TexasCHLforum.com

carving out exceptions for certain people

Should be a "Good Samaritan" exemption for ANY licensee who doesn't have time to disarm & safely store a weapon to help people in an emergency prior to entering a typically off limits place, rather than carved out this or that designated "emergency helper".
I mean I have a fire extinguisher, but wait while I call 911 and wait or disarm and store my gun before I help?
But if exceptions are being carved out, I'd broaden the list of exceptions to "Good Samaritan" anyone in an emergency that is willing to assist.
(At least a defense, similar to the "Necessity" portion in Penal Code Sec. 9.02 Justification) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

SRO1911 wrote:Another question i was posed today; did not have a good answer.
Federal gfsz - so a responder has to run on a kid in the gym. 435 grants a defense from state prosecution.

I know there are exemptions for the fed that allow staff to carry with board OK. How does this play for first responders in this situation?

Well assuming you have a TX LTC, I believe if I understand correctly, this would be a non-issue because you are allowed to carry on the grounds of a school in TX (with an LTC) just not inside the premise if I remember correctly. How that would play out for someone running inside a school during an emergency, I don't know - I would hope common sense would rule the day... but ya know with the whole 'Won't someone think of the Children ?!" mentality, sense goes out the window.

Liberty wrote:Is CERT really likely to need this exemption? I am not familiar with the situations that they are likely to find themselves in, but I was wondering how likely they would be to set up in a posted 30.06/07 location particularly under an emergency situation.

Just curious.

The way I read the Bill, I think CERT would be included in the definition.
(For those not familiar, CERT = Community Emergency Response Team and is structured/defined/implemented under FEMA guidelines)

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85 ... 00435E.htm
(emphasis mine)

(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.

And I can give you a specific real-world example:
A year ago December I (as part of a CERT team) responded to assist with damage assessment following the Garland/Rockwall tornadoes. Somewhere in the middle of the day, "nature called" and I was directed to use the restrooms at the local public school. Good thing I had a flashlight, since power was out.

NotRPB wrote:If a building collapses on people and there's a 30.06 sign at what was the entrance, do you need to store your gun in a gunsafe in the car before running in to clear debris and swat rattlesnakes in it away from trapped people?

IANAL... This is not legal advice, just my opinion.

"Necessity" should be sufficient justification for entering a posted location that is experiencing an emergency.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

I think carve outs are one of the biggest legislative problems in government. It stinks of "rights for me but not for thee" as another member put it. So, when there are loopholes for special people, I agree with the poster on the first page who suggested we self-identify as one of the special people. Until a court rules otherwise, I support using and abusing every loophole written into the law for special interest groups, from taxes to gun rights to ADA.

ninjabread wrote:I think carve outs are one of the biggest legislative problems in government. It stinks of "rights for me but not for thee" as another member put it. So, when there are loopholes for special people, I agree with the poster on the first page who suggested we self-identify as one of the special people. Until a court rules otherwise, I support using and abusing every loophole written into the law for special interest groups, from taxes to gun rights to ADA.

I use this theory to bring my emotional support pig on the airline without paying a pet fee.

This is a great bill! Going to look into requirements for becoming a volunteer emergency service personnel so I can legally walk past 30.06 & 30.07 signs without repercussions!

ScottDLS wrote:

ninjabread wrote:I think carve outs are one of the biggest legislative problems in government. It stinks of "rights for me but not for thee" as another member put it. So, when there are loopholes for special people, I agree with the poster on the first page who suggested we self-identify as one of the special people. Until a court rules otherwise, I support using and abusing every loophole written into the law for special interest groups, from taxes to gun rights to ADA.

I use this theory to bring my emotional support pig on the airline without paying a pet fee.

They won't let me bring my emotional support pig on the airlines because it's a Noveske.

casp625 wrote:This is a great bill! Going to look into requirements for becoming a volunteer emergency service personnel so I can legally walk past 30.06 & 30.07 signs without repercussions!

Being an emergency responder won't be good enough. The exemption will only kick in if actually responding to an emergency as an emergency responder.

Liberty wrote:

casp625 wrote:This is a great bill! Going to look into requirements for becoming a volunteer emergency service personnel so I can legally walk past 30.06 & 30.07 signs without repercussions!

Being an emergency responder won't be good enough. The exemption will only kick in if actually responding to an emergency as an emergency responder.

Incorrect, partly.
The way it is written 30.06 /30.07 defense to prosecution is not tied to actively responding.

So long as all humans were evacuated, I'd sit and watch a place posted 06/07 burn to the ground... and I would make sure that the owner knew why.

Casualties of the culture war.

AJSully421 wrote:So long as all humans were evacuated, I'd sit and watch a place posted 06/07 burn to the ground... and I would make sure that the owner knew why.

Casualties of the culture war.

OHHH I like that Idea! and when the Media TV Stations, NewsPapers showed up, I'd let them know I'm sitting here OUTSIDE with a fire Extinguisher/hose etc BECAUSE I wasn't allowed to go inside to save the property, BECAUSE THE OWNER PROHIBITED ME ENTERING, so I honored his desire, and obeyed the law ... see the sign? and point to it.

Honestly, objecting to this bill due to "carve outs" for certain people seems like opposing open carry for LTC because it isn't constitutional carry. Every one of us with an LTC benefits from a "carve out", yet none of us are opposed having one. Everyone that had a CHL benefited from a carve out, then the liberty of the carve out was expanded with no prosecution for accidental reveals, and even more with open-carry.

Removing all restrictions at once just isn't going to happen. Be realistic here. John Q. Public needs to be baby-stepped, otherwise the backlash will put us even further from the goal. Whittling away at the restrictions is feasible, especially if it's supported across the board. If you whittle enough, you end up with nothing. In this case, the "nothing" would be everyone being able to carry in all public spaces. I don't think this bill goes far enough as an end-game, but it's definitely a step in the process.

apvonkanel wrote:Honestly, objecting to this bill due to "carve outs" for certain people seems like opposing open carry for LTC because it isn't constitutional carry. Every one of us with an LTC benefits from a "carve out", yet none of us are opposed having one. Everyone that had a CHL benefited from a carve out, then the liberty of the carve out was expanded with no prosecution for accidental reveals, and even more with open-carry.

Removing all restrictions at once just isn't going to happen. Be realistic here. John Q. Public needs to be baby-stepped, otherwise the backlash will put us even further from the goal. Whittling away at the restrictions is feasible, especially if it's supported across the board. If you whittle enough, you end up with nothing. In this case, the "nothing" would be everyone being able to carry in all public spaces. I don't think this bill goes far enough as an end-game, but it's definitely a step in the process.

Sanity from the new(ish) guy!