First Watch Restaurants

[toddnjoyce]

@Renegade, @ScottDLS, good conversation and I’m going to change my position from unable to switch to probably can switch based on your feedback. Thinking about all of this pretty deeply, my personal position is that I believe someone would probably have a better case using the 46.15 volunteer emergency services as that non-applicability closes the loop for both .02 and .03.

For me, the larger lesson is really the lack of teeth .05/.06/.07 hold and reinforces my already passionate position that .06/.07/.05 trespass with a handgun/firearm statutes need to be struck for a variety of reasons. There’s a way to enhance punishment for trespass with a firearm when a firearm is used in the commission of the crime.

ETA: @Renegade, the context if my reference to revoke/suspend an LTC wasn’t with respect to .205, it was with respect to other provisions the state retains within 411 as a whole. Essentially, if .205 is effectively moot, then what other portions of 411 are also moot.

 

[jordanmills]

How about you guys just hit the "easy button" on it it all? Become volunteer emergency services personnel (volunteer for some kind of volunteer emergency service, presumably such as neighborhood CIRT, storm watcher, something like that). With an LTC, 30.05 (with regard to firearms), 30.06, and 30.07 no longer apply to you, ever, at all.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

How about you guys just hit the "easy button" on it it all? Become volunteer emergency services personnel (volunteer for some kind of volunteer emergency service, presumably such as neighborhood CIRT, storm watcher, something like that). With an LTC, 30.05 (with regard to firearms), 30.06, and 30.07 no longer apply to you, ever, at all.

I had asked this before, but this holds true 24 hours a day?
Not just when performing duties?

 

[jordanmills]

I had asked this before, but this holds true 24 hours a day?

And I answered it before. There are no other criteria in that exclusion. The exclusion in its entirety (for 30.06) reads "(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01."

 

[ZX9RCAM]

And I answered it before. There are no other criteria in that exclusion. The exclusion in its entirety (for 30.06) reads "(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01."

Thanks.
I either missed it, or just plain forgot.

 

[Renegade]

@Renegade, @ScottDLS, good conversation and I’m going to change my position from unable to switch to probably can switch based on your feedback. Thinking about all of this pretty deeply, my personal position is that I believe someone would probably have a better case using the 46.15 volunteer emergency services as that non-applicability closes the loop for both .02 and .03.

ETA: @Renegade, the context if my reference to revoke/suspend an LTC wasn’t with respect to .205, it was with respect to other provisions the state retains within 411 as a whole. Essentially, if .205 is effectively moot, then what other portions of 411 are also moot.

Well we are all just offering opinions, and courts can decide otherwise. The laws are poorly worded, and there are numerous examples of contradictions and unintended violations. No relief on 06/07 for a peace officer with LTC for example. MPA allows you to carry "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle" but not FROM your vehicle. etc

I am only aware of 411.205 having no penalty.

And the emergency services is a big hole. Pretty much any Red Cross employee gets it. The truck drivers going to NOLA this week from Texas Baptists get the exemption. A Electrical Co Lineman gets it. Not just during the emergency, but year round! Note it does not prohibit getting paid, only that you volunteer.

Me, this is mostly a mental exercise. I just do not patronize a 06/07 place.

 

[ScottDLS]

@Renegade, @ScottDLS, good conversation and I’m going to change my position from unable to switch to probably can switch based on your feedback. Thinking about all of this pretty deeply, my personal position is that I believe someone would probably have a better case using the 46.15 volunteer emergency services as that non-applicability closes the loop for both .02 and .03.

For me, the larger lesson is really the lack of teeth .05/.06/.07 hold and reinforces my already passionate position that .06/.07/.05 trespass with a handgun/firearm statutes need to be struck for a variety of reasons. There’s a way to enhance punishment for trespass with a firearm when a firearm is used in the commission of the crime.

ETA: @Renegade, the context if my reference to revoke/suspend an LTC wasn’t with respect to .205, it was with respect to other provisions the state retains within 411 as a whole. Essentially, if .205 is effectively moot, then what other portions of 411 are also moot.

@toddnjoyce 100% agree on the VERP thoughts. I was purposely omitting that while focusing on the 30.05/6/7 issues and applicability, but the easy solution, for those that wish to carry past 06 signs without become a LEO, is that.

 

[Renegade]

And I answered it before. There are no other criteria in that exclusion. The exclusion in its entirety (for 30.06) reads "(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01."

"any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations."

The number of folks who meet that is staggering.

 

[Rhino]

30.06/7 says "when carrying under the authority of your LTC". Before permitless carry there were some situations where you could be carrying under a different authority even though you had a license and maybe even had it on you.

-You are a Texas Peace Officer (LEO) who happens to have a LTC
-You are a Federal LEO (FBI, DEA) with a Texas or other reciprocal state LTC.
-Carrying in your car.

So instead of permitless carry take the cop example. Cop is carrying in 30.06/7 location, off duty even. Owner sees him and calls police. Police come and say, you can't carry here because 30.06/7. He says I'm a Texas LEO, so I can carry. Police say, but you have a LTC also, so here is your $200 ticket for carrying past 30.06/7. Don't see it happening.

That's why there is no defense to prosecution or exception in 30.06/7 for LEO, like there is in 30.05. They don't NEED the defense, because it (30.06/7) already doesn't apply unless carrying under it's authority.

The requirement to display the license in GC 411 is a red herring also, because there is no penalty and also a police officers have no legal authority to demand identification unless you are under arrest and even then you only have to verbally provide your name and date of birth.

The only reason I say "leave it on the dresser" is because then you CAN'T be carrying under its authority because the non-applicability provisions of 46.15 that allow you to carry with a license, require that you have it on your person. With HB1923 there's only a few situations where you need the authority of LTC to carry now. Mostly everywhere, you can carry without it's authority.

This is basically what Texas Law Shield told me.

 

[rotor]

I did.

He called today (TLS attorney). Admitted it is somewhat of a grey area but if a LTC holder is not carrying his permit it does not preclude him from carrying permitless carry.
Also got an email from AG office and they will not give citizens a legal opinion, as you previously noted.
TLS lawyer again noted that 30.05 or no guns signs would keep permitless carry out. Take all of this as to what my lawyers said, not your lawyers.

 

[jordanmills]

"any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations."

The number of folks who meet that is staggering.

Yep. But that's exactly what the law says. Also note that there is no "while performing the service" or anything like that, like there is for the 40.03 exception. That seems to make it clear that it was intentionally written exactly how it is written.

 

[45tex]

My mouse guns tell me they now self ID as Constitutionally Carried.
I'm keeping my LTC anyway.

 

[Renegade]

Yep. But that's exactly what the law says. Also note that there is no "while performing the service" or anything like that, like there is for the 40.03 exception. That seems to make it clear that it was intentionally written exactly how it is written.

That is what shocked me, you get 365 exemption. I missed when this was added to the code!

I mean you could just be a blood donor during emergencies!

 

[SARGE67]

I saw this sign today and they made it clear with no wording.

 

[45tex]

No Berretta allowed /\ /\

 

[jordanmills]

No Berretta allowed /\ /\

Sounds like their rules are the same as my safe's rules. We're cool.

 

[jordanmills]

That is what shocked me, you get 365 exemption. I missed when this was added to the code!

I mean you could just be a blood donor during emergencies!

Me too, but I'll take it. Personally, I donate blood and platelets (which is new to the list now, thanks), coordinate neighborhood communication using "unlicensed" (licensed by rule) radio comms, make reports of weather emergencies and observations through coordinated amateer radio groups, and coordinate refugee/rescuer communication through crowdsourcerescue. I think I have the volunteer emergency services personnel qualification covered.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Me too, but I'll take it. Personally, I donate blood and platelets (which is new to the list now, thanks), coordinate neighborhood communication using "unlicensed" (licensed by rule) radio comms, make reports of weather emergencies and observations through coordinated amateer radio groups, and coordinate refugee/rescuer communication through crowdsourcerescue. I think I have the volunteer emergency services personnel qualification covered.

Do you have something which designates you as such?
Just curious.

 

[jordanmills]

Do you have something which designates you as such?
Just curious.

Plenty. Does it matter? I don't see any ID or documentation requirements in law or precedent.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Plenty. Does it matter? I don't see any ID or documentation requirements in law or precedent.

I have no idea what's required if one gets questioned.