Search found 5 matches

by RoyGBiv
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:00 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel
Replies: 65
Views: 5735

Re: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel

BBYC wrote:
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
That would be an interesting defense to prosecution to see...from the gallery. :lol:
Or from the jury box. :txflag:
by RoyGBiv
Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:50 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel
Replies: 65
Views: 5735

Re: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel

srothstein wrote:Engaged in providing makes it seem to me that it only applies when you are actually providing services. I could be wrong and there may be some other section I missed.
Circling back to provide the actual text for others who might need it...

From: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 2#p1165032
RoyGBiv wrote:http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85 ... 00435F.htm

The "engaged in providing" language is not a qualifier for "defense to prosecution" in 30.06 or 30.07, only for 46.035.

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION. Not legal advice.
SECTION 8. Section 30.06, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (f) to read as follows:
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as
defined by Section 46.01.

SECTION 9. Section 30.07, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (g) to read as follows:
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as
defined by Section 46.01.

SECTION 10. 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.
...................

SECTION 12. Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended by
adding Subsection (m) to read as follows:
(m) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b) and
(c) that the actor is volunteer emergency services personnel
engaged in providing emergency services.
by RoyGBiv
Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:11 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel
Replies: 65
Views: 5735

Re: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel

I hope nobody is so tone-deaf that they open carry past a 30.07 sign without an active emergency at that location. :roll:

I've been operating under the assumption that "defense to prosecution" is well defined in TX case law (might be wrong here, since I am not a lawyer) and the the vagueness to be concerned with is in the definition of VESP...

Specifically, the part I've underlined below...
(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.
Does "any individual" refer only to people who are part of a formal organization of volunteers? Or should the term "any individual" be taken literally to mean any person that decides they are willing to be a volunteer in an emergency, even though they do not belong to any formal organization and have never in the past volunteered for anything, ever.?
by RoyGBiv
Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:16 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel
Replies: 65
Views: 5735

Re: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel

I'm looking forward to shopping at _________ again without having to disarm.

Hopefully there won't be anyone testing the 30.07 defense to prosecution any time soon.!! :roll:
by RoyGBiv
Tue May 30, 2017 4:04 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel
Replies: 65
Views: 5735

Re: HB435 Emergency Services Personnel

ELB wrote:
nightmare69 wrote:I don't understand why only volunteers are are allowed to carry and not address the massive majority of full-time firefighters and EMTs who should be allowed to carry anywhere a LEO can while on-duty.
I don't know the bill author's rationale, but I can point out a couple things;

1. "massive majority of full-time firefighters": I took this to mean you think there are a lot more paid firefighters than volunteer firefighters. Per National Fire Administration stats almost 72% of Texas fire departments are volunteer, another 13% are "mostly volunteer" hybrid departments, and 15% are mostly or completely staffed with "career" (paid) firefighters. Nationwide there are only a handful of states where there are more paid fire departments than volunteer.

In terms of individual firefighters, the estimated percentage of volunteer versus career firefighters (in Texas) range from 55% vol/45% career to nearly 80% vol/20% career. Nationally the NFPA reports that in 2015 70% of firefighters were volunteers and 30% were career/paid firefighters; I would not expect the Texas numbers to be much different.

2. Paid firefighters mostly work in big departments for big cities and big cities are run by "blue" (democrat) administrations and unions. I agree that paid firefighters should be able to carry anywhere a LEO can -- just like I think it should be that way for volunteer firefighters and everyone else in Texas. But the reality is that even if it were legal the blue city governments as employers would not allow it, (and hence would have made fighting the bill a priority) and even then, if it were somehow crammed down their throats, would worry about liability and want special controls, and storage for the guns, and qualification, etc etc. (Note: If cities had any desire to let their firefighters be armed via LTC or otherwise, they could make it happen. Ain't gonna happen). The unions, if they could be persuaded by their members to support it, would want extra pay, and would want the city to pay for training, qualification etc etc, It would become part of the bargaining agreement. Again don't know Rinaldi's rationale, but I think it made political sense not to address paid firefighters in the same bill.
:iagree: Good stuff ELB.

Also.....

SB1408 would have....
1. Mandated additional training.
2. Solidified the protection from civil liability for the employers of non-volunteer first responders
3. Prohibited those employers from making any rules against CC for qualified license holders.
None of those elements are present in HB 435, as far as I can tell. (IANAL... This is just my OPINION).

Will be interesting to see how this shakes out, assuming the Gov signs.

Return to “HB435 Emergency Services Personnel”