TexasCHLforum.com

To be perfectly clear, I would like to disagree with the attorney’s interpretation but they seemed quite adamant, and said the court would see that the clear intent of HB435 was to provide protection for people providing services during an emergency. Most everyone would agree that we wouldn’t want to prosecute an LTC holder who entered a 30.06/07 location to provide emergency medical care, or help someone in an emergency. What many would not agree with is that HB435 gives unlimited blanket protection to 30.06/07 violations to anyone who self-proclaims to be a VESP, when there is no emergency or they are not providing any aid.

The problem lies in the definition section of HB435 here, I have added the bold and underline for the word "during":
“ SECTION 4. Section 46.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivision (18) to read as follows:
(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel"
includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services
volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code,
and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the
benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The
term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement
officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001,
Occupations Code, who is performing law enforcement duties.”

The confusion arises from the use of “during” in this definition. I would very much like to hear informed opinions on why the attorney I spoke with might be mistaken, because I have always read this part of HB435 to just mean someone who, in general, will provided services if and when there is an emergency. If the 30.06/.07 defense to prosecution was meant to only apply while the VESP is engaged in providing services, why is that not mentioned?

Just got off the phone with a practicing Texas attorney. They made it very clear that HB435 does NOT give volunteer emergency personnel the right to enter a 30.06/07 location unless there is an emergency currently happening. The confusion stems from the word “during” in the definition of a VESP. You have the right to a defense to prosecution under HB435 if you are a volunteer emergency person entering the posted location “during” an emergency. You do not have the defense of HB435 if there is no emergency where you would be providing help to the public.

In other words, HB435 did basically nothing whatsoever for concealed carry and 30.06/07 signs except if you are a VESP and you enter the location during an emergency.

If you disagree with this please post or PM me the contact information for the attorney who told you otherwise, I would like to speak with them. Thanks.

Killadocg23 wrote:
CZP10, you sound like a dictator. Its simple 30.06 sign posted go else where if your that paranoid or feel they take away your 2nd amendment right. Nothing wrong with your opinion. IF millions of Americans felt that way in actuality, there would be no 30.06 signs !

David

You might want to look up how many states specifically do not allow no gun signs to have the force of law, there are quite a few. So the many millions of Americans living in those states are all dictators? Ok, that makes perfect sense. It is too bad that people don’t care enough to do something about it in Texas. I guess there is a reason the left has decided that they can turn Texas blue, they seems to be doing a good job of it so far. The notion of never going anywhere with a sign is ridiculous, sure why don’t I just tell my kids they can never go to a zoo or museum because not enough people in Texas care about their rights? And yes, I am looking to move to a state that is less left wing anti 2A than Texas, I just can't do it anytime soon. Stupid me for thinking Texans cared about their 2A rights.

twomillenium wrote: Just out of curiosity, would you support the Government telling a citizen where they must bank, eat or shop and spend their hard earned money?

Are you going to make some sort of intelligent point or not? Your question is clearly leading and meant to say something, but you apparently didn’t think it through. The government already does all those things, and has for a very long time. Banks are very highly regulated, only certain people under certain conditions can open a bank. Food establishments have to go through multiple layers of government to get a license to do business. The government is already telling people where they can eat and bank, they already tell you where you can live via zoning laws, etc., etc. So it would be nice if you could just come out and say what your point is, because I really don’t understand what you are trying to say.

I have been very clear on my issue, which millions of Americans agree with, by the way. I think a business can refuse to serve me if they wish, they can ask me to leave and I have to leave, I have no problem with that. They can even put up whatever signs they want, but a business open to the public should not be seemingly granted the sacred power of judge and jury by making the simple fact of walking past a sign an automatic criminal violation by a law abiding LTC holder. I started a whole thread on this previously, the only thing I have asked for is rescinding the criminal violation part of 30.06.

twomillenium wrote: However, I will defend your right to feel that way. I still feel that property owner rights to do business as they feel best for themselves are sacrosanct over the wants and whims of the individual who wants everything their way and their need to be coddled. (That is how a very pro 2nd amendment patriot feels)
I even still wish you a good day!

I am in no way trying to tell businesses how they can or can’t run their business, I have owned businesses before and respect their rights. However, it is this one single, nationwide, issue with which I personally have a problem. I don’t feel it is constitutional for a business open to the public to take away the right to defend yourself as provided by the 2A by posting a 30.06 sign. An LTC holder has been approved by every level of government to concealed carry, the Supreme Court has upheld that right. I do not think a business open to the public should be able to override that, they do however have the right to ask anyone to leave if they go up to that person and do so. Many states believe the same thing, they have specific laws in place that prevent businesses from stopping licensed concealed carry. I would like the Texas 30.06 law to be rescinded or changed, but I am not sure the best way to have it tested in court. Currently the law provides the right of a business to post a proper 30.06 sign, but the law also provides citizens legal recourse in challenging that law, both rights should be protected/respected until the law is changed. Hopefully that makes my ranting a bit more clear .

twomillenium wrote:

CZp10 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

Not sure how this is anything other than blatantly offensive.
Aside from your reluctance to stand up for the second amendment, not all of us are as scared as you to stand up for the constitution. I believe that the 30.06 would not stand the test in court, and therefore not be found legal.

America fighting for independence was not “legal” at the time, slavery was “legal” once, so according to your backward thinking, people should just go elsewhere?

Your right! You are being blatantly offensive. I am more pro-second amendment than you will be in probably 3 life times. The difference is that I defend your right to do so and will not sue you to force my will on your property or thinking. Have a good day and keep it civil.

You call me a “panty-waist” for stating an opinion shared by many people and more than a couple here, and I am being offensive? Then I guess you are calling several of the members here “panty-waisted.”
What a joke, guess civility and moderation is lost art on this website. No wonder tens of millions of Americans are disgusted by gun owners, I just wish they knew they are not all like you.

To be clear, I am actually not as bad as I sound in this thread, I am a pretty nice guy normally. I thought I was trying to help by pointing out that: 1) you can be sued for anything and can lose no small amount of time and money even if you win, 2) HB435 gives a single line of defense for some in 30.06, it hasn’t been tested so who knows, but it doesn’t mean you are “exempt”, 3) I personally think that 30.06 signs would not stand the test in court if taken high enough and many other states agree. That’s all, I will shut up now. Goodnight .

TreyHouston wrote:
When did you turn this into pulling the trigger? You said the store owner and CUSTOMERS will sue YOU for pulling a firearm.

-it will never happen-

Kid ran into a Chick-Fil-A in Texas, hoodie up over his head, gun drawn, told the cashier to hand over the money.
LTC holder in line goes up behind him and puts a gun to his head and tells the kid to drop it. The kid does and runs out.
Turns out the gun was fake and it was supposed to be a joke. Family of kid sued the LTC holder for emotional distress of having a gun to his head.

Do you guys really not know that Texas law is clear, anyone can sue you for anything, you have to pay to defend yourself, doesn’t matter if you win or lose, you still lose in the end. The time, cost, and emotional toll of being sued for stupid reasons, even when you win, is not good.

Maybe no one here has actually talked to practicing attorneys, or doesn’t work in a field where you see ridiculous lawsuits do damage to innocent people. It is really surprising that this website has so many that think they are immune from lawsuits just because they did the right thing. I hope everyone who has an LTC has an attorney on retainer or a good legal service plan.

Captain Matt wrote: OK. I understand. A dozen may be too difficult. How about citing ONE in Texas in the last five years that was justified and the lawsuit went to trial.

I found this one particularly ridiculous, with friends like this who needs enemies.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/201 ... -force-7-2
“The victim promptly filed a lawsuit against the friend who had saved him.” “The criminal justice system had already ruled the killing of the intruder to be justified.”
“When he wryly mentioned that there is a meme on the gun-related internet that “a good shoot is a good shoot,” there was a wave of laughter from the sea of attorneys in the audience. They knew better.”

Captain Matt wrote:

CZp10 wrote: Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon.

Then it should be easy as pie for you to cite a dozen or more self defense shooting lawsuits that went to trial in Texas where the defendant wasn't first convicted in a criminal trial, and wasn't a government employee.

I have been over this before, it is not “just” a $200 fine, it is criminal conviction on your permanent record that anyone will see when doing a background check. My only point is that it seems some think the VESP means you are exempt from 30.06, and that is untrue, exempt is completely different legal definition.

You have never heard of people being sued for self-defense? Not sure what to say, I guess you can start with my LTC instructor who gave us several he personally knew of. I have a relative that sees all the lawsuits brought against companies every day, it is truly ridiculous, everyone sues for everything. I am simply pointing out that there are risks to thinking HB435 gives you a free pass, but I get the feeling some here just want to argue angrily instead of having a productive conversation. If people want to think that 30.06 is meaningless to them, and that they won't get sued by anyone for using a gun in self defense, then I guess we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree

twomillenium wrote: Whether I agree with the business or not, is not as important as the owner to be able to run the legal business as they legally decide. If you do not want to do business with them, go somewhere else. Don't force a business to be panty-waisted because a panty-waist demands it.

Not sure how this is anything other than blatantly offensive.
Aside from your reluctance to stand up for the second amendment, not all of us are as scared as you to stand up for the constitution. I believe that the 30.06 would not stand the test in court, and therefore not be found legal.

America fighting for independence was not “legal” at the time, slavery was “legal” once, so according to your backward thinking, people should just go elsewhere?

Soccerdad1995 wrote: My whole point is that 30.06 signage applies to a very small segment of the population who might be carrying defensive weapons, and for that segment, it only applies to certain weapons (handguns). With the passage of recent legislation, the affected sub-segment has gotten even smaller.

A 30.06 sign says the second amendment does not exist inside their location, and that affects everyone. You can argue who it might or might not apply to when it goes to court, but it is hard to say that it doesn't affect everyone.

The definition of VESP is completely vague, and anyone who uses it as a defense opens themselves up to having to prove they are actually a VESP, and it might not go your way. I wrote that if you pull your weapon out, for any reason whatsoever, be it completely justified or not, you can be seen as knowingly and willfully carrying past a 30.06 sign. You will say the sign doesn’t apply to you because you view yourself as a VESP, but not everyone will see it that way. You could pull your weapon for a justified reason, but that will not stop the store from suing you for violating their sign, it will also not stop any customers present from suing you. Call your attorney and tell them you plan to knowingly concealed carry past a 30.06 sign because you view yourself a VESP and see what they tell you.

My basic point is that there is literally nothing in the current laws that exempt or give immunity to VESP, HB435 gives one simple possible defense for you to use, nothing more. Everyone knows you will be sued, most likely by multiple people, if you ever have to justifiably use your weapon. If that happens in a 30.06 location, the opposing counsel will make a very big deal out of you knowingly violating a 30.06 sign. Again, I very much hope the self-proclaimed VESP prevails, but I want to make sure people understand the risks they are taking.

twomillenium wrote:

CZp10 wrote:This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.

All the business would have to do is show that even without the sign crime is committed. This is an example of how the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits because someone thinks that one should behave the way that someone else merely desires.

“All” they have to do? I am familiar with what companies have to do when they get sued. Enough litigation, win or lose, and they can be made to change policies. Basically it is just that I believe the ability of a business open to the public to universally rescind the 2A should be tested in court.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
It's a good thing that 30.06 signs don't apply to VESP's.

Well, we don’t really know what a VESP is, the law is so vague. Also a VESP is not exempt nor can they say the sign does not apply. It does apply and you are not exempt, language like that would have to be spelled out in the law, you can still be arrested and charged. The law simply gives you a “defense to prosecution” that your lawyer can use. Most importantly it does not give you any actual immunity from the state or any civil litigation. HB435 is brand new and hasn’t been tested in court, so no one can say what it means. I just can’t believe we just accept that fact that states like California don’t allow no gun signs to carry the force of law but Texas does. If you pull out a gun in a 30.06 establishment, then claim VESP, don’t be surprised if the prosecutor goes after you anyway, and the store as well as any customers can sue you and point to the 30.06 sign as a reason. I would very much hope you prevail in court, but don’t assume it.

This is why everyone should sue any business with a 30.06 sign. They are intentionally drawing crime to their businesses, and they choose to provide no security even though they have stopped you from defending yourself. Enough law suits will change that.