HB435 Volunteer Emergency Svces Carrying

[apvonkanel]

Honestly, objecting to this bill due to "carve outs" for certain people seems like opposing open carry for LTC because it isn't constitutional carry. Every one of us with an LTC benefits from a "carve out", yet none of us are opposed having one. Everyone that had a CHL benefited from a carve out, then the liberty of the carve out was expanded with no prosecution for accidental reveals, and even more with open-carry.

Removing all restrictions at once just isn't going to happen. Be realistic here. John Q. Public needs to be baby-stepped, otherwise the backlash will put us even further from the goal. Whittling away at the restrictions is feasible, especially if it's supported across the board. If you whittle enough, you end up with nothing. In this case, the "nothing" would be everyone being able to carry in all public spaces. I don't think this bill goes far enough as an end-game, but it's definitely a step in the process.

Sanity from the new(ish) guy!

Thanks, it happens on occasion.

Really, I just see the need to find a pragmatic way to go about getting what I believe is right.

[ScottDLS]

Don't be the Dog in the Manger as my (Mexican) grandma used to say.

On the other hand, we have the 7 original tenets of Animalism now boiled down to one... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others". - Napoleon the Pig.

[apvonkanel]

Don't be the Dog in the Manger as my (Mexican) grandma used to say.

On the other hand, we have the 7 original tenets of Animalism now boiled down to one... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others". - Napoleon the Pig.

Yeah, Animal Farm doesn't really work here. This isn't an issue of taking rights away, it's an issue of recovering rights. Much like removing the rights was a long process in Orwell's piece, recovering them is as well.

[anygunanywhere]

Don't be the Dog in the Manger as my (Mexican) grandma used to say.

On the other hand, we have the 7 original tenets of Animalism now boiled down to one... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others". - Napoleon the Pig.

Yeah, Animal Farm doesn't really work here. This isn't an issue of taking rights away, it's an issue of recovering rights. Much like removing the rights was a long process in Orwell's piece, recovering them is as well.

We haven't recovered any rights, we only get to buy permission cards.

[casp625]

This is a great bill! Going to look into requirements for becoming a volunteer emergency service personnel so I can legally walk past 30.06 & 30.07 signs without repercussions!

Being an emergency responder won't be good enough. The exemption will only kick in if actually responding to an emergency as an emergency responder.

The exemption from 46.035 only kicks in if actually responding to an emergency. 30.06 & 30.07 have a defense to prosecution for just merely being a volunteer emergency service personnel.

[ninjabread]

Don't be the Dog in the Manger as my (Mexican) grandma used to say.

On the other hand, we have the 7 original tenets of Animalism now boiled down to one... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others". - Napoleon the Pig.

Yeah, Animal Farm doesn't really work here. This isn't an issue of taking rights away, it's an issue of recovering rights.

It's an issue of continuing to take rights away, instead of allowing them to be restored.

[apvonkanel]

Don't be the Dog in the Manger as my (Mexican) grandma used to say.

On the other hand, we have the 7 original tenets of Animalism now boiled down to one... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others". - Napoleon the Pig.

Yeah, Animal Farm doesn't really work here. This isn't an issue of taking rights away, it's an issue of recovering rights.

It's an issue of continuing to take rights away, instead of allowing them to be restored.

From a general perspective I agree, but in this case it's talking about recovering rights for emergency personnel

[canvasbck]

Honestly, objecting to this bill due to "carve outs" for certain people seems like opposing open carry for LTC because it isn't constitutional carry. Every one of us with an LTC benefits from a "carve out", yet none of us are opposed having one. Everyone that had a CHL benefited from a carve out, then the liberty of the carve out was expanded with no prosecution for accidental reveals, and even more with open-carry.

Removing all restrictions at once just isn't going to happen. Be realistic here. John Q. Public needs to be baby-stepped, otherwise the backlash will put us even further from the goal. Whittling away at the restrictions is feasible, especially if it's supported across the board. If you whittle enough, you end up with nothing. In this case, the "nothing" would be everyone being able to carry in all public spaces. I don't think this bill goes far enough as an end-game, but it's definitely a step in the process.

I would agree with you except for one pesky little fact.

Carve outs that have been given to attorneys, judges, ect. have not eventually been granted to us "less than equal" LTC holders. If there were carve outs that later led to expanded general rights, then I would be on board with this form of incrementalism.

That being said, I support emergency responders being given a carve out while they are on duty. They can be responding to some pretty dicey situations with no warning. As a former Paramedic, I can say there have been several calls where it would have been prudent to be armed.

[parabelum]

We are a rural dept. running around 600 calls annually.

Our dispatch does a decent job where 9 out of 10 calls I'd say we are given heads up to stage for SO.

Having said that, every couple of months there is that one time where you find yourself in the middle of nowhere, shady characters involved, it's 2am and you're basically on your own.

[apvonkanel]

Carve outs that have been given to attorneys, judges, ect. have not eventually been granted to us "less than equal" LTC holders. If there were carve outs that later led to expanded general rights, then I would be on board with this form of incrementalism.

You and I are in absolute agreement here. Carve outs that only affect those that create or interpret the law are always warning signs that there is something seriously wrong with a proposed system. There's a big difference between using a certain carve out as a test-group as opposed to a permanent privilege granted for the sake of having the privilege. A great example are both ACA and currently proposed AHCA. Both administrations proposed a system for the average citizen, but then gave themselves special exemptions/liberties.

[TreyHouston]

So by saying judges and lawyers are exempt, one would have the understanding that they are LESS likely to injure a bystander during a potentially dangerous situation? I.e. shooting in a crowded building that is posted. Do they get some sort of special training when they are given their law drgree?

[apostate]

I would agree with you except for one pesky little fact.

Carve outs that have been given to attorneys, judges, ect. have not eventually been granted to us "less than equal" LTC holders. If there were carve outs that later led to expanded general rights, then I would be on board with this form of incrementalism.

Amen. We were fed the same load of rubbish back in the day to gin up support for LEOSA. It's a very good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for the promised quid pro quo.

I got my Texas CHL in the early days of the program and after 20 years I'm seriously considering letting it lapse. I grow weary of the incessant "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" from the politicians in Texas. When I travel and visit other states with fewer restrictions on carry, I wonder why Texans can't be trusted to enjoy those same freedoms in Texas.

I hear the Arizona license enjoys widespread reciprocity.

[RoyGBiv]

Nice.

[parabelum]

I am still a bit confused if this bill creates an exemption for first responders during the execution of their duties solely. In other words, an off duty first responder will not receive defense to prosecution for 06/07?

But, we the volunteer FF'ers & EMT's, are never really off duty unless the definition of "on duty" is regarded as actual response to a call or I put myself in a "off duty" status in IAR.

In either case, what documentation would I need in addition to LTC and DL obviously...NREMT, SFFMA, IAFF, CERT card?

My brain is a V8 currently firing on 3 cylinders...