TexasCHLforum.com

Zoo wrote:

ninjamedic2293 wrote: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.

That's a good point ninja. We already have 9.22 on the books. First responders behaving responsibly are already covered by that law. There's no need for this new exception for first responders who do what's right. However, if they don't even meet that very low hurdle of competing harms, well, it doesn't seem worth expending limited political capital to provide cover for bad apples.

Zoo 9.22 by my understanding would provide a defense against prosecution for actions such as obtaining a weapon to engage a known threat. I dont think you would be successful arguing in court against a 30.06 case that the exigent circumstances which brought you to the location were equivalent to the imminent harm cited in 9.22 and justified a non emergent premeditated action such as carry a concealed weapon. Nor would it be sufficient to allow you to carry a weapon in a hospital for example.

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 It needs to be repealed.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?

Yes, §161.001 makes any hospital emergency department staff including MD's, RN's, tech's, etc first responders. Section a(vii) and B is interpreted very broadly in most other settings to include utility workers, HAM operators, CERT, you name it. In my opinion this is a very vital bill. In the past month 2 ambulances were stolen in downtown Austin, the second time kidnapping 2 paramedics and a patient. Several months ago a guy with a swastika tattoo'd on his forehead tried to kill himself in the back of an ambulance. My best man in my wedding got a very nice plaque given to him after a guy pulled a .357 revolver on him for trying to perform CPR on his dying wife, luckily my friend won the close quarters hand to hand struggle and disarmed him. I have had two guns pointed at me in the last 3 years. In 2014 my fire department was fighting a fire and an 18yo guy came out of a house and started firing a rifle then he went back inside and police found him asleep back in his bed, luckily none were hit. A couple of years back two female medics in central texas were trapped on the second story of an apartment complex after a guy came out and started shooting in the walkway, PD retreated leaving the girls to have to beg a neighbor to let them in and take shelter hiding in the neighbors apartment. Rural responders face the same problems only in more austere and remote settings. But don't lose sight of the fact that statistically first responders are astronomically more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation than the average citizen, thankfully we often end up lucky rather than seriously injured. Most of this wont make a difference though until liberal governmental entities can no longer prohibit an employee from carrying. Even the 60 year old secretary working downtown is disarmed by policy in a building a non-employee (rightfully so) can't be prohibited from carrying in.