TexasCHLforum.com

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... ill=HB1123

Creates a "First Responder" designation on license.

First responder is defined and does NOT include anyone commissioned as a law enforcement officer, OR Voluntary Emergency Services Personnel.

To get the deisnation you must submit paperwork that shows that you are a first responder AND that you have completed enhanced training including 20 hours of instruction on:

• De-escalation techniques

• Tactical thinking (cover and concealment)

• Instinctive/Reactive shooting

• Tactical shooting

• Shooting while moving

• Shooting in low light conditions

• Securing a handgun when you go somewhere off-limits

Provides 30.06 and 46.035 defense to prosecution for a first responder with a First Responder LTC while performing their duties as a first responder.
46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to a first responder with a First Responder LTC while performing their duties as a first responder.

More "special" classes of citizens.

I'd support this if anyone who completes the stated training is eligible. There is no reason to limit this just to those employed as first responders. Their employers should also get the same rights.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:13 am I'd support this if anyone who completes the stated training is eligible. There is no reason to limit this just to those employed as first responders. Their employers should also get the same rights.

I agree with this.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:19 am More "special" classes of citizens.

And, as a first responder, I disagree with this. Come ride out with me and see if you don't feel that you are in a potentially dangerous situation at any given time.

Does this bill change department policies that prohibit carry while on duty?

Oh good. Just what we need, more laws and a bigger beauracracy, NOT.

How about simply eliminate 30.06 & 30.07?

Daddio-on-patio wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:36 am

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:19 am More "special" classes of citizens.

And, as a first responder, I disagree with this. Come ride out with me and see if you don't feel that you are in a potentially dangerous situation at any given time.

Just going to play devil’s advocate for a moment here, so please don’t take offense....

[devil’s advocate]
In WW2, my dad was wounded on Iwo Jima, in a horrific battle that lasted 2 days, and killed all but 10 men of 4 assault platoons from 2 companies. The corpsman that treated him in the field was not armed. In fact, outside of airborne medics, most were not issued a weapon. Some corpsmen were issued a 1911, but most did not carry one. Without disparaging what you’re saying, you’d have to admit that most of the danger from other people you’d face as a fireman/paramedic would pale in comparison to what a Navy Corspman on Iwo Jima, or a Army medic on Omaha beach faced, and most of them were not armed.

So, why do you need to carry a gun as a Paramedic (or fireman, or whatever)?
[/devil’s advocate]

I really don’t care if you carry one or not, although I absolutely think you should be allowed to do so if you want to. I’m only asking the question to help you out, because SOMEbody is going to ask it, and you should have an answer prepared which defeats that kind of question.

In a word - NO!

How about we eliminate off limit areas for LTC instead. No special class of people getting anything different than all citizens.

rtschl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:09 pm In a word - NO!

How about we eliminate off limit areas for LTC instead. No special class of people getting anything different than all citizens.

If a private property owner doesn't want anyone to enter unless specifically invited, they can post a big "No Trespassing" sign. If they want people in general to enter, but decide for whatever reason that they don't want a specific person there, they can tell that person to leave. If either wish is not adhered to, then I'm perfectly fine paying for the use of LE resources to help the property owner enforce their private property rights. But if the property owner wants to get cute and allow entry only if you are doing something, or not doing something, that they can't even see? No, let's not use taxpayer funded LE resources to help them with every random whim.

As for property owned in part by me (aka "government owned" property)? I'll carry whatever legal items I please on my property, thank you very much.

Destroy 30.06/07 and 46.035 and 46.03 except for jails, courtrooms (not offices or hallways), and airports... and require Peace Officers and metal detectors at those entrances.

Leave the provision in 30.05 that it can’t be used against license holders.

Everybody wins.

Until they repeal 46.035 and make ALL LTC exempt from 46.03, they're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

This isn't a bill that advances 2A rights even for a subset of citizens. This is an attempt to radically curtail the VESP provision passed last time.

Big thumbs down.

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:59 pm This isn't a bill that advances 2A rights even for a subset of citizens. This is an attempt to radically curtail the VESP provision passed last time.

Big thumbs down.

This leaves intact the VESP provisions passed in the 85th Legislature. This essentially just creates an enhanced license requiring additional training for "First Responders" that provides some coverage if they carry where they would normally be prohibited from doing so while on duty.

This is nowhere near the "snowflake" bill like many others that grant exemptions to the application of 46.03, 46.035, 30.06 and 30.07 to anyone of a particular designation (police, active judicial officers etc.) all the time.

Just to be clear, this law is a very specialized advancement of 2A rights for a very small number of people. It makes 30.06, 30.07, and 46.035 not apply to first responders who already have an LTC if they get their license marked as first responders. It redefines first responders to not include those who already have special benefits, such as peace officers or volunteer first responders.

I am kind of ambivalent on this bill. It isn't as bad as I first thought it was (redefining first responders and making more special cases), but it isn't as good either. The more groups that get to carry the better off we are. I generally do not like special classes of people who get extra benefits, but there is that argument I said about more people carrying the better off we are.