TexasCHLforum.com

Not sure why this is being debated. My point was that this new law obviously needs to be tested in court to figure out what it really means since the wording of the bill is so vague. It will probably take a very unlikely series of events for that to occur. Most likely it would be the store calling the police about the firearm, without talking to the customer, as just happened in the Austin bakery story. Even then I really can’t see a police officer choosing to arrest a person that walked past a sign, but subsequently agreed to leave when asked. The only way to invoke HB435 is to be arrested, and charged with criminal trespassing, even though you agreed to leave when asked. Thus, an extremely unlikely occurrence. If the customer is asked to leave for a non firearm reason, then that has nothing to do with signs, HB435, or this website really.

Captain Matt wrote: I have to be responding to an emergency to carry in a school, etc, but not to ignore a 30.06 sign.

Maybe I am missing something, but that is how I read it as well.
HB435 gives volunteer emergency personnel, actually responding to an emergency, a way to enter inherently off limits locations (with or without signs, such as schools). That is the 46.035 part of it. But I have read through it numerous times and I see no mention of needing to be in the act of responding to an emergency to be able to rely on the defense to prosecution for 30.06/07 signs for volunteer emergency people.

As Soccerdad mentioned, this may come down to a person, who believes they are an emergency volunteer, entering a 30.07 location while open carrying then trying to argue the HB435 exempts them. A very bad idea in my opinion, but it may take something going to court to clarify all this.

twomillenium wrote:When I read the bill, it seems to state that the emergency responder is in the act of responding to the emergency, other than that the 30.07 &.06 signage apply.

I don't see that at all.
" SECTION 2. 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 3. 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."
They simply added a defense to prosecution under 30.06 and 30.07. It clearly states the the license holder just has to be a volunteer emergency services person, nowhere does it state that the person had to be in the act of responding.

srothstein wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I also think the law is very clear that you do not need to actively be providing volunteer services at the time you are carrying.

I may be missing something since I did not study the bill thoroughly, but I disagree. I read it as yu must be providing the service at the time for the exemption to apply. The enrolled version of the law includes the text:

(m) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b) and
(c) that the actor is volunteer emergency services personnel
engaged in providing emergency services.

Engaged in providing makes it seem to me that it only applies when you are actually providing services. I could be wrong and there may be some other section I missed.

What you are quoting deals with 46.035, the specific sections dealing with 30.06 and 30.07 signs makes no mention whatsoever about actively engaging in providing emergency services. Mr. Cotton made mention of that issue in a previous post, and thought the new law went a bit too far in apparently allowing anyone who is a volunteer emergency person (whatever that means) to walk past 30.06 and 30.07 signs. I can't find any record of anyone actually being prosecuted for a sign violation, so HB435 seems to significantly reduce the authority of a law that wasn't being actively pursued in the first place.

ScottDLS wrote: My opinion of 30.06/7 on publicly open businesses is that it is an unnecessary imposition by the state on a civil matter, but it is the law. But so is HB435 (today!). So if a sign is (legally) defective, or I am truly an ESV, I will blithely ignore it and conceal and carry. The risk is that I am WRONGLY convicted of a class C. And I will request a jury trial and appeal in the unlikely event that it happens.

Can’t agree with you more.
I can’t image any rational carry person refusing to leave when asked, and I would hope that a LEO would not arrest someone who immediately left. Therefore, it seems 30.06/30.07 wouldn’t result in an arrest in almost every normal circumstance. So, to me at least, it does seem that HB435 gives a defense to prosecution to a law that has never been prosecuted in the first place. I have always thought the 30.06/30.07 penalty should be a fine, like watering your lawn on the wrong day, not being subject to a possible criminal conviction.

I see a lot of debate about who really qualifies for emergency volunteer. Many will point out you have to “really” be one, not just have a cpr certificate. I just have to question where, exactly, in the law do they see the distinction. The law states anyone who provides services during emergencies. Any individual means any individual, services means almost anything. The simple English definition of the words used in the law means basically anyone falls under HB435 protection. But if people leave when asked I am not sure this will make any difference in the real world, a defense to prosecution to something never prosecuted seems somewhat moot to me.

RoyGBiv wrote:I hope nobody is so tone-deaf that they open carry past a 30.07 sign without an active emergency at that location.
I've been operating under the assumption that "defense to prosecution" is well defined in TX case law (might be wrong here, since I am not a lawyer) and the the vagueness to be concerned with is in the definition of VESP...
Does "any individual" refer only to people who are part of a formal organization of volunteers? Or should the term "any individual" be taken literally to mean any person that decides they are willing to be a volunteer in an emergency, even though they do not belong to any formal organization and have never in the past volunteered for anything, ever.?

I really hope that people are not tone deaf as well, but I would guess there will be someone who does something like that to make it worse for the rest of us.

You question about "any individual" is unanswerable, and that is the basic problem. The law is how the law is written, just take the basic definition of the words as written and anyone can claim to be under the protection of HB435. That is the problem, it is way too vague.

The DPS went out of their way to write “Authorizes volunteer emergency services personnel to carry a handgun while engaged in providing emergency services if that emergency service person is licensed to carry” in their summary of HB435. That is the part about hospitals, but it is interesting they included that, as if to try to emphasize the “engaged in providing” instead of mentioning anything about 30.06/30.07 signs in the new law.

ScottDLS wrote: Technically you don't have to leave if the reason for asking you to leave is that you're carrying. As a practical matter, the person in charge of the property could just make up another reason. With HB435 if you are truly an emergency volunteer, you can legally carry past almost all 30.06 signs except where there are additional 46.035 rules (churches, amusement parks, hospitals). Again as you suggested, if you conceal and carry past a 30.06 sign you are at a very low risk of detection and prosecution, and if you leave when asked the penalty is at most a $200 fine. But it is illegal. If you are an emergency volunteer, it is not. This may be the closest we ever get to repeal of 30.06/7.

As far as a DEFENSE. All PC 46.15 non-applicability reasons allowing carrying are a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION. Yes that includes cops, LTC's, etc. So if a DA wants to attack a 30.06 defense, they are just as likely to attack the defense for carrying by Peace Officers and LTC's...

Thank you very much for your detailed response. Although I disagree with your assumptions, I very much appreciate the debate.
Let me take the last one first, I did not mean to attack the “defense to prosecution” in general. The specific wording of this part of HB435 is so ridiculously vague that anyone can challenge it in court and it will almost certainly fail. Any DA can go after the meaning of the new law because most would agree it should mean that you have a defense to prosecution if you carry past a sign while actively engaged in helping during an emergency. Any other reading of the law essentially means HB435 completely negates 30.06 and 30.07 signs as well as ignores private property rights. I can’t see how that will stand up to a court challenge.

Imagine a simple example. A person openly carries, or poorly concealed their carry, to a child’s birthday party at one of the many small businesses that cater to such events. That small, simple, family oriented business happens to have 30.06/30.07 signs posted. The person carrying is asked to leave, and they refuse stating HB435 and their perceived volunteer emergency status. The police will be called and arrest that person, I don’t see a police officer allowing an armed citizen to make a scene in front of small children in a private business. I realize this assumes the person carrying is a bit of an obstinate jerk, but there are plenty of those people out there who will read too much into the new law.

If the DA happens to be left leaning, and wants to make a name for themselves, they can see an easy opportunity to prosecute that person and show that HB435 is not enforceable as written. Your, and other people’s, assumption that there is some truly, or really, or definitely definition of an emergency volunteer is based on your opinion, not law. There is nothing in the law that in any way properly defines who falls under HB435. Anyone can claim to fall under the new HB435 wording, to say that they can’t ignores the law as written.

I would also like to point out that a Class C misdemeanor conviction on your record for illegal trespass with a loaded firearm on your record is serious, and the $200 fine is completely meaningless. Any employer, or anyone else doing a background check, can see that conviction, and for legal defense purposes can easily reject you because of it. In my example, the person who refused to leave immediately when asked can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, and a motivated DA who as seen as protecting the innocent children and private property owner from the big bad gun carrying person will most likely pursue that regardless of HB435. The new law simply gives you a possible defense to use, it does not exempt you from prosecution.

Are the LTC instructors here going to officially tell people in their classes they can ignore 30.06 and 30.07 signs if they perceive themselves to be some sort of emergency volunteer? If they are not, then they are making my point for me.

I am not aware of anyone, ever, being prosecuted for a 30.06 or 30.07 violation that left the premises when asked. Therefore, it would almost make this new, very vaguely written, law moot. Don’t get me wrong, anything that reduces the ridiculousness of 30.06 has my vote, but clearly anyone can claim that they would volunteer to help in an emergency.

I don’t really see how HB435 really changes anything. You still have to leave if asked, and no one seems to have ever been prosecuted for walking past a sign, so what is different now? Seems like there is a “defense” to prosecution that any good DA would probably attack since the law was poorly written if they wanted to do so. Other than making people who carry past a 30.06 sign feel better, I honestly don’t see what has changed. What am I missing?