Frustration at 30.06 signage

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#16

Post by TexasJohnBoy » Sun May 28, 2017 11:37 pm

gljjt wrote:
ldj1002 wrote:
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.

Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.
There will be some cringe worthy YouTube videos to come out of this. At least if anyone tries this with OC.
Image
^reference to aforementioned YouTube videos...
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

CleverNickname
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#17

Post by CleverNickname » Sun May 28, 2017 11:54 pm

ldj1002 wrote:
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.

Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.
HB 435 wrote: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.
Complete HB435 text here.

I assume tbrown is referring to the portion of HB435 which I've put in red text. I think that his interpretation of the text is a bit optimistic, but the argument could be made (probably in front of a judge). The bill provides exemptions for volunteer emergency services personnel from PC 30.06 and 30.07, along with exemptions for PC 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035. The 30.06 and 30.07 exemptions don't require that such personnel be engaged in providing emergency services, but the 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035 exemptions do make that requirement.

But heck, if a judge buys the "I have a Red Cross card so that means I'm volunteer emergency services personnel" argument, the argument could just as easily be that any LTC licensee could provide volunteer emergency services merely due to the fact that they're an LTC licensee. It doesn't say "volunteer emergency medical services"; volunteer emergency services could easily entail shooting someone committing a violent felony. That would certainly "benefit the general public during emergency situations."

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: SW Fort Worth

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#18

Post by AJSully421 » Mon May 29, 2017 3:01 am

CleverNickname wrote:
ldj1002 wrote:
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.

Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.
HB 435 wrote: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.
Complete HB435 text here.

I assume tbrown is referring to the portion of HB435 which I've put in red text. I think that his interpretation of the text is a bit optimistic, but the argument could be made (probably in front of a judge). The bill provides exemptions for volunteer emergency services personnel from PC 30.06 and 30.07, along with exemptions for PC 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035. The 30.06 and 30.07 exemptions don't require that such personnel be engaged in providing emergency services, but the 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035 exemptions do make that requirement.

But heck, if a judge buys the "I have a Red Cross card so that means I'm volunteer emergency services personnel" argument, the argument could just as easily be that any LTC licensee could provide volunteer emergency services merely due to the fact that they're an LTC licensee. It doesn't say "volunteer emergency medical services"; volunteer emergency services could easily entail shooting someone committing a violent felony. That would certainly "benefit the general public during emergency situations."
Your last paragraph is absolute comedy gold, and spot on as well. It does not say "medical services". Talk about unintended consequences...
"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

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5078
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#19

Post by Jusme » Mon May 29, 2017 6:26 am

I could be ready to lead people to an exit in case of a fire, they could just follow me. :biggrinjester:
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8016
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#20

Post by RoyGBiv » Mon May 29, 2017 8:57 am

TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
Busted? :headscratch
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2031
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#21

Post by nightmare69 » Mon May 29, 2017 9:21 am

tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.


LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8016
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#22

Post by RoyGBiv » Mon May 29, 2017 9:26 am

nightmare69 wrote:
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.


LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#23

Post by treadlightly » Mon May 29, 2017 9:40 am

RoyGBiv wrote:
TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
Busted? :headscratch
Is it public property?

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8016
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#24

Post by RoyGBiv » Mon May 29, 2017 9:42 am

treadlightly wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
Busted? :headscratch
Is it public property?
I'm suspecting the OP intended to write "visited"......?
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2031
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#25

Post by nightmare69 » Mon May 29, 2017 10:17 am

RoyGBiv wrote:
nightmare69 wrote:
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.


LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.

User avatar

Topic author
TexasTornado
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#26

Post by TexasTornado » Mon May 29, 2017 10:38 am

RoyGBiv wrote:
treadlightly wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
Busted? :headscratch
Is it public property?
I'm suspecting the OP intended to write "visited"......?
I meant visited. Do not type frustrated. You tend not to proof read well when irritated by stupid people.
Image
"I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could."

NRA Lifetime Member

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#27

Post by KLB » Mon May 29, 2017 10:53 am

TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas. The location is properly posted with both 30.06 and 30.07 signage which it clearly states on their website; however, there is nobody checking bags, no metal detectors, no security measures of any tangible nature to ensure the safety of their guests.

I find it very frustrating to be disarmed by my own moral code and compliance with the law while they do absolutely nothing to prevent some armed lunatic from just waltzing on in to such a densely populated space. Yet they claim to provide a safe atmosphere for children. Ugh!
The only thing that will change this is case law saying that those posting such signs assume a duty to provide protection commensurate to that the licensee could have provided to himself. Such case law will have to wait for the right set of facts (God forbid) and even then we cannot be sure the courts will hold that way. But I think they should.


casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#28

Post by casp625 » Mon May 29, 2017 12:18 pm

nightmare69 wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
nightmare69 wrote: LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.
The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:
(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.
Whereas SB 1408 stated:
Sec. 411.184. ON-DUTY FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING COURSE.
(a) In this section, "first responder" means a public safety
employee or volunteer
whose duties include responding rapidly to an
emergency. The term includes fire protection personnel, including
volunteer firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel,
including emergency medical services volunteers. The term does not
include commissioned law enforcement personnel.
So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2031
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#29

Post by nightmare69 » Mon May 29, 2017 12:37 pm

casp625 wrote:
nightmare69 wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
nightmare69 wrote: LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.
The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:
(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.
Whereas SB 1408 stated:
Sec. 411.184. ON-DUTY FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING COURSE.
(a) In this section, "first responder" means a public safety
employee or volunteer
whose duties include responding rapidly to an
emergency. The term includes fire protection personnel, including
volunteer firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel,
including emergency medical services volunteers. The term does not
include commissioned law enforcement personnel.
So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.

Every news article I've read says both volunteer and first responders.

http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-l ... carry-guns

Why would you write a bill only for volunteers and not the ones who act as first responders 40hrs a week or more?
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Frustration at 30.06 signage

#30

Post by TexasJohnBoy » Mon May 29, 2017 12:43 pm

nightmare69 wrote:
casp625 wrote:
nightmare69 wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
nightmare69 wrote: LOL!

My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.
The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:
(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.
Whereas SB 1408 stated:
Sec. 411.184. ON-DUTY FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING COURSE.
(a) In this section, "first responder" means a public safety
employee or volunteer
whose duties include responding rapidly to an
emergency. The term includes fire protection personnel, including
volunteer firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel,
including emergency medical services volunteers. The term does not
include commissioned law enforcement personnel.
So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.

Every news article I've read says both volunteer and first responders.

http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-l ... carry-guns

Why would you write a bill only for volunteers and not the ones who act as first responders 40hrs a week or more?
Read closely
A bill allowing volunteer firefighters and first responders to bring their guns into restricted areas has cleared the state Legislature.
This only applied to volunteers. Asking why the legislature did something this way instead of the other is an exercise in frustration.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”