TexasCHLforum.com

I am 100% sure some stupid YouTube person is going to push this to the limit ASAP

TreyHouston wrote:stupid YouTube person

Is that redundant?

Ameer wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:stupid YouTube person

Is that redundant?

SRO1911 wrote:interestingly enough, we have had two applications for our VFD who referenced this bill. While we will closely be watching for genuine interest and motivation - I for one am willing to reach for ANY additional tool in the recruiting tool box. I would have been much happier with some of the other proposed bills, I just can't be completely happy with anything that makes a separate class (even if im in it).

Now we just need to find a way to sign up the million or so LTC holders as first responders, every single one of them to make it fair.

In general, what is required to become a volunteer fire fighter? I live out in the county and before this became a thing I was playing with the idea of volunteering for the VFD closest to me. I wonder if VFD would be more rewarding/impactful than CERT?

TexasJohnBoy wrote: In general, what is required to become a volunteer fire fighter? I live out in the county and before this became a thing I was playing with the idea of volunteering for the VFD closest to me. I wonder if VFD would be more rewarding/impactful than CERT?

It's been a while, but and every Department is different. In general though:
Live in the district.
Reasonably Healthy.
of good charactor/
Ability to meet weelky drills

Generally what Liberty wrote above are minimum requirements, obviously no felonies+criminal history needs to be squeaky clean.

Those who never served in the fire service will be "yellow helmets" until they meet SFFMA requirements for certification/complete the rookie school.

Training is non-negotiable and mendatory, with 30hrs of CE requirement annually, at least with our Dept.

Ameer wrote:It says "any individual who, as a volunteer," not "any member of a volunteer organization" so I don't think any individual is required to join anything, carry a membership card, or have any special training or certification beyond their LTC to qualify.

If we help others during emergency situations and we don't get paid for it, we can bypass 30.06 signs next month.

I am inclined to disagree with this, but hope I am wrong.
I wouldn't want to be facing a UCW charge without having a clear association with an emergency volunteer organization to lean on.

IMO. YMMV.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Ameer wrote:It says "any individual who, as a volunteer," not "any member of a volunteer organization" so I don't think any individual is required to join anything, carry a membership card, or have any special training or certification beyond their LTC to qualify.

If we help others during emergency situations and we don't get paid for it, we can bypass 30.06 signs next month.

I am inclined to disagree with this, but hope I am wrong.
I wouldn't want to be facing a UCW charge without having a clear association with an emergency volunteer organization to lean on.

IMO. YMMV.

Unless you were in one of the few places where you could be charged under 46.035 (Church, Amusement Park, Hospital) you would only be facing a class C. If it really came down to a trial (in JP or Municipal Court ) the State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are NOT an emergency services volunteer.

ScottDLS wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Ameer wrote:It says "any individual who, as a volunteer," not "any member of a volunteer organization" so I don't think any individual is required to join anything, carry a membership card, or have any special training or certification beyond their LTC to qualify.

If we help others during emergency situations and we don't get paid for it, we can bypass 30.06 signs next month.

I am inclined to disagree with this, but hope I am wrong.
I wouldn't want to be facing a UCW charge without having a clear association with an emergency volunteer organization to lean on.

IMO. YMMV.

Unless you were in one of the few places where you could be charged under 46.035 (Church, Amusement Park, Hospital) you would only be facing a class C. If it really came down to a trial (in JP or Municipal Court ) the State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are NOT an emergency services volunteer.

I keep forgetting that the charge was reduced in 2015..

I still think the State would win in court unless there was a clear association.

Prosec: "Mr Biv, please tell the court what qualifies you as an "Emergency Volunteer".
Me: "Well, if something bad were to happen, I would volunteer to help."

Again... IMO. YMMV.

ScottDLS wrote: ... the State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are NOT an emergency services volunteer.

No, I don't think so, at least as I understand defenses to prosecution. I think the State only has to prove the elements of the offense, i.e. defendant was given proper notice, was in a prohibited area, etc. The defendant has to assert the defense, and first he has to convince the judge that he has evidence to support the defense before being allowed to raise it at trial. If the defendant is a member of a VFD and can show regular attendance, training, has responded to calls for service etc, I think that is a slam dunk. If all the defendant has is a Red Cross First Aid card...that might not be so convincing to some judges.

Assuming the judge lets the defendant raise the defense, then still I think all the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt are the basic elements of the offense. The defendant can show his first aid card to the jury, and THEN if the jury has any reasonable doubt about whether it applies or not, they are supposed to acquit. I'm sure the prosecution, if it has taken the trouble to bring this to trial, will attack this defense, but I don't think the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not an emergency service volunteer, the State only has to prove the elements of the basic offense.

Now, having said all that in the previous post, I think it's still a pretty low bar to clear the VESP hurdle. You could check with your county's Emergency Services Coordinator (or whatever the equivalent is) and see what kinds of things they need help with. I don't think you would necessarily have to be a firefighter or EMT. For example, I know there are volunteer weather watchers/reporters who provide info to...somebody...during storms and tornado watches and such. They may need volunteers to staff a temporary shelter at the school gym or extra hands at the animal shelter during flooding or some such.

The main thing I would want is to assert this defense is to be able to point to documented instance where I responded voluntarily to an emergency in the community. (So if you go help at the temporary shelter, make sure you sign in!) I would not depend just on having a First Aid card or some other certification.

ELB wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: ... the State would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are NOT an emergency services volunteer.

No, I don't think so, at least as I understand defenses to prosecution. I think the State only has to prove the elements of the offense, i.e. defendant was given proper notice, was in a prohibited area, etc. The defendant has to assert the defense, and first he has to convince the judge that he has evidence to support the defense before being allowed to raise it at trial. If the defendant is a member of a VFD and can show regular attendance, training, has responded to calls for service etc, I think that is a slam dunk. If all the defendant has is a Red Cross First Aid card...that might not be so convincing to some judges.

Assuming the judge lets the defendant raise the defense, then still I think all the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt are the basic elements of the offense. The defendant can show his first aid card to the jury, and THEN if the jury has any reasonable doubt about whether it applies or not, they are supposed to acquit. I'm sure the prosecution, if it has taken the trouble to bring this to trial, will attack this defense, but I don't think the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not an emergency service volunteer, the State only has to prove the elements of the basic offense.

That's not how a Defense to Prosecution works. If you bring evidence of it up at trial, the Prosecution MUST refute it beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the State. SO they have to prove that you are NOT an emergency services volunteer. I would certainly recommend that you have some evidence that you are, in fact, one. But if you had a Red Cross Emergency Volunteer card, it would technically be up the prosecution to prove that you are NOT a volunteer. There is no legal question whether the judge should "allow" you to raise the defense. It's provided by a law. Of course a judge could do whatever they want, but would be setting you up for a successful appeal (of your $200 ticket) if they didn't let you raise it.

What all this has made me consider is whether I should volunteer to work with the Red Cross. I've considered it for some time just as charitable work. If I did it for that, and I happened to be able to carry in 30.06 locations that would be nice. Considering the small chance of being charged, the fine only, and other factors, I believe this Defense is essentially the end of 30.06 enforcability for anyone who actually is a an Emergency Services Volunteer. So much for the grand tradition, dating to the Republic, of Property Owners' rights over others...

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

TexasJohnBoy wrote: ...In general, what is required to become a volunteer fire fighter? I live out in the county and before this became a thing I was playing with the idea of volunteering for the VFD closest to me. I wonder if VFD would be more rewarding/impactful than CERT?

I'm sure VFDs vary, but in mine: not everyone in the VFD is a firefighter, but we need everyone we can get. We have two basic kinds of firefighters: structural and wildland. Structural firefighters deal with building/house fires, vehicle fires, and general "rescue". Wildland firefighters deal with well, wildland fires: grass, forest, brush. Different equipment and training for each, although there is some overlap. At least with us you could do one or the other. We also do medical first responder calls (in fact, that is by far the bulk of our calls). Again, with us, if that is all you wanted to do, didn't want to fight fires, that's OK. We also need people to support the firefighters at the scene with "rehab" or rehabilitation -- that means providing food and water and shelter to the firefighters when they are not actually in fighting the fire.

Most of our members train to do all three major mission areas, structural, wildland, and medical responder, and we have some others that focus on just the rehabilitation part. We have a few more that just come out for things like fundraising, paperwork, station renovation.

As others noted, the basics are: Show up, have a clean criminal record, be a team player, attend training for whatever your role is... and show up.

So if you are interested go visit your local VFD and see how they handle things.

ELB wrote:Now, having said all that in the previous post, I think it's still a pretty low bar to clear the VESP hurdle. You could check with your county's Emergency Services Coordinator (or whatever the equivalent is) and see what kinds of things they need help with. I don't think you would necessarily have to be a firefighter or EMT. For example, I know there are volunteer weather watchers/reporters who provide info to...somebody...during storms and tornado watches and such. They may need volunteers to staff a temporary shelter at the school gym or extra hands at the animal shelter during flooding or some such.

The main thing I would want is to assert this defense is to be able to point to documented instance where I responded voluntarily to an emergency in the community. (So if you go help at the temporary shelter, make sure you sign in!) I would not depend just on having a First Aid card or some other certification.

I agree with you, though I think with the low penalty some may be willing to risk just having a volunteer card, since the likelihood of having to defend themselves is so small.