HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

This sub-forum will open on Sept. 1, 2018

Moderators: Keith B, Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#1

Post by Papa_Tiger » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:12 am

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... ill=HB1123

Creates a "First Responder" designation on license.

First responder is defined and does NOT include anyone commissioned as a law enforcement officer, OR Voluntary Emergency Services Personnel.

To get the deisnation you must submit paperwork that shows that you are a first responder AND that you have completed enhanced training including 20 hours of instruction on:
  • De-escalation techniques
  • Tactical thinking (cover and concealment)
  • Instinctive/Reactive shooting
  • Tactical shooting
  • Shooting while moving
  • Shooting in low light conditions
  • Securing a handgun when you go somewhere off-limits
Provides 30.06 and 46.035 defense to prosecution for a first responder with a First Responder LTC while performing their duties as a first responder.
46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to a first responder with a First Responder LTC while performing their duties as a first responder.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#2

Post by bblhd672 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:19 am

More "special" classes of citizens.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#3

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:13 am

I'd support this if anyone who completes the stated training is eligible. There is no reason to limit this just to those employed as first responders. Their employers should also get the same rights.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Daddio-on-patio
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:00 pm
Location: Fort Worth area

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#4

Post by Daddio-on-patio » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:33 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:13 am
I'd support this if anyone who completes the stated training is eligible. There is no reason to limit this just to those employed as first responders. Their employers should also get the same rights.
I agree with this.
Ephesians 6:12 NKJV

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

User avatar

Daddio-on-patio
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:00 pm
Location: Fort Worth area

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#5

Post by Daddio-on-patio » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:36 am

bblhd672 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:19 am
More "special" classes of citizens.
And, as a first responder, I disagree with this. Come ride out with me and see if you don't feel that you are in a potentially dangerous situation at any given time.
Ephesians 6:12 NKJV

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2377
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#6

Post by Flightmare » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:38 am

Does this bill change department policies that prohibit carry while on duty?
Deplorable lunatic since 2016

User avatar

Bitter Clinger
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:16 pm
Location: North Dallas

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#7

Post by Bitter Clinger » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:40 am

Oh good. Just what we need, more laws and a bigger beauracracy, NOT.

How about simply eliminate 30.06 & 30.07?
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 25095
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#8

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:52 am

Daddio-on-patio wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:36 am
bblhd672 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:19 am
More "special" classes of citizens.
And, as a first responder, I disagree with this. Come ride out with me and see if you don't feel that you are in a potentially dangerous situation at any given time.
Just going to play devil’s advocate for a moment here, so please don’t take offense....

[devil’s advocate]
In WW2, my dad was wounded on Iwo Jima, in a horrific battle that lasted 2 days, and killed all but 10 men of 4 assault platoons from 2 companies. The corpsman that treated him in the field was not armed. In fact, outside of airborne medics, most were not issued a weapon. Some corpsmen were issued a 1911, but most did not carry one. Without disparaging what you’re saying, you’d have to admit that most of the danger from other people you’d face as a fireman/paramedic would pale in comparison to what a Navy Corspman on Iwo Jima, or a Army medic on Omaha beach faced, and most of them were not armed.

So, why do you need to carry a gun as a Paramedic (or fireman, or whatever)?
[/devil’s advocate]

I really don’t care if you carry one or not, although I absolutely think you should be allowed to do so if you want to. I’m only asking the question to help you out, because SOMEbody is going to ask it, and you should have an answer prepared which defeats that kind of question.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#9

Post by rtschl » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:09 pm

In a word - NO!

How about we eliminate off limit areas for LTC instead. No special class of people getting anything different than all citizens.
Ron
NRA Member


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#10

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:29 pm

rtschl wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:09 pm
In a word - NO!

How about we eliminate off limit areas for LTC instead. No special class of people getting anything different than all citizens.
:iagree:

If a private property owner doesn't want anyone to enter unless specifically invited, they can post a big "No Trespassing" sign. If they want people in general to enter, but decide for whatever reason that they don't want a specific person there, they can tell that person to leave. If either wish is not adhered to, then I'm perfectly fine paying for the use of LE resources to help the property owner enforce their private property rights. But if the property owner wants to get cute and allow entry only if you are doing something, or not doing something, that they can't even see? No, let's not use taxpayer funded LE resources to help them with every random whim.

As for property owned in part by me (aka "government owned" property)? I'll carry whatever legal items I please on my property, thank you very much.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1411
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: SW Fort Worth

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#11

Post by AJSully421 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:58 pm

Destroy 30.06/07 and 46.035 and 46.03 except for jails, courtrooms (not offices or hallways), and airports... and require Peace Officers and metal detectors at those entrances.

Leave the provision in 30.05 that it can’t be used against license holders.

Everybody wins.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964

30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.

NRA, LTC, School Safety, Armed Security, & Body Guard Instructor


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#12

Post by ninjabread » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:00 pm

Until they repeal 46.035 and make ALL LTC exempt from 46.03, they're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#13

Post by ELB » Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:59 pm

This isn't a bill that advances 2A rights even for a subset of citizens. This is an attempt to radically curtail the VESP provision passed last time.

Big thumbs down.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.


Topic author
Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#14

Post by Papa_Tiger » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:05 pm

ELB wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:59 pm
This isn't a bill that advances 2A rights even for a subset of citizens. This is an attempt to radically curtail the VESP provision passed last time.

Big thumbs down.
This leaves intact the VESP provisions passed in the 85th Legislature. This essentially just creates an enhanced license requiring additional training for "First Responders" that provides some coverage if they carry where they would normally be prohibited from doing so while on duty.

This is nowhere near the "snowflake" bill like many others that grant exemptions to the application of 46.03, 46.035, 30.06 and 30.07 to anyone of a particular designation (police, active judicial officers etc.) all the time.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: HB 1123 - First Responder Deisgnation on LTC

#15

Post by srothstein » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:51 am

Just to be clear, this law is a very specialized advancement of 2A rights for a very small number of people. It makes 30.06, 30.07, and 46.035 not apply to first responders who already have an LTC if they get their license marked as first responders. It redefines first responders to not include those who already have special benefits, such as peace officers or volunteer first responders.

I am kind of ambivalent on this bill. It isn't as bad as I first thought it was (redefining first responders and making more special cases), but it isn't as good either. The more groups that get to carry the better off we are. I generally do not like special classes of people who get extra benefits, but there is that argument I said about more people carrying the better off we are.
Steve Rothstein

Post Reply

Return to “2019 Texas Legislative Session”