Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin for years and not one legal CC’er has ever caused trouble. Progressives simply believe that gun owners are just as emotionally unstable and prone to outbursts of fanatical violence as they. With that irrational fear in the back of their minds, it also means they can’t be Comrade Commissar in the lecture hall anymore without the threat of some form of resistance to their indoctrination schemes. It’s 100% projection, 100% of the time.

  12. avatar shootboot says:

    i love you americans, jeez in canadian universities forget about a handgun you cant even have a dick, you turn in your balls at the campus gate.

    1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

      That has also been par for the course down here for decades. You guys just don’t hear about it as much. After all, 1 in 4 women attending a U.S. college will be sexually assaulted before they graduate.*

      * Being told your dress looks beautiful, getting your ass slapped by drunks at a party (happened to me, a straight guy, twice. Sorry I wasn’t emotionally unstable enough to press charges), and having totally consensual sex but “regretting it” three days later all count as “sexual assault” now. Broadening criteria to the limit of absurdity is how progressives manufacture crises.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Exactly. That insane “1 in 4” statistic came from a survey (surveys are already fraught with potential for bad data) that had SO. MANY. PROBLEMS. Because of course, it was designed to give a certain result. Aside from the absurdly small sample size, it also had a VERY high rate of folks simply choosing not to waste their time participating (which is gonna skew the data, because the ones who DO have a grievance [legitimate or not] are gonna be far more likely to want to spend time and respond). Plus, they rebranded “rape” to include things that are more or less covered under flirting. And my personal favorite, “Have you ever had sex with someone when you didn’t want to?” As in, you chose to have sex when maybe you weren’t totally into it.

        So, maybe your boyfriend comes home and he’s had an awful day, so you sleep with him (even though maybe you’re not totally into it) because you love him and want him to feel better, and know that love sometimes means making sacrifices. It’s insane. The very same people who scream about “women empowerment!” spend a tremendous amount of time and energy blatantly lying, and telling people everywhere that women are an oppressed minority. I can’t even follow the insane labyrinth of projection, self-loathing, entitlement, ego, persecution complex, and cognitive dissonance involved in all that, despite how widespread it is.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Y’all are f*cked up there.

      Proper f*cked.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Isn’t there usually at least a sincere kiss with a proper f*ck?

  13. avatar Darren says:

    It’s interesting to note that it has been legal for years to carry concealed handguns on Texas university campuses, just not legal to enter a building on campus with said handguns. They’re not really changing much. Interesting that at the larger Texas A&M University, no such angst seems to be occurring. At least not publicly, though I would presume there are loony professors there who are not happy. The same for UH, Texas Tech, UNT, et. al. What a joke tu has become (some will now see my bias for sure). What of other states where campus carry has been going on for years without incident? How many times has this last question been asked over the years. It just gets old to keep dealing with this nonsense.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “It just gets old to keep dealing with this nonsense.”

      It was the exact same song-and-dance EVERY DAMN TIME the prospect of concealed carry was floated.

      Here in Florida in the late 80’s the same clutching of pearls, gnashing of teeth, and other feigned hysteria was predicted…

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        It’s a moving goal post, too.

        The same gnashing of teeth with CC is now being applied to OC. First it was the presence of guns that were NOT visible; not it is the presence of guns that ARE visible (though OC has never been illegal in most states).

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    It seems like a young lawyer was thrown to the wolves.

    Something similar happened to me once when I was a young lawyer. However, I screwed everything up by winning a so-called unwinnable case that was actually no such thing.

    It’s called preparation. No lawyer is ever to young or too new to prepare, and there’s no excuse for being unprepared. Even for the JV.

  15. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Well, I don’t see the government requiring homosexuals to get permission before being gay, so I guess I won’t be asking anyone for permission when it comes to my guns. My guns. My choice.

  16. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    It’s just a cute trick, sending in the “inexperienced” lawyer to derail their own case. Federal agencies do this all the time.

    When there’s some regulation that they want to impose, but have no legal authority to impose, rather than seek that authority legislative (agencies are barred from lobbying), they conspire with some activist group to get sued.

    The activist group sues the agency, the agency puts up a token defense and throws the fight, then the court ordere the agency to impose the regulation the activist group demanded. The agency gets a the cover of a court order to do what they wanted all along and the activist group gets that and their attorneys fees handsomely paid.

    UT’s involved in the same game. Your tax dollars at play.

  17. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The spectacle of liberal UT profs losing their mind over campus carry is hilarious in a pathetic sort of way. Their obsessive lack of common sense and/or blatant dishonesty has rendered them incapable of acknowledging that only students 21 yoa and older are even eligible for a TXDPS issued or reciprocal License to Carry, and since only 5% of the population have actually obtained a LTC, very few UT students will be able to exercise their campus carry privilege. If the UT administration and faculty were smart they’d push for a top rated indoor firing range that both students and faculty could make use of for training and proficiency.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      There actually was an on-campus indoor range for decades (it was still there when I attended UT [’79-’86], but by that time use was very tightly restricted to ROTC and official UT clubs, and was .22 only). It was right behind the Gregory Gym complex, but was torn down years ago.

      Still, when I was an 18 year old freshman, I legally had several guns at my UT dorm (mostly long guns for hunting, but also a TC Contender). Had to keep them stored in a locked storage room behind the front desk, but it was still allowed.

  18. avatar Uncle Fester says:

    Typically, the Texas Attorney General’s office represents state universities in litigation.

    I woul like to know why they didn’t in this case.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email