TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 9:34 am Thanks for posting this.

I'd specifically like to know more about how HB 121 works. On the surface it appears that this will effectively render 30.06 signage null and void in most realistic scenarios. I'm already exempt as a VESP, but it would be nice to have yet another defense to prosecution. The only snag appears to be if a LTC holder (who is not exempt) walks past a 30.06 / 30.07 sign and IS NOT also given oral notice. However, I'd think that at a minimum, the responding LEO would give oral notice while doing their investigation. Maybe something like the following (assume CC):

LEO: "Sir, are you carrying a weapon"

LTC: "Why are you asking officer?"

LEO: "Those big signs by the doors make it illegal to carry in here."

LTC: "Oh, so I'm not allowed to carry here, even if I have my LTC?"

LEO: "That is correct, now I ask again, are you carrying a weapon?"

LTC: "Yes I am officer, and now that you have given me oral notice I will gladly depart immediately."

I think we have previously covered the fact that a LEO can give oral notice on behalf of a property owner. Of course, hopefully most property owners would just have the same conversation directly with the LTC instead of wasting LE resources.

This is intended to cover the case where there are no signs and the LTC holder was given oral communication to leave. With current law, they could still be prosecuted even if they promptly departed.

The way I'd interpret HB 121, if the person received

1) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they promptly depart, it is a class C, no defense. (Existing code)
2) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they do not promptly depart, it is a class A, no defense. (Existing code)
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)
4) Only oral communication, it is a class C, but they have a defense to prosecution if they promptly depart. (New with HB 121)

So, what about those places where they put up their .06/.07 signs in a manner that makes them difficult to see in the first place? We've all seen pictures of lettering on glass that is easily missed, for example. Now, before someone gets upset, as an LTC holder I tend to take a good look before I enter a place of business. However, anyone can miss signs that aren't well-engineered or are displayed poorly. So, if you actually never saw the sign, and then you were asked to leave, that would have been the only notice you received.

ELB wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:58 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am ...
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)

The defense to prosecution for 30.06 and 30.07 simply states: "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01." It doesn't require the VESP to be engaging in their duties. PC 46.03 does require the VESP to be engaging in emergency services in order for the defense to apply. (The DPS summary on their website is wrong, or at least not fully correct).