TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB435
HB 435 King, Ken | et al.
Relating to the application of certain weapons laws to and liability for certain actions of volunteer emergency services personnel licensed to carry a handgun.

left pending (not much opposition if any)

last session it had bipartisan support

intended purpose: to not punish a person who the State licensed, who is also volunteering to protect citizens and their families, from fires/disasters etc etc

HB435 just passed to 3rd reading in the House Floor
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=3154

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB435

IIRC unless there is some kind of rule suspension, the Third Reading has to happen on a different day than the Second. So earliest this could finally pass the House would be tomorrow. Hope it does.

Cool. Get together with some friends and form a volunteer organization to provide an emotional support service for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

SRO1911 wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:Cool. Get together with some friends and form a volunteer organization to provide an emotional support service for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

Or, join your local VFD.
Volunteers make up over 3/4 of firefighters across the nation. The largest group of unpaid professionals anywhere. You will have the opportunity to serve your community, better yourself with training that otherwise would be out of reach for many, test yourself against real stress - and maybe get a nice hat too.

'zackly right.

This bill was read for a 3rd time today and passed, so it is through the House. Now it is the Senate's turn.

ETA: 144 yeas, 2 nays, 3 not voting (1 was the Speaker who I think traditionally doesn't vote unless there is a tie, and two were absences).
I hope the resounding support this got means the Senate will quickly move on it as well.

Finally got around to reading the text of this bill.
ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/85R/b ... 00435E.htm

Defense to prosecution 30.06 and 30.07. Always.
Defense to prosecution 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035, when engaged in providing emergency service.

Mixed feelings about this Bill. Would be nice to have these protections, but would much prefer they applied to all LTCs.

My wish is that it cover CERT which is exactly a Volunteer Emergency Services group https://www.google.com/search?q=cert&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

At U of H I used to study with a Volunteer Paramedic for city of South Houston, We'd interrupt whatever we were doing to run out to a call in his pickup truck and throw a light on top to meet the Ambulance at the scene. (He was in law school, decided to become sheriff deputy later) I can imagine armed Volunteer Paramedics on call having to take time to disarm and safely store a weapon to in order to enter a place in order to save a life, the bill needs to pass.

NotRPB wrote:My wish is that it cover CERT which is exactly a Volunteer Emergency Services group https://www.google.com/search?q=cert&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

At U of H I used to study with a Volunteer Paramedic for city of South Houston, We'd interrupt whatever we were doing to run out to a call in his pickup truck and throw a light on top to meet the Ambulance at the scene. (He was in law school, decided to become sheriff deputy later) I can imagine armed Volunteer Paramedics on call having to take time to disarm and safely store a weapon to in order to enter a place in order to save a life, the bill needs to pass.

I used to be in a CERT. This is a really good point...

Is CERT really likely to need this exemption? I am not familiar with the situations that they are likely to find themselves in, but I was wondering how likely they would be to set up in a posted 30.06/07 location particularly under an emergency situation.

Just curious.

Is CERT really likely to need this exemption?

not being sarcastic, the answer is I don't know what cannot be anticipated or foreseen
I have no idea, I wouldn't have imagined a fireman getting shot last week either though

If a building collapses on people and there's a 30.06 sign at what was the entrance, do you need to store your gun in a gunsafe in the car before running in to clear debris and swat rattlesnakes in it away from trapped people?

I have no idea what "needs" are that cannot be anticipated, why would there be a "NEED" to prohibit or to NOT be armed should be the question when depriving one of a right to defend themselves with a constitutionally protected RKBA tool

NotRPB wrote:

Is CERT really likely to need this exemption?

not being sarcastic, the answer is I don't know what cannot be anticipated or foreseen
I have no idea, I wouldn't have imagined a fireman getting shot last week either though

I firmly support that a firefighter or ems personal shouldn't need to look for 30.06 signs before rushing into a building.

NotRPB wrote: If a building collapses on people and there's a 30.06 sign at what was the entrance, do you need to store your gun in a gunsafe in the car before running in to clear debris and swat rattlesnakes in it away from trapped people?

This was the type of answer I was looking for. Thanks! It dawned on me after I posted that staging is often done at schools or even courthouses.

NotRPB wrote:
I have no idea what "needs" are that cannot be anticipated, why would there be a "NEED" to prohibit or to NOT be armed should be the question when depriving one of a right to defend themselves with a constitutionally protected RKBA tool

We also need to be careful whenb carving out exceptions for certain people. HB435 seems like a good thing to me, but it also deserves some scrutiny when exeptions are being carved out for a certain few. My understanding of the types of responces that CERT responds is limited.