ninjabread wrote:Once a court of competent jurisdiction rules, it makes sense to go with the court's interpretation. But until then, it doesn't make sense to interpret a law as being stacked against me when it could be interpreted to my benefit.
I think your interpretation is quite a stretch. Good luck with that and I hope you never have to convince a jury the law should be interpreted the way you want. I doubt many would consider someone with a CPR card an official volunteer emergency first responder.
The law doesn't require any "official" status to be VESP. That is an option, such as a volunteer firefighter, but ANY INDIVIDUAL who meets the criteria qualifies. No membership card or secret handshake is required in the actual law.
Absent case law to the contrary, I follow the law as written with a clear conscience.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Keep in mind that bad facts and bad defendants create bad case law. If someone with a CPR card runs past a 30.06, administers CPR, saves a life, and gets arrested for criminal trespass we will get different case law than a man ignoring a 30.06, seen acting acting belligerent, and arguing with officers about the law telling them what the law says.
I have stopped and rendered aid at accident scenes plus I keep a first aid kit (or two depending on my activity and plans), a fire extinguisher, water, and more in my vehicles. Does that make me a first responder or just someone who is well prepared and trying to be a decent human. I won't carry past a 30.06 sign because I will refuse to give them my business if I don't have to.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
Back to the original topic, I find it odd that the lakes are posted 30.06 but the power plants themselves are not. I was in industrial sales until I retired recently. All the power plants from LaGrange to Marble Falls to Christine were my accounts. I always look for 30.06 signs and recall that only San Miguel in Christine was posted. I never carried on my person while making sales calls because, while not against the law, they did have various “no unauthorized firearms” signs so would be violating their company policy. If found out, I’d likely be banned from doing business there which would significantly effect my income. I did have one in the Console Vault in my truck though.
An interesting related side story. Right after open carry went into effect, I was going to meet one of my customers at one of their plants (company will remain nameless). I arrived early so parked next to guard shack to wait for him to show. It was January so was wearing a jacket and have a cell phone case on my belt, partially covered by the jacket. I was standing outside the truck when one of the security guards approached and asked if I had a CHL. (Had to provide drivers license to enter plant and didn’t know if they had access to CHL records like law enforcement). Somewhat puzzled, I answered “yes, but how’d you know”. He said, “oh, we don’t care if you have a gun in your truck, probably everyone who works here does, we’re just trying to figure out how to deal with this new open carry law”. He saw my cell phone holster and wasn’t sure.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
I am curious if the posting at the lakes is enforceable at all. We all know that property owned by a governmental entity is not enforceable. When it was just City Public Service, it was wholly owned by the city of San Antonio. I would have argued that this made it a part of a governmental entity. With it being reforms as CPS Energy, I am not sure if it is still 100% owned by the city still. When you go to the CPS Energy web page and click the about us section, then go to the financial page, it says it is a city web site. It implies but never states that the company is still part of the city but is selling securities on its own.
I am not sure if this makes a difference or not. I am also not sure that the law would include a company entirely owned by a city as a governmental entity or not. I certainly recommend not being the test case, but remembering this just in case something bad ever happens.
