Senate Select Committee on Violence in Schools & School Security July 24, 2018 | Red Flag Proposal Tesmony from Gun Owners of America Presented by Rachel Malone | [email protected] | 512‑937‑3006

Posion: We oppose Red Flag proposals. We ask that the commiee report reflect that Texas does not need a Red Flag type law, and that such a law would result in decreased freedom without increasing safety.

Reasons: ● Gun owners would be forced to defend themselves in court without probable cause of a crime being commied. ● Courts could order firearm confiscaon potenal gun confiscaon without even probable cause of crime being commied. ● In addion to the wrongfulness of taking to court a cizen who has not violated any law, the burden in me, money, and life impact of mounng a court defense can be steep. ● The standard of “risk” or “potenal danger” is too low for a person’s Constuonal right to keep and bear arms to be hampered. ● This would also set a dangerous precedent for lowering thresholds for stripping people of other Constuonal rights. ● Our jusce system is supposed to prosecute and punish people who have broken an actual law, not those who are thought to be likely to commit a crime in the future. Wading into predicve judicial acon is very dangerous. ● If a person is actually demonstrably dangerous enough to righully warrant stripping of Constuonal rights ‑‑ address the person, not a parcular weapon that they might choose. ● There is high potenal for abuse under Red Flag type concepts ‑‑ either by those who want to cause trouble for someone, or by those who are irraonally afraid of gun ownership. ● Many other states have rejected Red Flag type proposals ‑‑ and with good reason. At the me of wring, the list of failed Red Flag proposals included Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. ● Gun control groups recognize Red Flag laws as a means of advancing their gun control agenda. They see it as a gateway for other gun control measures, and they are very interested in Texas passing Red Flag as the pping point for even more gun control laws in Texas and beyond. ● It builds on the false premise that we can stop evil and seeks to improve safety by removal of a tool. ● Our judicial system is supposed to err on the side of not punishing those who may be innocent ‑‑ there is a high standard for denial of rights. ● Focusing on prevenng anyone who might possibly be under suspect of causing harm from having access to firearms is likely to abridge the rights and decrease the safety of peaceful, law‑abiding cizens. ● Suggesons to strip cizens of rights based on what they might do is dangerous to liberty and our founding principles of due process. ● Exisng law includes Mental Health Commitments which address a person who poses a risk of danger to himself or others.

Alternave Proposal: To increase school safety, end gun‑free zones.

We recommend reducing government prohibions on law‑abiding Texans’ ability to carry their personal firearms. This is the least expensive and most efficient way to harden schools and provide responsible adults a fighng chance at protecng themselves and students and migang harm from inevitable aempts at violence.

Instead of looking only at law enforcement‑based soluons, look at reducing barriers for everyday Texans who are teachers and volunteers in schools to be able to carry a firearm if they choose. L et’s find soluons that increase safety without reducing freedom.

References: ● States Rejecng Red Flag Laws: hps://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red‑flag‑laws‑pending‑bills‑tracker‑nra/ ● Fourth Amendment US Constuon (see also Art 1, Sec. 9, Texas Constuon): “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmaon, and parcularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” ● Massachuses‑based “Stop Handgun Violence” co‑founder John Rosenthal / USA Today arcle: “Of all the gun initiatives, such as uniform background checks or bans on assault‑style weapons, red flag law proposals seem to have the greatest momentum since the Parkland shoong, winning biparsan support in several states, said John Rosenthal, co‑founder of the Massachuses‑based Stop Handgun Violence. ‘It's the new and probably most prevalent discussion around gun violence prevenon, post‑Parkland,’ he said. If a similar law is passed in Texas, a gun‑friendly state, the iniave could get a major boost naonally. ‘It might help be a pping point for states who have been tradionally opposed to any gun violence prevenon,’ Rosenthal said.” (See hps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/31/ red‑flag‑laws‑santa‑fe‑shoong‑texas‑guns‑abbo‑trump/658843002/) ● Ninth Circuit last week affirmed the district court opinion: “Violent gun use is a constuonally‑protected means for law‑abiding cizens to protect themselves from criminals. The phrase “gun violence” may not be invoked as a talismanic incantaon to jusfy any exercise of state power. Implicit in the concept of public safety is the right of law‑abiding people to use firearms and the magazines that make them work to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and their state against all armed enemies, foreign and domesc. To borrow a phrase, it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of public safety and reducing gun violence, statutes were permied to subvert the public’s Second Amendment rights — which may repel criminal gun violence and which ulmately ensure the safety of the Republic.” (See w ww.naonalreview.com/2018/07/ninth‑circuit‑protects‑gun‑rights‑california/) ● Exisng Texas law: ○ Magistrate’s Temporary Protecve Order (Texas Code Crim. Proc. 17.292) ‑ aer an arrest for an offense involving family violence or other specified items ○ Family Violence Protecve Order (Texas Family Code, Title 4) ‑ when family violence has occurred and is likely to occur again ○ Mental Health Commitments (Texas Mental Health Code, Title 7) ‑ clear and convincing evidence that the person is a danger to self or others (specific requirements)