Gregg Abbott has been a friend to Second Amendment supporters in Texas. After the tragic shooting at Santa Fe High School, he held several meetings to come up with suggestions to improve school safety.
In the Longview News-Journal, former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson writes that these firearm-related measures are what Governor Abbot will send to the legislature as part of his plan. And Patterson contends that none of these measures will infringe on Second Amendment rights.
1. Closing reporting gaps for federal background checks by creating a case management system for Texas judges.
2. Encouraging the Legislature to carefully study the possible creation of a “red flag” law to permit the removal of firearms from a potentially dangerous person — only after legal due process is provided, and on a temporary basis.
3. Requiring the courts to report within 48 hours any judgment, protective order or family violence conviction affecting the right to legally purchase and possess firearms.
4. Strengthening the state’s existing safe firearm storage law by changing the definition of “child” to include 17-year-olds, clarifying that secure storage of a loaded or unloaded firearm around children is required, and increasing the penalty level from a Class A misdemeanor to a 3rd-degree felony when access results in death or serious bodily injury.
5. Promoting the voluntary use of devices to secure firearms.
6. Requiring gun owners to report within 10 days when their firearms are lost or stolen to aid law enforcement.
As Patterson notes, you have to see the actual wording of legislation to critically assess its impacts. Nonetheless, there are areas that raise serious concerns about Abbott’s propositions. To wit:
1. Closing reporting gaps for federal background checks by creating a case management system for Texas judges.
Much depends on the details here. The entire background check system needs to be reformed from the current presumption of guilt to a presumption of innocence. Instead of a person attempting to prove that they’re allowed to have access to firearms, the presumption should be they have that right unless they’ve been adjudicated as a “prohibited person.” If the “closing gaps” language only ensures that adjudicated prohibited possessors are added to the system, it wouldn’t add further infringements.
2. Encouraging the Legislature to carefully study the possible creation of a “red flag” law to permit the removal of firearms from a potentially dangerous person — only after legal due process is provided, and on a temporary basis.
Due process and “temporary” are key here. Red flag laws hold serious potential for abuse of due process and Second Amendment rights. This is only an “encouragement to study,” but it’s a first step.
3. Requiring the courts to report within 48 hours any judgment, protective order or family violence conviction affecting the right to legally purchase and possess firearms.
This probably does little harm. It works to insure faster responses to existing “prohibited person” law. The problem is the increasing, incremental addition of more prohibited person categories.
4. Strengthening the state’s existing safe firearm storage law by changing the definition of “child” to include 17-year-olds, clarifying that secure storage of a loaded or unloaded firearm around children is required, and increasing the penalty level from a Class A misdemeanor to a 3rd-degree felony when access results in death or serious bodily injury.
This is a dangerous infringement. It forms part of an incremental scheme to put the state in control of firearms possession and ownership.
The vast majority of teenagers have shown themselves to be fully responsible in the handling of firearms. Gun storage laws have been shown to be ineffective in reducing accidents with children, and are associated with an increase in crime. They demonize gun owners with the presumption that teens can’t be trusted with access to guns in the home.
There are numerous cases where teens accessed guns in the home and successfully used them for self defense. This part of the plan would make self defense impossible or criminalize it when it does happen.
5. Promoting the voluntary use of devices to secure firearms.
Relatively harmless, as long as it remains “voluntary.” But “voluntary” actions, when sanctioned by the state, tend to become mandatory.
6. Requiring gun owners to report within 10 days when their firearms are lost or stolen to aid law enforcement.
The idea that the victim of a theft would be further victimized by the requirement to report to the police after their property is stolen, is anathema to the rule of law. Moreover, it only “works” with extensive firearm registration data.
It significantly chills the exercise of Second Amendment rights by increasing the risk of criminal prosecution as a result of gun ownership. The entire concept of gun tracing does nothing to control crime. Its purpose seems to be to victimize the original owner and aid in state control over them. Recovering stolen guns uses a different data base (NCIC) than that used to trace gun ownership (BATFE).
Any moves toward a gun registration system are significant threats to Second Amendment rights. As seen in California, setting up a registration system is very useful for the state to implement incremental gun confiscation.
Property owners, including gun owners, shouldn’t held responsible for what happens when their property is used without their consent or control. A mandatory reporting system shifts the burden of proof to gun owners, to prove their property wasn’t in their control when it was used in a crime. It’s a heavy burden that chills the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Governor Abbott has been a strong Second Amendment supporter. These proposals contain a number of problematic areas that need to be addressed. Several of the proposals imply that gun ownership and the Second Amendment are the problem instead of the solution. That needs to change.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.