Texas governor expresses concern about private gun sales

Story link...

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday raised concern about private firearm sales but didn’t commit to crack down on them or act on gun control issues following a meeting on ways to prevent mass shootings such as the El Paso attack that killed 22 people.

While lawmakers are feeling pressure to respond quickly to the Aug. 3 shooting at a Walmart, Abbott signaled that Texas would take a long and careful look at gun laws and other safety measures before its Legislature next meets in 2021.

Scrutinizing private guns sales was among a list of ideas Abbott rattled off after emerging from a four-hour, closed-door meeting about the El Paso shooting with lawmakers, police and representatives from Google, Facebook and Twitter.

He also floated the idea of “welfare checks” when worries are raised about people with access to firearms. Authorities have said the mother of the suspected El Paso gunman, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, had called police weeks before the attack to express concern about her son buying an “AK” style rifle.

“Right now there is nothing in law that would prevent one stranger from selling a gun to a terrorist, and obviously that’s a danger that needs to be looked into,” Abbott said.

The El Paso shooting happened hours before another gunman in Ohio killed nine people in an entertainment district. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, also a Republican, responded days later with a package of measures that he said would prevent mass shootings. But Abbott is taking a slower approach.

The discussions will be closely followed by gun-rights supporters, including the National Rifle Association, which earlier this year praised Abbott for expanding gun rights in Texas. Some are set to take effect Sept. 1 and were passed after more than two dozen people were killed in a 2017 Texas church shooting and a gunman killing 10 people at a high school near Houston last year.

Abbott offered no details about how Texas might scrutinize private gun sales but expressed worries that it could lead to some firearms ending up in the wrong hands. Authorities have said Crusius legally purchased the rifle used in the attack but have not said from where.

Executives from Google, Facebook and Twitter left the meeting before reporters were let back into the room. They were invited by Abbott after he called for a crackdown on internet sites used by violent extremists. Authorities believe Crusius posted a racist screed online shortly before carrying out the attack.

Abbott said the companies offered to provide a training program for both users and law enforcement to identify those who may pose a danger or deter potential attacks.

Gun Owners of America’s Texas chapter held a small rally outside the Capitol before Abbott’s meeting to protest the possibility of “red flag” laws that would allow guns to be removed from a person determined to be a danger to themselves or others. The group also spoke against any “social media monitoring” that might result from the discussions.

Stephen Willeford, who shot back at the gunman who attacked a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in 2017, said gun owners don’t want more restrictions and that “red flag” laws do away with due process.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released a new report Thursday on firearm laws and gun violence in Texas, and geared up for its own town hall in El Paso.

Ari Freilich, an attorney for the organization, said that among the report’s proposals is disarming hate crime offenders and others convicted of violent crimes.

According to the report, under Texas law, those convicted of violent hate crime assaults and hate crimes involving “terroristic threats” of violence are generally able to legally buy and keep guns immediately after conviction.

“We’ve also seen this before, so we want to make sure the folks having these conversations know that it’s time for a really serious conversation that’s responsive to ways in which Texans are being harmed every day by guns,” Freilich said.

Here is what I can’t understand. Here we have a second instance of a big problem with our current background checks not stopping people who can’t not possess weapons. Why don’t we fix the current system that should be working before adding more rules that won’t stop anything.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...ag-felony-warrant-of-pease-park-suspect/

It is impossible to know what is in another man's heart. What law will fix that?

The solution is simple......just make it illegal to kill someone. If laws are really going to stop someone then that one seems like the best approach.

Lots and lots of gun laws in Mexico. Such a peaceful and smooth running country.

It’s funny to me that the left wants to get rid of all drug laws because they are “ineffective” but thinks making more gun laws will fix something.

That's a keen observation.

A big problem I see and keep hearing about is how a life long felon is out of prison in a short amount of time, and back to being a criminal again. The news had a story of a guy out of prison in 5 months time for shooting into an occupied car along with other drug and felony charges. He was out in 5 months time and back to being a criminal and then killed someone. We have to fix that issue. I don't understand the justice system how we keep letting out these bad guys. It's hard enough getting a conviction. And when they do, they get sentenced to 10 years, and are back out in 5 years. It's crazy.

Out of all the recent mass shootings, how many of the shooter's guns were purchased from individual sales? As much as I can remember, every one of them was either stolen or bought from a store where the shooter passed the background check. It seems to me that the individual sales thing is going just fine the way it is.

Again a problem that the left seems to have. Make a bunch of rules, then don't enforce them or give lenient sentences. In Austin two years back an airport employee was caught stealing 8 firearms out of passenger luggage. He got a 18 month sentence, for 8 guns. He was out in 9 months or less. What example does this set? If we want to fix gun violence, start instituting mandatory minimums for gun crimes. One of two things will happen then. Either all these idiots will get locked up or people will start to get the message that you won't get a slap on the wrist anymore. This won't fix the crazy mass shooters but it will drastically reduce gun crimes.

None that I can remember. Problem is you can be crazy and not have a criminal history. No amount of rules will stop that, and if a firearm isn't available another method can easily be found....a box truck, diesel and fertilizer made that very clear.

I agree with you completely. What I am pointing out is that even though these people were able to buy them legally, and no amount of gun laws would have stopped them, some politicians are wanting to put laws in place because of these crimes. And the laws that they are proposing don't even address the methods that were used in these crimes. "Hmmm... the shooters are buying the guns from licensed gun dealers, passing criminal background checks, and then committing mass murders. I know how we can stop this! Let's force individual gun sales go through the same background checks!"

It's just

These are not the ones doing the mass shootings.

No but they account for the majority of gun deaths. The mass shootings as a whole are an anomaly in the grand scheme of gun deaths each year. It would be like trying to ban 737s because a high number of people died in a crash one year, then ignore the fact that private planes kill so many people that they are used in life insurance questionnaires.

I think that an email or a phone call to your State Rep. & Senator to let them know they WILL NOT get your vote by addressing issues that are not the problem! The next email or phone call needs to be to the Gov."s office and inform him of your decision of who you will not vote for.

The only way we can do anything done is to eliminate politicians that vote against us.

Same with always claiming fascism and yet they don't want us to have guns??? That makes no sense.

I doubt that, most people are killed by someone they know.

They actually have grounded the 737-MAX because it did kill alot of people in one year (few months actually).



Actually they are according to this...
New Republic article

"According to a 2011 FBI report, 54.3 percent of victims knew their killer. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that 93 percent of female victims knew their male assailants.

It really is a tough quandry. I think everyone wants something done, just that no one can agree on what. There's always a belief that if I do this "one thing", it will be the magic action which is sweeping and takes care of 51% of the problem. Expanded background checks won't do it, banning private sales, high capacity mags won't do it. I don't believe that singular action, which is constitutional, exists. I do however believe the sum total of individual actions could make a difference, with a difference being classified as "x" number of people aren't shot. For example, could the OH shooter have lit off 50 rounds in 32 seconds without a drum? Could he have done the same thing with say (3) 20 round mags? Probably not. Fewer people shot? Probably. Would he have still done it, if he didn't have the drum? Probably so.

I think one thing that is close to the "51% thing" is people are now speaking up and taking spoken words seriously. Here's something reported today.. wannabee shooter some likely loner college freshman was going to shoot folks up with a 9mm and shotgun (I'm sure purchased legally) if he didn't make it into a fraternity. Someone heard it, took it seriously, said something and now this dumbass is behind bars. Maybe this happens more often than we hear, but I think it's a good thing it's happening more and more.

Charlie

Why in the hell are google,twitter and fakebook in a meeting with our governor about gun laws? WTF business is it of theirs what the state of Texas does

Today, 110 people were killed in automobile accidents in the USA. Nobody is wanting to change the maximum speed limit to 45 to stop this horrible loss of life. Gun control has nothing to do with the actual loss of life. It's just politicians playing their games.

And 112 people die each day from second hand smoke.

^^100% correct.

21 years in the fire service. I don't know how many dead people I have seen due to car wrecks. I lost count a long time ago.

Gun deaths, I can count on my fingers, and have some left over. And the majority of those were self inflicted. Seen the pistol to the temple a bunch, the .22lr rifle into the soft pallet, pistol in the mouth, and one was into the heart. Almost never see a murder with a firearm.

Politicians are playing on people's emotions, nothing more.

Just want you to know that I am happy that you and people like you are out there doing your job because I don't think I could do it.

Apples and Oranges. How many of those auto accident deaths were intentional murders? Maybe 1 out of 100 or even 10 out of hundred, do not equal the 40 intentional murders committed daily in America.

Fun Fact: How many stores in Mexico can you buy legally buy a gun? Answer 1.

Yet, look at their current history of gun people violence.

Dan Patrick on Fox News now saying he and the governor are in agreement that "stranger to stranger" gun sales must be addressed. He claims that over 90% of convicted felons who committed a gun-related crime used a gun they purchased from a stranger.

It would seem current technology would make it easy to identify if someone is a convicted felon before you sell them a firearm.

Most information on convicted felons is public record. Create a database that allows joe citizen to check a person's status before selling a gun to them or buying a gun from them. Also, make that database to allow joe citizen to check a firearm serial number for stolen.

There...I just solved the problems with face to face firearm sales. Your Welcome.

Just My .02,
LeonCarr

Only if you have access to that information, which we don't unless you have a subscription to one of the open record sites. Even if you do, you don't have access to mental health records or knowledge of illegal drug abuse. Those are two other categories on the 4473. IMO, the mental health part is probably the most relevant to actual shootings, and the checks run by FFL's can't get that information either. When it comes to firearms, I'm just as concerned about a person's mental health issues or drug addiction as I am with their criminal history. I've dealt with enough meth monkeys over the years to know they're extremely unstable and unpredictable. Back when facebook still had all the gun classified groups I turned down many good offers on guns just because I checked the person's profile page and they looked sketchy as hell.

Quite a few of the mass shooters have shown some sort of mental instability, but only a few seemed to have sought professional help. Almost none have had a long term problem with the law, only a few scrapes and misdemeanors.

When these nut cases do decide to go on a killing spree, it seems that something triggered it? The last one at Odessa seemed to be triggered by the loss of his job. The El Paso shooter, his intense hatred of illegals, and how they had taken his jobs away from him.

National data base on everyone, open to any Tom Dick or Sally? Do you really want something like that? That could lead to some real abuse by people that have absolutely no need to get that type of information. Too easy now to get info on people just by using Google or Bing. Our lives are already almost an open book, but there has to be some privacy in our world.

On the non hunting and non gun forums there are discussions going on about gun control. most do not allow political discussions, but the ones that do are asking for a lot more than what most of you will be happy with.

I suggest having the county sheriffs offices handle the transfers. That might slow down the criminal element and they have access to data bases. Definitely a good place for a cash transfer for weapon, better than the Walmart parking lot.

It's not apples to oranges. Liberals want to ban an object, that is what I was referring to.

Hammers and clubs kill more people than rifles do. But they do not care about facts. And you cannot ban hammers and clubs, it is physically impossible. Cars kill more people than rifles and pistols, intentionally ir accidentally, but liberals don't want to give up their cars either, so they don't go after them.

Does anyone have a link to the number of mass shooting that involved an individual who purchased weapons from other individuals in private sales? They keep talking about this, what they call loophole, being one of the major problems.

I only know of 1 in the last couple years and it was the Odessa shooter.

I bet it is very small number.

No one gets in their car or grabs a hammer and hurts/kills a couple dozen or more people in a single event, several times a year.

Charlie

Yet... take guns out of the equation and evil people will find ways to do evil things. Box trucks and pressure cookers come to mind. Don’t take my rights away just because someone “might” do something. This isn’t minority report we can’t tell the future. However, I can tell you from history an unarmed populous doesn’t fair to well under tyranny.

I was simply providing context to the cars vs guns statement, where was I advocating taking a gun away from you? I have no intention of giving my own up.

I agree with you, evil people will continue to exist (and increase) and will cause us harm, which we can't predict. Shouldn't we do something to make it harder for them to arm themselves, even it creates an inconvenience for us?

IMHO, we make things worse for ourselves as gun owners, trying to convince ourselves no action can be taken as it can only lead to full confiscation, so most choose "no changes allowed". As gun owners, we are in the population minority (gun owner vs non-gun owner). The danger in doing nothing, is nothing changes and eventually, the majority will get their act together and bring about changes far greater than the steps we could be taking today.

Charlie

Are you by chance a Texas transplant?

Doesn’t have anything to do with us gun owners. The founders were pretty clear when they wrote it. “Shall not be infringed”. Making things more inconvenient for us isn’t going to change anything for criminals. Gun laws only work if people follow them. So yes you and I would follow the new laws because we’re law abiding citizens. Criminals not so much.

This is actually a prime example of why these changes wouldn’t work or change a thing. He failed a background check and couldn’t buy it from FFL. So he went to the next avenue which was private sales. If private sales required a background check he’d have failed that one as well. Then he would have went to the black market and got the gun and we’d still be sitting here discussing it because he would have still done it.

Hundreds of people in Europe would strongly disagree with you.

The "do something" phrase makes me laugh every time.

The "something" is to arm good people. Thus the reason public schools have staff that is armed.

This is not difficult.

On the contrary... People do get behind the wheel and kill something like 11K people a year and no one seems to think it is a problem.

Link from the CDC - https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

How many of those vehicle accidents are intentional, where someone got in to their car and started driving around just to kill other people? Very few, you are not providing facts for your side of the discussion.

Would that be the same as the armed school Security Guard in CO that shot one of the students by mistake? Clearly that's the answer.

Charlie

Yes, it is the same. With high standards, training and Continuing Education for all those carrying. You plucked out one incident. Do you know how many incidents happen a year where a good guy with a guy stops a bad guy? Thousands.

Does armed robbery happen more often in gun stores or convenience stores? How often do mass shootings happen at Police stations?

Once again, this is not difficult.

He needs a reminder. Make rules which take away freedom and you loose votes.

If you are going to use this example then there should be no police officer allowed to have a gun either.

They knew what they were doing when they got into their vehicle. I am sure everyone of them may not have intentionally gotten into their car to kill people but maybe some did. That is why they are charged with homicide and not murder.
But all that is besides the point.
The point is, these people make a choice to drive drunk and nearly 11K people are killed because of it every year. Way more than are killed by these crazies than are killed by crazies with guns.
Everyone turns a blind eye to it because it is a hard problem to solve and not politically tenable to address.

I always find it amazing how quickly people will jump to defend those that choose to drink, drive and kill innocent people and sometimes wipe out entire families but condemn those that choose to kill people with a gun.

The annual murder rate in America exceeds 16,000 every year. The rate of murder is high and read and heard about so often that people are not shocked by a murder, it takes a mass killing to make the front page for more than a day or two.

To compare the murder rate with facts of the driving under the influence solves neither problem and really is not offering any info to help solve either of the problems. That is rationalizing, which is as useless as the udders on a bull.

I see these signs at several schools at the football games we attend.

Murder rate by what means??? And thank you for you stating my point as it relates to DUI deaths.
No one cares because it is not on the tongue of a politician and mass shooters are. That does not change the fact that more people die from DUI related incidents than mass shootings. And the really important part is that it can be reduced to almost 0 by installing an interlock device in every car. But, people care more about their “personal freedoms” when it comes to drinking and driving than they do about “personal freedoms” when it comes to the constitution.

And look at the amount of criminal activity during prohibition.

One of those "well, that didn't work!"

Bypassing the second amendment is like calling for mass castration of good guys because rapes have been on the increase.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a societal/mental health problem. The "Well, we have to do something" attitude causes blind, knee jerk reactions. I will get onboard when I see a plan that actually keeps guns away from bad guys and does not reduce the gun rights of innocent men and women.

The reason why is simple on why the big corps are in on trying to get tougher gun laws, they are in lockstep with the media and the hater party for fear of losing favor in both. The ultimate goal is of course to disarm the American population. It will be a goal until it's done, they will never stop trying. Not sure why our governor is tossing in on the idea of stopping privates sales anymore than any other 'so called' conservative would. Could be a ploy to stop the argument in it's tracks or it could be baby steps towards the goal the socialists have in mind. We won't know until we see what comes out of the house in both the country and state.

It's a virtually impossible goal in this country, but you know they will never stop trying.

All these new regulations are coming, sooner than later

Makes me sick

There is no corporate profit in private sales!!!

Maybe this is just a stalling tactic to get it fall out of the news. Short of some kind of executive order or special session, they aren't going to do anything until they reconvene in 2021. So there is lots of time between now and then for this to go away. Call it a perk of having a state legislature that only meets every two years. They could also kill this in the scheduling committee like they've done with so many other things.

Most importantly, there are no taxes.

Abbott just released this, no mention of requiring background checks for private sales.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov...ollowing-recent-mass-shootings-in-texas/

This was in there as well: