Previous Post
Next Post


The Texas House just voted for the final time on Senate Bill 11, the Campus Carry bill. Representative Fletcher opened discussion with a spirited statement that the media had blown this bill all out of proportion, that it affects only a very few people (those CHL holders who are still attending college). He said that he’s received many calls from “many moms”, and went on to assert that all this bill truly does is protect our CHL licensees. He made it quite clear that the moms’ fears were ungrounded and inflated. He pointed out that people are already carrying concealed weapons on those college campuses, in the common areas . . .

That didn’t stop the testimony from those opposed to the bill, of course. Testimony was heard on both sides; Representative Helen Giddings said she’s “received more phone calls and letters on this issue than any since I’ve been in the legislature.”

Several representatives complained about various aspects of implementing the bill; Representative Turner pointed out that there’s nothing in any of the appropriations bills that would provide money to pay for the implementation of these new rules that the legislature is mandating upon them. He then then asked (paraphrased) “instead of spending this money so kids can carry guns to school, why not use this money to provide grants so kids can carry books to school?”

Representative Alma Allen spoke about recently attending a high school graduation of over 800 students. She described how they were “jubilantly crossing the stage and looking forward to where they will go to college. Little did they know that when they get to college, they’ll be met with an entourage of people carrying guns. Everyone carrying guns.” She then proceeded to deliver a litany of horror stories of students with guns; one example being one of students shooting teachers because they didn’t like the grade they got. She then says “we send our kids to college to bring home a degree… not to bring them home in a body bag.”

It wasn’t all one-sided. Rep. Zedler questioned Rep. Allen about the 14 states that already have campus carry, and “have you heard of (them having) any instances (of gun violence)?” She says “no”, and he points out “that’s because there haven’t been any. If there had been, they’d have been slapped all over the headlines as we’ve debated this.” Zedler pointed out that “in every instance that there’s ever been a mass shooting, it’s been in a gun-free zone.” He then asked her: “How many of those who have been involved in mass shootings, had a concealed weapons license?” She said “I don’t know”. He pointed out that it’s because CHL holders are more law-abiding “even than the police.”

The opposition was fierce, and it was vocal. Despite the opposition, the House moved quickly to vote on the bill, which passed with a final vote of 98 to 47, with one present but not voting. The Senate has passed the bill as well and it now heads to Governor Abbott’s desk for his signature.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I believe Abbott said a while ago that he would sign it. He may have even said he would sign any pro-2nd Amendment bill. ( You can see what he said upon the passage of Open Carry bill the other day on his twitter page: ).

      • Looking at his feed, I saw that his daughter just graduated high school. I love that he can look the opponents in the eye and say, “yes, I would be comfortable with my daughter being at a school with campus carry. In fact, she’s a freshman right now.”

        • Don’t know, but I suspect the daughter of the governor gets her pick of colleges.

          EDIT: her Twitter feed @audrey3380, says USC. So much for campus carry for her. Private college in a liberal state in a bad neighborhood. She sure could use it, but has a snowball’s chance of getting one (although, I’m sure daughter of Governor comes with certain privileges my daughter will never get).

        • Only if they are black males. During all the Michael B stuff the local media reported a story of an 18 year old female who died in a car accident. They referred to her several times in the story as a woman. The very next story was a Michael Brown story in which he, of course, was a teen.

  1. “Several representatives complained about various aspects of implementing the bill; Representative Turner pointed out that there’s nothing in any of the appropriations bills that would provide money to pay for the implementation of these new rules that the legislature is mandating upon them. He then then asked (paraphrased) “instead of spending this money so kids can carry guns to school, why not use this money to provide grants so kids can carry books to school?””

    im sorry, what?

    • Exactly! They have NO money so they will use this absence of money to provide books for students ? Where do these idiots get their propaganda ? They really need some better spin doctors. I hope this argument is recognized by any person with a brain as ridiculous.

    • “Representative Turner pointed out that there’s nothing in any of the appropriations bills that would provide money to pay for the implementation of these new rules that the legislature is mandating upon them.”

      Exactly what funding is required to implement “new rules” that do not require any action, but simply require non-interference with the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights of those on campus by any University administration? Does the new law mandate the posting of “NON-GUNFREE ZONE” signs on campus?

      • None. It’s the same BS argument Rep Phillips shot down during the committee hearings, when MDA claimed that this bill would kill…kill cancer patients because of the millions that would have to be diverted from research to security measures. As he put it, it’s basically a familiar old trick agencies do to try to make a bill look too expensive to enact…and he wasn’t buying it.

  2. Rep. Zedler should be an example to all of you gentlemen who might want to be in elective office. In him, we finally have an example of an elected representative with the testicular fortitude to tell the hysterical female contingent of this country to sit down and be quiet, as any real man ought.

    • DG, I used to think that the phrase “hysterical female” was redundant or something — until I saw my “sisters” at the range handling their firearms coolly, efficiently and effectively.

      The shrieking ninnies of the left make the most noise and there may be more of them, but the real women are packing. And packing well. Politicians ignore that at their peril.

  3. Everyone notice too how Fletcher said all his calls he got saying not to vote for the bill was from moms. Well moms aren’t the ones going to college and their sons and daughters are all adults and should learn to handle themselves. And if they are that concerned for their childrens safety they can buy them a gun to carry to protect themselves. Also moms are concerned about everything and think you can get hurt doing anything so when moms say something is dangerous you need to take it with a grain of salt.

    • I can understand any mom being concerned for their children. But really, they need to cut the apron strings by the time their kids are entering college. And wouldn’t a gun be a good way to protect their children from harm ? Why is taking away everyone’s guns appear to them to be the solution to all violence?

  4. Once the Governor signs the legislation it will definitely make things much safer on campus for those looking to protect themselves from on campus crimes. It is about time that women are afforded the right to protect themselves from the high rate of rape occurring on campuses as has been suggested by obama. Although absolutely absurd, his claim is that 1 in 5 women are assaulted is there any more reason why this legislation should not pass…liberals need to start thinking about the children.

  5. So glad to hear this as a college student. Do we know yet how this will effect private universities?

  6. It seems the opponents of this law have failed to learn anything from the Aurora “Batman movie” mass-shooting by Holmes, a failed Ph. D. candidate at CUD.
    Holmes appears to have been “sane” (in the legal sense of the word), since his actions reflect an intelligent mind carefully planning an insane act, the slaughter of innocent strangers.
    Holmes substituted the movie theater for his “armed campus”. In selecting this safer (for the murderer, not the victims) substitute venue for slaughter, Holmes rejected several other more suitable and convenient theaters which were NOT “gun free” for his murderous plans.

    But why did he choose ANY theater at all?

    Did the declaration of “gun free zones” prevent — or actually encourage — campus shootings such as Virginia Tech and many others? Can’t foolish people observe reality and learn from it, instead of trying to force reality to fit their pre-conceived ideals?
    Can’t they learn that “guns on campus” not only do not cause shootings, but prevent such horrors?
    They ignore what can be learned from the Aurora Cinemark theater shooting. Holmes, in a very telling departure from the norm of student madmen turned mass-murderers, did not kill on his campus. Some 3 months earlier, the state supreme court ruled that the Board of Regents at CUD could no longer refuse to allow people with a CCW to carry a gun on campus.
    Holmes avoided his “armed campus” and substituted a “gun free zone” at a movie theater. He did not want to take the chance that one of his intended victims might shoot back.
    This was a radical departure from the norm. In every other case of a failed student turned madman and killer that I have heard of, the psycho kills people at the place he associates with his failure and frustration — his campus, which is almost always a “gun free zone”.
    It is much the same as the “disgruntled employee” who kills the people at the “gun free” workplace site he associates with all his frustration and failure, and “goes postal” — as the expression that has become a part of our language puts it.
    Holmes was as intelligent as he was insane. He was also not the least bit suicidal. He eliminated almost all of the risk to himself from an armed “victim” by substituting the “gun free” Cinemark for his armed campus.

  7. The final bill is a pretty watered down version of the original, and it may have been watered down some more in the conference committee. One would need to study the final version to see just how broad a discretion the universities have in designating gun-free zones on campus. It may be pretty broad.

  8. What I’d like to know is how many of the thousands of emails and messaged came from out of state. Rep Giddings kept referring to getting emails from survivors of campus shootings urging her to vote against it. I don’t recall too many of those in Texas.

    She also said these survivors didn’t want their experience being used as a reason to pass campus carry, yet it’s conveniently okay it seems to wave the bloody shirt to restrict freedoms.

  9. Old Dominion Freight is now running trucks full of Depends to all MDA and Everytown office.


Comments are closed.