TexasCHLforum.com

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!

jkurtz wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB56 adopts the definition of "first responder" found in Health and Safety Code §161.001.

Chas.

H&S Code §161.001(1-a) wrote:Sec. 161.0001. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1-a) "First responder" means:

(A) any federal, state, local, or private personnel who may respond to a disaster, including:

• (i) public health and public safety personnel;
  
  (ii) commissioned law enforcement personnel;
  
  (iii) fire protection personnel, including volunteer firefighters;
  
  (iv) emergency medical services personnel, including hospital emergency facility staff;
  
  (v) a member of the National Guard;
  
  (vi) a member of the Texas State Guard; or
  
  (vii) any other worker who responds to a disaster in the worker's scope of employment; or

(B) any related personnel that provide support services during the prevention, response, and recovery phases of a disaster.

Would this mean that the ER/ED staff at a posted hospital would be exempt from the posting?

I wish this was the case but I doubt it. I know my facility has actual policies in place regarding employees carrying handgun while on duty, not to mention the 30.06/ 30.07 posting.

Those that have worked in an ED know the threat of gun violence against staff members and other patients are all too real! Look at what happened at Scott and White in Temple about 4 years back, and also what happened at Baylor Waxahachie just a few months ago.

It is also not uncommon for unsavory individuals that find their way into the ED with the idea of "finishing them off." In fact, that was one of the very first things I encountered this morning and had to go ensure the safety of my staff and the safety of the other patients all while my best friend was safely locked away.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I wonder if H&S Code §161.001(1-a)(B) would apply to a ham operator providing emergency communications on-scene? Subsection (B) is quite broad and vague.

Chas.

Agreed ... B should at least be written to cover CERT volunteers, and HAMS with CERT ... (Volunteer First Responders, similar to Volunteer Firefighters)

At least HAMS with CERT? or even CERT VOLUNTEER members who are not HAM Operators?
But it at LEAST SHOULD include CERT HAMS in my opinion, if it doesn't, it should
CERT (Community Emergency Response Team VOLUNTEERS)
Terrorism Training Class for CERT Volunteers...
http://www.highlandernews.com/articles/ ... teer-class

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB56 adopts the definition of "first responder" found in Health and Safety Code §161.001.

Chas.

H&S Code §161.001(1-a) wrote:Sec. 161.0001. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1-a) "First responder" means:

(A) any federal, state, local, or private personnel who may respond to a disaster, including: (Wish it said including, but not limited to)

• (i) public health and public safety personnel;
  
  (ii) commissioned law enforcement personnel;
  
  (iii) fire protection personnel, including volunteer firefighters;
  
  (iv) emergency medical services personnel, including hospital emergency facility staff;
  
  (v) a member of the National Guard;
  
  (vi) a member of the Texas State Guard; or
  
  (vii) any other worker who responds to a disaster in the worker's scope of employment; or

(B) any related personnel that provide support services during the prevention, response, and recovery phases of a disaster.

CERT Trained >>> Community Emergency Response Team VOLUNTEER?These people are specifically trained TO BE First Responders, but not through "Employment" ... are they "personnel" covered under

(vii) or

(B) any related personnel that provide support services during the prevention, response, and recovery phases of a disaster.

??

Or do Trained CERT Volunteer First Responders need to leave their guns outside when responding, since they are volunteers instead of employed (even though trained volunteers, similar to volunteer firefighters are volunteers which are specified in the bill), responding say, to a terrorist scene?

http://www.burnetcountycert.org/

I think each County has a CERT Training Org.

TxAzn wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB56 adopts the definition of "first responder" found in Health and Safety Code §161.001.

Chas.

H&S Code §161.001(1-a) wrote:Sec. 161.0001. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1-a) "First responder" means:

(A) any federal, state, local, or private personnel who may respond to a disaster, including:

• (i) public health and public safety personnel;
  
  (ii) commissioned law enforcement personnel;
  
  (iii) fire protection personnel, including volunteer firefighters;
  
  (iv) emergency medical services personnel, including hospital emergency facility staff;
  
  (v) a member of the National Guard;
  
  (vi) a member of the Texas State Guard; or
  
  (vii) any other worker who responds to a disaster in the worker's scope of employment; or

(B) any related personnel that provide support services during the prevention, response, and recovery phases of a disaster.

Would this mean that the ER/ED staff at a posted hospital would be exempt from the posting?

I wish this was the case but I doubt it. I know my facility has actual policies in place regarding employees carrying handgun while on duty, not to mention the 30.06/ 30.07 posting.

Those that have worked in an ED know the threat of gun violence against staff members and other patients are all too real! Look at what happened at Scott and White in Temple about 4 years back, and also what happened at Baylor Waxahachie just a few months ago.

It is also not uncommon for unsavory individuals that find their way into the ED with the idea of "finishing them off." In fact, that was one of the very first things I encountered this morning and had to go ensure the safety of my staff and the safety of the other patients all while my best friend was safely locked away.

I imagine most employers would still have a no firearms policy, but the bill makes it sound as if there would be no legal consequence for not abiding by that policy assuming that "hospital emergency facility staff" defines all health care workers in the ER/ED as first responders.

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.

Here we go again with another Special Snowflake law.

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

Can you explain your statement?

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.

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:

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?

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.

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 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.

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

Thank you for the update.