First Watch Restaurants

[majormadmax]

It’s been that way for a couple of years now, I’ve tried to have some integrity with respect to that exemption, but I’m having a much harder time lately.

Concealed is concealed!

 

[jordanmills]

It’s been that way for a couple of years now, I’ve tried to have some integrity with respect to that exemption, but I’m having a much harder time lately.

So do it legitimately. Not the "I'm CPR certified so that means I'm volunteer emergency services personnel!" Instead, join a neighborhood emergency response group, or join ARES, or SKYWARN or something like that.

 

[ScottDLS]

So do it legitimately. Not the "I'm CPR certified so that means I'm volunteer emergency services personnel!" Instead, join a neighborhood emergency response group, or join ARES, or SKYWARN or something like that.

The definition in the law is quite vague. I'm not sure I'd want to rely on having a CPR card either, but the other suggestions aren't guaranteed either. Since the penalty and the chance of discovery are quite low, that would factor into one's decision as well.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

The definition in the law is quite vague. I'm not sure I'd want to rely on having a CPR card either, but the other suggestions aren't guaranteed either. Since the penalty and the chance of discovery are quite low, that would factor into one's decision as well.

According to the replies (and harrassment) I got to this question

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

No card would be required.

 

[rotor]

It was a prior event before the law was passed. That the event was used as means to get concealed carry laws passed, is important.

But in 1991, there would have been not signs. It would have been illegal to carry on your person pretty much anywhere in public at that time.

Did some people carry on their person prior to 1996? I would assume so. But some also felt it was better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

And if a restaurant wants to place a sign, prohibiting the carrying of guns, then that is their right. I just won't be eating there. I'll take my business to one that doesn't put up signage prohibiting me carrying a gun.

That wasn't Luby's fault but Texas state law at the time...

My point being made for those that didn't understand it was that there are crazy people in this world that will try to kill you and without protection you or your family may die. I know this wasn''t Luby's fault. It wasn't Texas fault. It was the fault of the crazy killer. It might have been prevented if Dr. Hupp continued to break the law and carry that day. After the loss of her family she was a major force in getting the law changed. She didn't eliminate crazy killers and stores can now prohibit you from protecting yourself from those killers by disarming you if you want to enter. Shop and dine in them at your own risk.

 

[toddnjoyce]

According to the replies (and harrassment) I got to this question



No card would be required.

The state has the burden of proof. 46.15 is the Non applicability statute. And says 46.02 AND 46.03 do not apply to
(10) a person who is volunteer emergency services personnel if the person is:
(A) carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code; and
(B) engaged in providing emergency services.

46.01 is very clear on the definition

(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001, …

So there’s tons of ways you can qualify, even with no card/formal membership in an org. For me, the critical element of 46.15 is (B) engaged in providing emergency services. That is so vague I went back to the act (HB435, 85th legislature) and am still researching it, but there isn’t a whole lot of intent in the bill…it was submitted as simply to amend the code.

But again, the state is going to have the burden of proof and I don’t have to take the stand to testify if it ever came down to that. I just have to offer up the defense and make the state prove otherwise. How they’d do that is beyond me right now.

 

[ScottDLS]

The state has the burden of proof. 46.15 is the Non applicability statute. And says 46.02 AND 46.03 do not apply to
(10) a person who is volunteer emergency services personnel if the person is:
(A) carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code; and
(B) engaged in providing emergency services.

46.01 is very clear on the definition

(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001, …

So there’s tons of ways you can qualify, even with no card/formal membership in an org. For me, the critical element of 46.15 is (B) engaged in providing emergency services. That is so vague I went back to the act (HB435, 85th legislature) and am still researching it, but there isn’t a whole lot of intent in the bill…it was submitted as simply to amend the code.

But again, the state is going to have the burden of proof and I don’t have to take the stand to testify if it ever came down to that. I just have to offer up the defense and make the state prove otherwise. How they’d do that is beyond me right now.

You are correct that this is a defense to prosecution, that the State must refute beyond a reasonable doubt should you raise it at trial. But the Defense is not in 46.15, it is in 30.06(g). Regardless, it must be refuted if your lawyer (or you) raise it at your JP court trial for a $200 no jail, class C ticket. A chance I'm willing to take, should I have a particular reason to carry in a 30.06 location. Generally I won't, but there are some cases where I might.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Thanks Todd.

I had asked specifically about the "being engaged" part before, and was told it was a 24/7 excuse, regardless of what one is doing.

 

[ScottDLS]

Thanks Todd.

I had asked specifically about the "being engaged" part before, and was told it was a 24/7 excuse, regardless of what one is doing.

It is. See my note above.

 

[TX oddball]

It was and in my mind, she publicly said what a lot of people were already doing anyways, which was illegal carry.

In a previous life, when I lived in totalitarian CA, the following video was instrumental in my decision to illegally carry for years. There was ZERO legal means for me to conceal carry (and I have tried). I was forced to break the law. I can say this now since I'm out of their jurisdiction, but since the topic is on Luby's, if you haven't seen this clip, do so.

 

[ScottDLS]

In a previous life, when I lived in totalitarian CA, the following video was instrumental in my decision to illegally carry for years. There was ZERO legal means for me to conceal carry (and I have tried). I was forced to break the law. I can say this now since I'm out of their jurisdiction, but since the topic is on Luby's, if you haven't seen this clip, do so.

Technically in 1991, you had legal means to carry in California if you could get one of their impossible to get permits. In Texas we didn't have any legal means. There were no permits.

 

[toddnjoyce]

You are correct that this is a defense to prosecution, that the State must refute beyond a reasonable doubt should you raise it at trial. But the Defense is not in 46.15, it is in 30.06(g). Regardless, it must be refuted if your lawyer (or you) raise it at your JP court trial for a $200 no jail, class C ticket. A chance I'm willing to take, should I have a particular reason to carry in a 30.06 location. Generally I won't, but there are some cases where I might.

Yeah, the DtP is 30.06 and in 30.07; the non-applicability of 46.02 and 46.03 is in 46.15.

Generally speaking I proactively avoid .06/07, TABC red signs and prohibited places as well. What I won’t do is be backed in to a corner of having to leave my firearm unattended in a vehicle. I drive the most broken into vehicle in Texas and even though I’ve taken measures to harden it w/jimmy jammers and a console vault, I don’t find that as much of a deterrent and may even encourage someone to break a window to get in just to find an empty console vault.

I’m thinking about suction-cupping a monster-sized rainbow colored glow in the dark dildo to the bottom of the console vault now just in case that ever happens….

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

tnj,

"I drive the most broken into vehicle in Texas"

I tried to look that up and saw a variety of different vehicles with that claim without success...

So if you would, what do you drive that's broken into constantly?

I'll guess - A pickup...F-150 maybe or a Chevy model?

Thanks!

P.S. I drive a Tundra.

 

[Renegade]

While I like the Volunteer Exception, I still cannot give my money to any place that would post 06/07.

 

[toddnjoyce]

tnj,

"I drive the most broken into vehicle in Texas"

I tried to look that up and saw a variety of different vehicles with that claim without success...

So if you would, what do you drive that's broken into constantly?

I'll guess - A pickup...F-150 maybe or a Chevy model?

Thanks!

P.S. I drive a Tundra.

F150. Super easy to break into driver side front door.

With tool:



Without:
Punch the lock cylinder (no backing plate) and you’re in.

 

[Rhino]

While I like the Volunteer Exception, I still cannot give my money to any place that would post 06/07.

If you took that to it’s logical extreme, you might find yourself in a pickle. As a commercial photographer I can tell you that lots of corporate offices, warehouses, etc… for companies you probably spend money at do in fact post 30.06/07 on their premises. I also suspect a lot of that is insurance and lawyer-driven and that tons of people ignore those signs.

 

[45tex]

Refresh my sagging memory. Was there not some sort of Law Enforcement group meeting going on next door or near the Lubys that day in 1991?
They had no duty to disarm but had done so as a group, so as not to scare the locals. LE management was big about such stupidity back then.

 

[TheDan]

For me, the critical element of 46.15 is (B) engaged in providing emergency services. That is so vague...

Probably a good idea to ask your lawyer if they would be comfortable arguing that you're engaged in weather-spotting while indoors eating an omelet. Sounds like one of those cases where it all boils down to how confident your lawyer is.

...but whatever. Concealed is concealed

 

[ScottDLS]

Probably a good idea to ask your lawyer if they would be comfortable arguing that you're engaged in weather-spotting while indoors eating an omelet. Sounds like one of those cases where it all boils down to how confident your lawyer is.

...but whatever. Concealed is concealed

There is nothing in the statute that requires one to be engaging in providing emergency services in order to benefit from the Defense to Prosecution. And I am not going to pay my lawyer $500 hr to argue my Defense in JP Court to a $200 no jail class C, I will handle it "pro se".

As I mentioned in another post the Defense is in 30.06/7 not 46.15 and it does not require that you be engaging in the emergency activity.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

tnj,

Yikes, guess there's no F-150 in my future...and thank you for the response.