TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

BBYC wrote: If they tell somebody to leave, they don't have to give any reason, and there is no blanket 30.05 exception for off duty emergency volunteers.

30.05 does provide a defense to prosecution for any LTC holder, if the reason for forbidding entry is licensed carry. That would be tricky to prove if the property owner didn't explicitly give a reason, but if a licensed OCer VESP went past a sign, was told to leave, didn't, and then was charged with 30.05 violation, then he might make use of the defense if he could convince judge there was some evidence it was because of the gun. E.g. He was only VESP told to leave and only one carrying. If judge allowed defense, then presumably defense attorney could question property owner about his reason.

Would be a tough needle to thread, but possible I think.

I'm thinking that the reason would usually be pretty clear. Either the property owner would include the reason when telling a VESP to leave or might give the option to put their gun in the car. Then you have cases where the police are called, and I really can't envision a property owner failing to mention to the officer that the guy refusing to leave is armed.

I think the net-net is that this is one more reason not to stress out too much about 30.06 signage.

BBYC wrote:It looks like the Cajun Navy and similar volunteers qualify now.

Yes while they are in Texas. Unfortunately all signs have force of law in their home state of LA.

IANAL, but it seems that the wording of the law pretty clearly defines the exemption. It defines a VESP as an individual who provides services during an emergency for the benefit of the public.

The key requirements here seem to be that a person does something that benefits the public during emergencies, and that the person does not get paid for providing these services. So National Guard members and anyone else who gets compensation would probably not count for those services (they might if they also provide volunteer services).

I also think the wording means that an individual has to actually provide such volunteer services, not just that they would be willing to provide the services. So a demonstrated history of having provided such services (with documentation and / or witnesses to such) would be helpful. Maybe a thank you letter from a family or group that you helped, etc.

I also think the law is very clear that you do not need to actively be providing volunteer services at the time you are carrying. I'm not sure why we would assume that our legislators intended otherwise. Do we assume that LEOSA was intended to only protect LEO's that are actively carrying out their law enforcement duties. Or does LEOSA protect them at all times because there is always a possibility that they might need to enforce a law, just like there is always a possibility that I could have occasion to provide volunteer emergency services at the local Chuck E Cheese during my kid's birthday party.

Stepping away from the law, I share the hope that no one decides to make a scene by open carrying past a 30.07 sign and then refusing to leave. But as Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does", so that may well happen.