There are ways to keep guns from criminals
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down New York's law requiring applicants prove “good cause” to qualify for a concealed handgun license. There are three reasons this was the right decision: There is no other constitutionally enumerated right for which a citizen must prove a need; evidence in the multitude of states without a good cause requirement is that handgun licensees are exceptionally law abiding; and, unlike other states that regulate who can carry, where they can carry and what they can carry, the New York law wants to know why.
It's the why that makes the New York concealed carry law unconstitutional.
I own dozens of firearms and have lots of ammunition. I own fully automatic and federally licensed machine guns. I carry a handgun at all times, not because I'm afraid, but because I always know where it is, and so it won't be stolen from my vehicle or home. In 1995 I was the Texas Senate author of Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.
The Houston Chronicle editorial board has long made arguments against gun rights based on emotion, not solid evidence or no evidence at all. This reflects a broader problem in the debate over guns.
Chronicle editorials regarding the concealed handgun law when it was being debated predicted a dramatic increase in shootouts and gun deaths across Texas. A Chronicle article from March 16, 1995, quoted my colleague, Sen. Greg Luna, “It is going to be a much more dangerous and deadly society we have imposed on ourselves in Texas,” as well as many other naysayers. It didn't happen.
In fact, firearms homicides after the passage of SB 60 declined 42 percent during the period from 1996 to 2012. Texas Department of Public Safety data indicates that in 2021, there were 124,280 Texans convicted of a serious crime and only 178 (0.1416 percent) were license holders — more proof that licensed carry does not increase firearm-related deaths.
Nonetheless, in their dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan predicted, without any factual basis, the 6-3 decision that eliminated the good cause requirement “severely burdens” states' efforts to reduce gun crime. They chose to ignore that the predicted carnage in other states with unfettered license to carry laws didn't happen, or maybe their bias against the Second Amendment is so compelling as to be irrational.
While there is no connection between licensed carry and the recent shootings, the Chronicle's editorial board seems to link the two and laments that “nowhere in the majority opinion is there a direct mention of the shootings that have been increasingly common.” What the board, and others, fail to consider is that the Supreme Court case was not about the kind of regulations that could prevent the tragedy that happened in Uvalde. It is bizarre to suggest that a person who would commit a capital crime of mass murder would be concerned about a misdemeanor crime of unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license.
Are there actions that Congress or state legislatures can take to reduce mass shootings? Yes, there are. Unfortunately, during these trying times when you would think our elected folks might be inclined to cast aside their respective bumper sticker cliches advocating socalled solutions that if implemented will make no measurable difference, they don't.
It's folly to think an assault weapons ban is the answer. There's 20 million of them out there, and very few owners are going to turn them in. Considering that almost all mass shooters bought their weapons after passing a background check, “closing the gun show loophole” seems of little value. The same applies to waiting periods, as well as bans on high-capacity magazines. Someone who's been posting on social media their intent to shoot up a school for weeks or months clearly isn't worried about immediacy, and just like turning in your AR-15, nobody is going to turn in their high-capacity magazines either. The list of measures that if passed would simply allow politicians to go home and claim “we got something done,” but would make no real difference is lengthy.
However, there are a couple of measures that could make a significant difference. When you consider that many, if not most, school shooters have telegraphed their intentions on social media weeks or months beforehand, there must be a constitutional means to remove firearms from these ticking time bombs. It can be done and be respectful of constitutional due process. The concern over ex parte hearings can be fixed, and there can be a criminal penalty for making a false complaint.
The other measure, which is as much an act of personal responsibility as it is legislation, is keeping your firearm in your hands, and out of the hands of kids and criminals. I'm often asked, “why do you carry a handgun all the time”? My answer is, “because I always know where it is, and it's not going to be stolen from my vehicle or home.”
Today's problem is too much time and energy is wasted on debating and litigating issues like New York's “good cause” requirement, which would not make us safer, and not enough time is dedicated to measures such as removing firearms from those who by their own admission are a threat to themselves and others. The Bipartisan Safe Communities Act, negotiated by Sen. John Cornyn, correctly focuses on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, not of law-abiding Americans.
Politicians should do something that makes a difference. Not something that makes them look like they did something useful when they didn't.
We're running out of time, and we're running out of patience.