HB435 Volunteer Emergency Svces Carrying

[ScottDLS]

If I remember correctly, the MPA took two tries. The first attempt retained the "Defense to prosecution" language. The Harris county DA at the time declared that nothing had changed and that he wold continue to prosecute persons charged with having a handgun in their vehicle. The second round remove the "Defense to prosecution" language and made it not applicable.

I stand by my claim that carrying a concealed handgun with a LTC is not equivalent a member of the Texas State Guard passing a 30.06 sign with a concealed handgun. One is not applicable. The other depends on a defense to prosecution.

No, the first try defined the MPA as "Traveling" which is in the same section of the code as LTC, or being a cop. And the Harris County DA made a stink, though apparently never followed up with any prosecutions. Then in 2007 the offense itself was changed to make it not a crime to carry (concealed) in your car.

[ScottDLS]

Unless the law says "It is a defense to prosecution" to have a LTC, it is not a defense to prosecution to have a LTC. The law prohibiting carry does not apply to a person with a CHL. No defense to prosecution is needed. No amount of mental gymnastics will alter that fact.

Sorry, but this is wrong. While a deal was cut years ago to use the phrase "not applicable," there is case law that holds the Code means exactly how it reads. Unless a code provision is prefaced with "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." then it's a defense to prosecution. This is why we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007) with language that changed the elements of the offense, rather than battle the DA's association over exceptions, "not applicable," etc.

Chas.

I thought I remembered you saying that once. I kept all my old CHL handbooks and I noticed that the 1997-8 one was where the 46.15 "Do Not Apply" language was added. Are you saying that not using the exacting wording from PC 2.02 for an Exeption was intentional on the part of the Legislature as a compromise? Or was it simply held so later by the courts at the urging of the Harris County DA?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Unless the law says "It is a defense to prosecution" to have a LTC, it is not a defense to prosecution to have a LTC. The law prohibiting carry does not apply to a person with a CHL. No defense to prosecution is needed. No amount of mental gymnastics will alter that fact.

Sorry, but this is wrong. While a deal was cut years ago to use the phrase "not applicable," there is case law that holds the Code means exactly how it reads. Unless a code provision is prefaced with "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." then it's a defense to prosecution. This is why we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007) with language that changed the elements of the offense, rather than battle the DA's association over exceptions, "not applicable," etc.

Chas.

I thought I remembered you saying that once. I kept all my old CHL handbooks and I noticed that the 1997-8 one was where the 46.15 "Do Not Apply" language was added. Are you saying that not using the exacting wording from PC 2.02 for an Exeption was intentional on the part of the Legislature as a compromise? Or was it simply held so later by the courts at the urging of the Harris County DA?

I can't go into detail, but we had a deal and the "other party" partially defaulted. Note that all of TPC §46.15 is under the "Not applicable" heading, including LEO's, judges, etc. In spite of the case law, the real-work impact has been what was desired. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Thank you for the insight. I understand that you can't go into detail. It's interesting that as you note LEO's, judges, LTC, etc. are all in the same 46.15 as are traveling and sporting activities... And all this appears to date back 20 years to 1997. Quite interesting.

[TreyHouston]

Im sure Charles will give us the full breakdown after session is over

[ScottDLS]

Im sure Charles will give us the full breakdown after session is over

No I think this happened at least 10 years ago.

[tbrown]

Im sure Charles will give us the full breakdown after session is over

No I think this happened at least 10 years ago.

[TreyHouston]

Im sure Charles will give us the full breakdown after session is over

No I think this happened at least 10 years ago.

i was referring to events and clarification of this bill. I should have been less vague in my post!

[Scott B.]

I guess my CERT ID is going in my wallet. Used to keep it with my kit.

[ninjabread]

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

You say poe-tay-toe I say poe-tah-toe

[RoyGBiv]

Sent to Governor yesterday.

[ELB]

Governor signed it today.

[TVGuy]

What is our level of confidence that being CERT covers the requirement here?

It sure sounds like it does to me, but it is so vaguely written.

[RoyGBiv]

="TVGuy"]What is our level of confidence that being CERT covers the requirement here?

It sure sounds like it does to me, but it is so vaguely written.

Very high, IMO.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

SECTION 10. Section 46.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (18) to read as follows:
(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

[Ameer]

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.