■ 1. Closing reporting gaps for federal background checks by creating a case management system for Texas judges.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 the aboe propositions. Some of those concerns:
■ 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.
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 are allowed to have access to firearms, the presumption should be they have the right to access unless they have been adjudicated as a "prohibited person". If the "closing gaps" language is only to make sure that adjudicated prohibited possessors are added to the system, it would not 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 Second Amendment rights. As this is only an "encouragement to study", it likely does little harm.
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 very dangerous infringement. It forms part of the an incremental scheme to have the state in control of firearms ownership. The vast majority of teenagers have shown themselves to be fully responsible in their 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 cannot 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 those self defense acts into criminal acts.
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 for gun ownership. The entire concept of gun tracing does nothing to control crime. Its purpose seems to be to victimize the original owner, and to aid in state control over gun owners. 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, should never be 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 was not in their control. It is a heavy burden that chills the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Governor Abbott has been a Second Amendment supporter. These proposals contain several problem 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 be changed.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Good for a laugh, Especially the comments
ReplyDelete'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c86876df-4905-38d6-b97d-6893c57075e1/ss_%26apos%3Bwhen-has-it-ever-become.html
6. Requiring gun owners to report within 10 days when their firearms are lost or stolen to aid law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteSo how many gun owners aren't going to report a gun stolen the moment they find out?
How often does a stolen gun get used in a crime outside of the 10 days?
This seems to be a ridiculous thing to make a requirement.
#armtheteachersarmtheparents
#txconstitutionalcarry
Governor Abbot seems to be an ignorant dumb ass when it comes to the second amendment issues. How many people can you defend your self against with a locked up un loaded gun. How many kids go hunting with their fathers under the age of 17? When I was a kid I knew a kid that was given one bullet and a rifle to go out and bring back dinner at age ten. they ate a lot of rabbit. a box of 50 .22s was expected to get 50 meals. I was an expert with a pistol at 17 took deer at 500 yards with an M-1 carbine and a Winchester lever action 30-30 at 15 the second amendment is for protection not regulation. 13 year old girl defended her self with a shot gun, could have been my daughter but it was not. If you are old enough to pick up a gun you are old enough to learn to use it safely. The bad guys are the problem not the good guys. the gun has no idea of who is holding it. It just does the job it was designed to do attack or defend.
ReplyDelete