TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:Does "any individual" refer only to people who are part of a formal organization of volunteers?

An individual is one person not a group.

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.

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

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.

A lot of locals were out there with boats too.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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 may be missing something since I did not study the bill thoroughly, but I disagree. I read it as yu must be providing the service at the time for the exemption to apply. The enrolled version of the law includes the text:

(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.

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.

srothstein wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: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 may be missing something since I did not study the bill thoroughly, but I disagree. I read it as yu must be providing the service at the time for the exemption to apply. The enrolled version of the law includes the text:

(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.

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.

What you are quoting deals with 46.035, the specific sections dealing with 30.06 and 30.07 signs makes no mention whatsoever about actively engaging in providing emergency services. Mr. Cotton made mention of that issue in a previous post, and thought the new law went a bit too far in apparently allowing anyone who is a volunteer emergency person (whatever that means) to walk past 30.06 and 30.07 signs. I can't find any record of anyone actually being prosecuted for a sign violation, so HB435 seems to significantly reduce the authority of a law that wasn't being actively pursued in the first place.

CZp10 wrote:What you are quoting deals with 46.035, the specific sections dealing with 30.06 and 30.07 signs makes no mention whatsoever about actively engaging in providing emergency services.

Thanks. As, I had said, I had not read the bill as thoroughly as others and I did miss something.

When I read the bill, it seems to state that the emergency responder is in the act of responding to the emergency, other than that the 30.07 &.06 signage apply.

twomillenium wrote:When I read the bill, it seems to state that the emergency responder is in the act of responding to the emergency, other than that the 30.07 &.06 signage apply.

I don't see that at all.
" SECTION 2. 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 3. 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."
They simply added a defense to prosecution under 30.06 and 30.07. It clearly states the the license holder just has to be a volunteer emergency services person, nowhere does it state that the person had to be in the act of responding.

I have to be responding to an emergency to carry in a school, etc, but not to ignore a 30.06 sign.

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

Captain Matt wrote: I have to be responding to an emergency to carry in a school, etc, but not to ignore a 30.06 sign.

Maybe I am missing something, but that is how I read it as well.
HB435 gives volunteer emergency personnel, actually responding to an emergency, a way to enter inherently off limits locations (with or without signs, such as schools). That is the 46.035 part of it. But I have read through it numerous times and I see no mention of needing to be in the act of responding to an emergency to be able to rely on the defense to prosecution for 30.06/07 signs for volunteer emergency people.

As Soccerdad mentioned, this may come down to a person, who believes they are an emergency volunteer, entering a 30.07 location while open carrying then trying to argue the HB435 exempts them. A very bad idea in my opinion, but it may take something going to court to clarify all this.

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.

CZp10 wrote:As Soccerdad mentioned, this may come down to a person, who believes they are an emergency volunteer, entering a 30.07 location while open carrying then trying to argue the HB435 exempts them. A very bad idea in my opinion, but it may take something going to court to clarify all this.

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.