Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
gljjt wrote:There will be some cringe worthy YouTube videos to come out of this. At least if anyone tries this with OC.ldj1002 wrote:Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄
ldj1002 wrote:Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄
Complete HB435 text here.HB 435 wrote: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.
Your last paragraph is absolute comedy gold, and spot on as well. It does not say "medical services". Talk about unintended consequences...CleverNickname wrote:ldj1002 wrote:Please explain. Sounds like a way to get in trouble.tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄Complete HB435 text here.HB 435 wrote: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.
I assume tbrown is referring to the portion of HB435 which I've put in red text. I think that his interpretation of the text is a bit optimistic, but the argument could be made (probably in front of a judge). The bill provides exemptions for volunteer emergency services personnel from PC 30.06 and 30.07, along with exemptions for PC 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035. The 30.06 and 30.07 exemptions don't require that such personnel be engaged in providing emergency services, but the 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035 exemptions do make that requirement.
But heck, if a judge buys the "I have a Red Cross card so that means I'm volunteer emergency services personnel" argument, the argument could just as easily be that any LTC licensee could provide volunteer emergency services merely due to the fact that they're an LTC licensee. It doesn't say "volunteer emergency medical services"; volunteer emergency services could easily entail shooting someone committing a violent felony. That would certainly "benefit the general public during emergency situations."
Busted?TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄
There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).nightmare69 wrote:tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄
LOL!
My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
Is it public property?RoyGBiv wrote:Busted?TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
I'm suspecting the OP intended to write "visited"......?treadlightly wrote:Is it public property?RoyGBiv wrote:Busted?TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.RoyGBiv wrote:There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).nightmare69 wrote:tbrown wrote:Get a Red Cross CPR card. That's what I did so I can ignore 30.06 signs starting 9/1.
❄
LOL!
My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
I meant visited. Do not type frustrated. You tend not to proof read well when irritated by stupid people.RoyGBiv wrote:I'm suspecting the OP intended to write "visited"......?treadlightly wrote:Is it public property?RoyGBiv wrote:Busted?TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas.
The only thing that will change this is case law saying that those posting such signs assume a duty to provide protection commensurate to that the licensee could have provided to himself. Such case law will have to wait for the right set of facts (God forbid) and even then we cannot be sure the courts will hold that way. But I think they should.TexasTornado wrote:Today I busted the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas. The location is properly posted with both 30.06 and 30.07 signage which it clearly states on their website; however, there is nobody checking bags, no metal detectors, no security measures of any tangible nature to ensure the safety of their guests.
I find it very frustrating to be disarmed by my own moral code and compliance with the law while they do absolutely nothing to prevent some armed lunatic from just waltzing on in to such a densely populated space. Yet they claim to provide a safe atmosphere for children. Ugh!
The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:nightmare69 wrote:It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.RoyGBiv wrote:There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).nightmare69 wrote: LOL!
My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...
Whereas SB 1408 stated:(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.
So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.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.
casp625 wrote:The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:nightmare69 wrote:It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.RoyGBiv wrote:There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).nightmare69 wrote: LOL!
My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...Whereas SB 1408 stated:(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.So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.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.
Read closelynightmare69 wrote:casp625 wrote:The bill says it only applies to volunteer personnel:nightmare69 wrote:It applies to all first responders and volunteers also. It wouldn't make any sense to allow only volunteers carry and continue to ban the vast majority of first responders.RoyGBiv wrote:There was some discussion about volunteer vs paid professional first responders. Seems that HB 435 applies to volunteers only and paid full time professionals are not covered.... That was SB 1408(?).nightmare69 wrote: LOL!
My wife is an EMT and the law applies to her when she is actively engaged in her duties as an EMT. Such as carrying into a posted hospital with her patient. This doesn't mean she can carry anywhere at anytime when she is off the clock. This is my interpretation of the law.
Just a caution.... I might not have the correct understanding...Whereas SB 1408 stated:(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.So, HB 435 does not apply to a public safety employee.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.
Every news article I've read says both volunteer and first responders.
http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-l ... carry-guns
Why would you write a bill only for volunteers and not the ones who act as first responders 40hrs a week or more?
This only applied to volunteers. Asking why the legislature did something this way instead of the other is an exercise in frustration.A bill allowing volunteer firefighters and first responders to bring their guns into restricted areas has cleared the state Legislature.