TexasCHLforum.com

ninjamedic2293 wrote:I agree with many of the points in this thread. However it looks like HB435 will pass (which creates the "elitist" carve outs 24/7 for volunteers) and unfortunately the much better and more narrowly tailored bill that included paid responders but only applied to those on duty will die in Calendars tonight. For those of you who helped I am greatful. Perhaps we will make it next session and be able to do what the volunteers can.

Until I read the above post I didn't see this other important difference between the two Bills....
HB 435 and SB 1408 both have very similar definitions of "Volunteer Emergency Services Personnel"... But HB 435 does not include paid, full time EMS.

HB 435:

(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.

SB 1408:

(2) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes
a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as
defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and an
individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit
of the general public during emergency situations.

However...... SB 1408 goes on to include changes to section 411 that also cover paid first responders, where HB 435 does not.

From SB 1408 (emphasis mine)

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.

That stinks!!!! I can certainly see now why a professional, full-time EMS worker would be very unhappy with SB 1408 not making it to a vote.

Still.... Calling HB 435 "elitist" and thereby intimating that SB 1408 is somehow not creating carve outs also .... ??

I absolutely support the inclusion of paid EMS workers in whatever gets done this session. I wish the Bills went farther and lifted all restrictions on all of us, but incremental progress is still progress.

Thanks for pointing out the missing ingredient from HB 435, I had completely missed it until now.

ETA: I still think HB 435 is the "better bill" from the perspective of the breadth of protections it provides (HB 1408 does not change 30.06/07) and in that it does not require up to 20 hours of additional training, but from the perspective of a professional, paid EMS provider HB 435 is completely useless, it appears.

mojo84 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=88266

Much better Bill. Looks like it's on it's way to a Senate vote without any changes to the House-passed version.

Which is the better bill?

HB 435 IMO.
-- Defense to prosecution for 30.06/07, even when not responding to an active emergency.
-- No additional training (SB 1408 would require up to 20 hours of additional training, in its current version).

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=88266

Much better Bill. Looks like it's on it's way to a Senate vote without any changes to the House-passed version.