HB 353

[RoyGBiv]

I'm struggling a bit to understand the TFC position on this Bill. Maybe I'm missing something?

The Bill would exempt "Volunteer emergency services personnel" from most 30.06, 46.01 and 46.035 restrictions during call-outs.
Here's the text: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00353I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I completely understand and agree with the TFC objection to creating yet another new privileged class of CHL holders and I agree that we should, as a higher priority, be working towards removing these same restrictions from all CHL's, ala HB 308. I also agree that an arbitrary cutoff of 50,000 population is, well, arbitrary and should be removed from the Bill as well.

Where I get stuck is this.... The Bill as is stands seems to me to represent a step forward. Recognizing that in times of emergency, responders with CHL's should be relieved of having to worry about things like entering a disaster site, command post or shelter that's been set up in a school building, for example. While the arbitrary limit of 50,000 population should be eliminated and HB 308 should be the far greater priority, if we don't get HB 308 this session, it seems to me that opposing HB 353 outright (rather than working to fix the 50K provision) would be counterproductive.

If we don't get what we want (HB 308), we should oppose an incremental Bill such as HB 353?
What is the downside to supporting HB 353 with a fix to the 50K problem? Or even as-is if the 50K issue cannot be remedied?
Does supporting HB 353 lessen the chances of passing HB 308?

Full disclosure: I do have some skin in this one, as I would fall under the description "and other individuals who, as a volunteer, provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.". My county is well over 50K, but if the Bill could not be improved, I would still support it, albeit as a lower priority than HB 308.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I'm struggling a bit to understand the TFC position on this Bill. Maybe I'm missing something?

The Bill would exempt "Volunteer emergency services personnel" from most 30.06, 46.01 and 46.035 restrictions during call-outs.
Here's the text: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00353I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I completely understand and agree with the TFC objection to creating yet another new privileged class of CHL holders and I agree that we should, as a higher priority, be working towards removing these same restrictions from all CHL's, ala HB 308. I also agree that an arbitrary cutoff of 50,000 population is, well, arbitrary and should be removed from the Bill as well.

Where I get stuck is this.... The Bill as is stands seems to me to represent a step forward. Recognizing that in times of emergency, responders with CHL's should be relieved of having to worry about things like entering a disaster site, command post or shelter that's been set up in a school building, for example. While the arbitrary limit of 50,000 population should be eliminated and HB 308 should be the far greater priority, if we don't get HB 308 this session, it seems to me that opposing HB 353 outright (rather than working to fix the 50K provision) would be counterproductive.

If we don't get what we want (HB 308), we should oppose an incremental Bill such as HB 353?
What is the downside to supporting HB 353 with a fix to the 50K problem? Or even as-is if the 50K issue cannot be remedied?
Does supporting HB 353 lessen the chances of passing HB 308?

Full disclosure: I do have some skin in this one, as I would fall under the description "and other individuals who, as a volunteer, provide services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.". My county is well over 50K, but if the Bill could not be improved, I would still support it, albeit as a lower priority than HB 308.

When we're talking about our rights, like we do money...

Say you have so much in your bank account. You're trying to get several different checks cashed. Some add a big ammount, some break even, some add little, and some take away. I believe that all of us would accept positive gains, whether it be $50, or $10,000... I won't throw out the $50 check just because I'm taking some big checks to the bank, they might bounce.

That's my analogy for the day.

Any gain is a big gain in my opinion. Hold the line, don't give in an inch, but lets take every millimeter we can! A low geared truck might not get you and your cargo to your destination as quickly, but it's much more likely to go up those steep grades without stopping or stalling out and rolling back. Big wheels keep on rollin'! (My Detroit Diesel with 4.56 gears made me think of that one. I might top out at sixty, but steep grades don't bother me!)

I was wrong, I did two analogies today...

[Beiruty]

I guess there is another bill to repeal some or all out-of-reach for CHLer. If LEO can go there, then so is CHLer.

[Charles L. Cotton]

TPC §30.06: No emergency personnel should be subject to the restrictions of TPC §30.06. If they are called to someone's aid, they should not risk prosecution for answering that call.

Off-Limits Areas: Incremental improvements to gun laws is appropriate and effective in certain situations. For example, requiring notice under TPC §30.06 in order to trigger the statutory prohibition on carrying a handgun in hospitals, nursing homes and churches was a good step, even though we wanted to repeal the Penal Code provisions that rendered those areas off-limits. Adding the 30.06 notice was a positive impact on hundreds of thousands of CHLs and doing so did not make it harder to reach the ultimate goal of repealing those sections of TPC §46.035. The benefit bestowed by requiring notice under TPC §30.06 also worked to the benefit of every single CHL, not a segment of CHLs.

Allowing judges, probation officers, prosecutors, etc. who hold a CHL to carry everywhere a LEO can carry was not justified in my personal opinion. It benefited only a very small number of CHLs and it made it harder to remove those same restrictions for all CHLs, at least marginally so, because it removed the voices of judges, etc. from those crying for reform. This concept lead to the deal-breaking amendment to HB508 last session that doomed that much-needed bill. We already have an elite list, so some Senators felt safe in adding themselves to that list.

Granting special privileges to small groups also places a higher value on those lives. Even if the risk of death is greater for certain people due to their position or occupation, the consequences of being unarmed when one is the victim of a deadly assault are the same. Dead is dead and statistical risk is irrelevant.

We now have almost a 20 year track record proving that CHLs are the most law-abiding segment of Texas citizens. There is no rational argument to keep in place restrictions that were created when concealed-carry was a new and unproved concept in Texas. All CHLs need to be freed from these legislative chains and granting special protections to a very small segment of those CHLs makes it harder to achieve that goal. Letting volunteer emergency personnel carry everywhere a LEO can carry does not serve to promote repealing of those unnecessary restrictions for all CHLs. It also tends to strengthen the concept that the lives of some Texans are more valuable than others.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

Letting volunteer emergency personnel carry everywhere a LEO can carry does not serve to promote repealing of those unnecessary restrictions for all CHLs. It also tends to strengthen the concept that the lives of some Texans are more valuable than others.

Chas.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I could argue that codifying exceptions for "volunteers" has a more direct "ordinary citizen" impact compared to similar exceptions for Judges and Politicians. But, it would be dishonest of me to try and categorize volunteer exceptions as broad based. Personally, I'm content to sacrifice a possible small, short term gain in pursuit of the bigger picture and trust that if you're telling me this is the best path then it's the best path. However, I fret that the argument is not dissimilar from the argument that licensed open carry benefits many fewer people than would unlicensed open carry. I'm absolutely not making that argument, just acknowledging the potential for that argument being made. I would agree that licensed OC would be a huge step towards unlicensed OC. But, making PC exceptions for volunteers would not add any weight towards passing a Bill like HB 308. Not the same animals.

Thanks again.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Letting volunteer emergency personnel carry everywhere a LEO can carry does not serve to promote repealing of those unnecessary restrictions for all CHLs. It also tends to strengthen the concept that the lives of some Texans are more valuable than others.

Chas.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. . . . However, I fret that the argument is not dissimilar from the argument that licensed open carry benefits many fewer people than would unlicensed open carry. I'm absolutely not making that argument, just acknowledging the potential for that argument being made.

Thanks again.

Although you are not making the argument, this subject does provide a focus to explore another issue in dealing with legislation. There is little doubt that HB353 would pass, if it is given a vote in committee and gets to the House and Senate floors. It impacts very few people and those people are highly respected by the community, making passage virtually certain. The only chance of it not passing would be if the "elitist" issue would kill it as it did HB508 last session. Ironically, failure of HB353 to pass for whatever reason could help passage of HB308, so that voluntary emergency personnel would obtain the relief they need and it wouldn't be limited to small counties. (Don't read more into this than is warranted. The added push to pass HB308 would be minimal and not likely to make the difference between success and failure.)

Unlicensed carry would benefit far more people than the current 811,000+ CHLs, however it has very little chance of passing. Strongly supporting an unlicensed open-carry bill and not supporting a yet-to-be-filed bill that will remove the requirement for CHLs to conceal would likely result in no open-carry bill passing. So 811,000+ Texas gun owners would be deprived of a benefit (whether real or perceived) that could otherwise have been achieved. (That 811,000 number will continue to grow as more people get a Texas CHL, so the people denied a benefit will also grow.) Some will argue to support both unlicensed carry and licensed open-carry, but that's not realistic. Yes, we can say we support both and we will, but everyone in Austin knows what that means. Lest someone jumps to OCT's defense and claims this is what they are doing, note that OCT is saying it will oppose licensed open-carry bills. That's markedly different from supporting two different approaches to open-carry. OCT is drawing a line in the sand and saying it's "all or nothing" in spite of the fact that almost one million Texans likely disagree.

So supporting or even not opposing HB353 could result in less reason to remove unnecessary and dangerous limitations on 811,000+ CHLs, while supporting a doomed unlicensed carry bill would go a long way to preserving the status quo, i.e. no open-carry for any Texas gun owners.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

^^ Further thanks.

I have no problem supporting HB 308 ahead of, or in lieu of, HB 353. Even more so now, given the explanations that you've provided Charles. I found your aside very encouraging as well ("The added push to pass HB308 would be minimal and not likely to make the difference between success and failure.").

The brass ring (for me) this session is certainly HB 308. I'd be hard pressed to say I'm "opposed" to 353, but understand and support the reasons for focusing on 308.

Didn't intend to muddy the waters here with OC. I'm looking forward to reading the forthcoming CHL-OC Bill and discussing it in its own thread, which I'm certain will provide for a lively discussion, as OC topics tend to do.

[cb1000rider]

Thanks for the context and the clear long term thinking, Charles...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Didn't intend to muddy the waters here with OC.

You didn't; it was an opportunity to explain why TFC opposes a bill that many think it should support. It's important for folks to know the reason.

Chas.

[ELB]

HB353 has been heard in the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee, and a committee substitute was voted out favorably 9-0 and sent to Calendars Committee.

It appears the committee substitute made three major changes:

1) It changed the relief from restrictions from an "exception" to a "defense to prosecution." As I understand the terms, an exception prevents arrest and prosecution for an act; a "defense to prosecution" means you could be arrested and prosecuted, but you would have a statutory defense against being convicted, namely that you met the requirements of the law for not being guilty. Thus in the committee substitute, the protection for volunteer firefighter/ems personnel is reduced somewhat.

2) It removed the application of the change to counties with populations of 50,000 or less. In other words, if it passes it will apply throughout Texas.

3) It adds a change to the Civil Practices and Remedies Code concerning the discharge of a handgun by an emergency service volunteer who is has a CHL. I have read through that part of the CP & R Code a couple times, and....I can't really figure out what's going on, so I don't know what this part really means. I assume it has an effect on whether the individual volunteer or his organization or governmental unit he reports to is liable for the effect of a handgun discharge, but I can't tell which way it cuts. Maybe Mr Cotton can tell us in his spare time.

Note that at this writing, the TFC Bill Status Report for this bill is slightly incorrect, wrt to the county population of 50,000 or less.

ETA: Here is the committee analysis with the side-by-side comparison of the introduced version and the substitute.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00353H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[NotRPB]

********** GENERAL STATE CALENDAR **********
HOUSE BILLS
SECOND READING

Came up now ...

HB 353 King, Ken / Springer / Burns
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB353" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Relating to the application of certain weapons laws to and liability for certain actions of volunteer emergency services personnel licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

amendment by King and Hemphill http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB353" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
being read now PDF > http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 353H21.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Allows Governmental unit immunity for EMS & Firefighters for CHL Volunteer Emergency worker


Number of Amendments: 1
H 2 1 King, Ken
Amendment Withdrawn 5/6/2015
PDF version

Amendment temporarily withdrawn to re-draft Amendment language (to not include "volunteer police" or something, but only Volunteer Ambulance/EMS/Firefighters ... or something)

I heard something, like a city size/population limit?
Pasadena Texas has volunteer Dept that responds to Refineries if needed, helps other cities, I hope they don't exclude them due to size limit too big ... wait and see I guess ...

HB353 postponed 15 minutes ...

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=1592" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

<meanwhile, on another note, while waiting ... >HB 554 Springer / Pickett / Simmons / Frank / et al.

Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of possessing or carrying a weapon in or into the secured area of an airport. passed on 2nd reading as amended
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

H Passed to engrossment as amended 05/06/2015
H Amended 1-Springer 05/06/2015
>H 2 1 Springer
Amendment Adopted 5/6/2015
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PDF Amendment
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 554H21.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bill http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00554H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..........

Also

HB3884 sent to Local Consent (relates to carrying knives )
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB3884" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


---------

Ok, 353 back now
w/ Amendment

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=1592" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; video

New Amendment

H 2 2 King, Ken
Amendment Current 5/6/2015
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 353H22.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Amdmnt adopted
Bill passed to engrossment w/ new Amndment 2nd reading

[ELB]

********** GENERAL STATE CALENDAR **********
HOUSE BILLS
SECOND READING

etc

Thanks for the heads-up.