TexasCHLforum.com

SRO1911 wrote:Scheduled for committee hearing on Tuesday 14 march along with the similar hb435

Thank you for the update.

ninjamedic2293 wrote:

tbrown wrote:

Daddio-on-patio wrote:Can you explain your statement?

If a law is a good law, it doesn't need loopholes. Everybody would be equal under a good law.

If a law is a bad law, it doesn't need loopholes. It needs to be repealed.

Just curious, are you advocating that we repeal 30.06 or simply that first responders should not be allowed to carry? There is no middle ground solution so help me understand which end you are lobbing the grenade at. You are not legally allowed to break down the door to my home, is that a bad law? No it's an excellent law. First responders working under exigent circumstances are legally allowed to trespass on your property and break down your door, is that a bad law? No it's an excellent law. Its not about provding "special snowflakes" with new rights its about crafting a reasonable standard which accomodates first responders realities. I'm curious "snowflake" how many times a year would you say you truly believe your life is in imminent jeopardy or someone is truly trying to cause you physical harm?

Ninja, sounds like you may have taken his "snowflake" statement personal as well. I appreciate your reply. I asked for him to explain his statement before I commented. My opinion is that it lacked. Thanks again. Stay safe.

tbrown wrote:

Daddio-on-patio wrote:Can you explain your statement?

If a law is a good law, it doesn't need loopholes. Everybody would be equal under a good law.

If a law is a bad law, it doesn't need loopholes. It needs to be repealed.

Thank you for the reply.
Unfortunately we have to work with what we find to be good and what we find to be bad laws and modify, if not repeal, what we find to be against our liberties. Lots of discussion on the thread regarding the proposal of allowing motorcycle operators to cut lanes of traffic. A number of folks on the forum support the change. Does that make it a special snowflake law since they are trying to modify existing law to accommodate a group that rides opposed to drives? Or does it make the folks supporting the change snowflakes?

tbrown wrote:Here we go again with another Special Snowflake law.

Can you explain your statement?

Jusme wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:I hear on the MSM (scary news) that first responders have and are being targeted. Although not often, they are. Also, yall are put in some pretty shady situations. IMO, I support this 100%.

They are targeted, sometimes they are the first on the scene of a domestic disturbance and someone will shoot at the first set of flashing lights they see. Firefighters have been specifically targeted in places like Detroit when arsonists would set fire to buildings and shoot at the responding firefighters. Although I was too young to remember, I read that the same thing happened in LA during the Watts riots. Not to mention, almost any time they are called there may be people who are combative, armed, and mentally imbalanced, who pose a direct threat to their safety. Being able to be armed, for first responders is, to me,a no brainer. JMHO

Regardless of my dispatch information, when arriving on scene I scan for threats. This can be persons, large and small animals, terrain, etc. I also try to asses for egress with cover or concealment and remind myself to grab my mobile radio. Hopefully the signal reaches a repeater because many areas where we operate are dark zones for cell coverage. Kinda sucks we have to consider this in EMS but it is reality.

I encourage anyone to contact your local EMS provider and request a citizen ride along. Many folks have no idea the scope of practice a paramedic based agency is capable of.

Thanks for the support!

My opinion this would not apply to hospital staff. They are definitive care not first responders.
Working in rural EMS it is very often only myself and my partner arriving on scene in what can be sketchy circumstances. Many of my coworkers are LTC'ers and we have SOP's allowing us to carry on duty. However, that is terminated at the ED doors as the vast majority are 06-07's. So we disarm and secure with a lock box in the MICU. That being said, not all who are LTC do so due to the potential of working a busy call, not disarming when entering a facility, and being a test case.
I have spoke with three different retired officers (two Fort Worth, one Arlington) that provide initial classes for LTC and a retired Dallas detective that is in proper retirement mode (fishing. A lot!) They seem to think there is no need for a uniformed first responder in the line of duty to carry. Our County deputies and the couple of paid department officers are overwhelming supportive of us carrying. Rural EMS and law enforcement is a different environment from the more urban and suburban locations which tend to have much quicker response times with larger numbers of responders along with increased capabilities.

I would like to have the legal ability to carry on duty. And for those who have not scene a firefighter armed I would suggest you meet with a fire Marshall. Many of them are TCLEOSE, badge, and armed.

Peace for the New Year.