"The future the GOP wants for all of America": Texas gun law unleashes deadly mayhem

[MiloMorai]

Anarchy coming.

"The future the GOP wants for all of America": Texas gun law unleashes deadly mayhem

"Insanity."

"Utter madness."

These are just some of the ways critics are describing Texas' new law allowing people to carry handguns in public without a permit—a Republican achievement that many local officials say has already led to a spike in spontaneous shootings in highly populated parts of the state.

 

In one high-profile case earlier this year, Tony Earls "pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an A.T.M. in Houston," The New York Times reported Wednesday. "Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her."

A grand jury declined to indict Earls, agreeing with his lawyer that "everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law."

 

[rmgill]

Constitutional carry has been legal across more than 25 states, for some states for decades. If this caused chaos, you could easily demonstrated so. 
 

instead we have your usual breathless fear mongering, hyperbole and lies. 
 

The only chaos it causes is leftist criminals are no longer free to victimize who they desire. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Let me see your tears Milo...

 

[Ivanhoe]

With diligence, focus, and hard work, maybe in two or three generations Texas can achieve the homicide rates of St. Louis, Chicago, etc.

 

[MiloMorai]

As the link dowsn't seem to work,

As the Times noted, "The shooting was part of what many sheriffs, police leaders, and district attorneys in urban areas of Texas say has been an increase in people carrying weapons and in spur-of-the-moment gunfire in the year since the state began allowing most adults 21 or over to carry a handgun without a license."

"Far from an outlier, Texas, with its new law, joined what has been an expanding effort to remove nearly all restrictions on carrying handguns," the newspaper continued. "When Alabama's 'permitless carry' law goes into effect in January, half of the states in the nation, from Maine to Arizona, will not require a license to carry a handgun."

"But Texas is the most populous state to do away with handgun permit requirements," the Times pointed out. "Five of the nation's 15 biggest cities are in Texas, making the permitless approach to handguns a new fact of life in urban areas to an extent not seen in other states."

"In the border town of Eagle Pass, drunken arguments have flared into shootings," the newspaper reported. "In El Paso, revelers who legally bring their guns to parties have opened fire to stop fights. In and around Houston, prosecutors have received a growing stream of cases involving guns brandished or fired over parking spots, bad driving, loud music, and love triangles."

"Who could've predicted arming folks without a license would result in this type of chaos?" columnist Wajahat Ali asked sardonically on social media.

Another person tweeted: "This is the future the GOP wants for all of America. Vote accordingly."

Peer-reviewed research published Wednesday showed that Americans are more likely to die early if they live in states dominated by right-wing lawmakers, and weak gun safety measures were among the factors driving up state-level mortality rates.

No statewide data on shootings has been released since the law—passed by Texas Republicans last spring—went into effect last September, but many law enforcement officials say the presence of firearms on the street has increased while handgun permit applications have decreased.

"It seems like now there's been a tipping point where just everybody is armed," said Sheriff Ed Gonzalez of Harris County, which includes Houston.

As the Times reported: "Recent debates over gun laws in Texas have not been limited to handgun licensing. After the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, gun control advocates have pushed to raise the age to purchase an AR-15-style rifle. And after the [United States] Supreme Court struck down New York's restrictive licensing program, a federal court in Texas found that a state law barring adults under 21 from carrying a handgun was unconstitutional. [Republican] Gov. Greg Abbott has suggested he agreed, even as the Texas Department of Public Safety, which oversees the state police, is appealing."

Meanwhile, the Texas GOP's assault on gun control is just part of a "state-by-state legislative push," which "has coincided with a federal judiciary that has increasingly ruled in favor of carrying guns and against state efforts to regulate them," the Times reported.

With their June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the high court's reactionary justices—most of whom were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote—struck down New York state's restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms in public. In the process, journalist Mark Joseph Stern argued, they enlarged the scope of the Second Amendment and made it harder for voters around the U.S. to protect communities "by enacting gun safety laws through the democratic process."

Calling it "a revolution in Second Amendment law," Stern wrote that "the Supreme Court has effectively rendered gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional."

Before the ruling was handed down, journalist Jay Michaelson shed light on the right's "preposterous misreading of the Second Amendment, funded largely by gun manufacturers," in a Rolling Stone essay:

"Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, until 2008, no federal court had held that the Second Amendment conveyed a right to own a gun. On the contrary, the Supreme Court clearly said that it didn't. [...] And what had once been a fringe view rejected by the Supreme Court—that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to own guns—gradually became Republican Party gospel when the fringe took over the party. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger (a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon) described it as 'a fraud on the Amer­ican public.'"

Years before making it easier to carry handguns in public, Texas Republicans turned their state into one of the 29 nationwide with so-called "stand your ground" laws. These laws, also known as "shoot first" laws, upend the common law principle of a "duty to retreat," enabling individuals to use deadly force in purported self-defense as a first, rather than last, resort.

A study published earlier this year found that "shoot first" laws are associated with hundreds of additional firearm homicides each year.

Although Texas was one of the few states where the enactment of "shoot first" laws did not lead to a significant change in gun homicide rates between 2000 and 2016, it remains to be seen if its new permitless carry law will generate a surge in violent encounters between armed parties claiming "self-defense."

Last week in Florida, which became the first state to enact a "shoot first" law by statute in 2005, a man and his teenage son were arrested for attempted murder after allegedly shooting at a woman whom they suspected of being a burglar.

There are more guns than people in the U.S., and due to National Rifle Association-bankrolled Republicans' opposition to meaningful gun safety laws, it remains relatively easy for people to purchase and carry firearms in many states.

As a result, there have been thousands of mass shootings since 2012, and guns recently became the leading cause of death among children and teens in the United States.

Studies have shown that gun regulations with high levels of public support, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, help reduce the number and severity of fatal mass shootings.

"We don't have to live this way," mom, teacher, and Democratic Minnesota House of Representatives candidate Erin Preese said Monday after a deadly school shooting in St. Louis. "Vote for lawmakers who will stand up to the gun lobby. Our kids' lives depend on it."

[NickM]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

With diligence, focus, and hard work, maybe in two or three generations Texas can achieve the homicide rates of St. Louis, Chicago, etc.

 

To be fair, Houston is kind of a kill zone among the homies and the vatos 

[jmsaari]

"In one high-profile case earlier this year, Tony Earls "pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an A.T.M. in Houston," The New York Times reported Wednesday. "Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.

A grand jury declined to indict Earls, agreeing with his lawyer that "everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.""

This particular part sounds off. I have a hard time believing any law says it's justified to shoot at a car you think may be driven by a guy who earlier robbed you, miss, and kill an innocent bystander instead. Either the grand jury made a very strange decision, or the story has some significant bits missing.

As for Texas laws, i was under the impression open carry had been legal, either no permit needed or shall-issue policy, there for some time already? How much real difference has any recent new law made? Murph (welcome back, btw), if you care to chime in if you happen to see this?

[R011]

55 minutes ago, jmsaari said:

"In one high-profile case earlier this year, Tony Earls "pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an A.T.M. in Houston," The New York Times reported Wednesday. "Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.

A grand jury declined to indict Earls, agreeing with his lawyer that "everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.""

This particular part sounds off. I have a hard time believing any law says it's justified to shoot at a car you think may be driven by a guy who earlier robbed you, miss, and kill an innocent bystander instead. Either the grand jury made a very strange decision, or the story has some significant bits missing.

As for Texas laws, i was under the impression open carry had been legal, either no permit needed or shall-issue policy, there for some time already? How much real difference has any recent new law made? Murph (welcome back, btw), if you care to chime in if you happen to see this?

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/no-indictment-for-robbery-victim-who-allegedly-killed-9-year-old-girl-by-mistake/

Earls believed that the armed assailant had just fired at him so he fired back.

 

[rmgill]

 The presumption is if the deadly force use was reasonable or not. NOT if the end result was desired or not. The accidental killing is a grossly bad result. I'm not sure it rises to murder or illegal homicide given the un-intentional nature. If the whole set of facts of the firing at the valid target and unforeseen events leading to the death of the girl, then it's probably not an unreasonable result. Earls will still have to live with that death and it very well could destroy him. 

This is a military forum. We discuss the reality of collateral damage/death all the time as a factor of history. This is not very dissimilar. Was the collateral damage expected?  Were steps taken to avoid it? 
 

[MiloMorai]

"In the border town of Eagle Pass, drunken arguments have flared into shootings," the newspaper reported. "In El Paso, revelers who legally bring their guns to parties have opened fire to stop fights. In and around Houston, prosecutors have received a growing stream of cases involving guns brandished or fired over parking spots, bad driving, loud music, and love triangles."

Gun vilence increased.

[MiloMorai]

"Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, until 2008, no federal court had held that the Second Amendment conveyed a right to own a gun. On the contrary, the Supreme Court clearly said that it didn't. [...] And what had once been a fringe view rejected by the Supreme Court—that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to own guns—gradually became Republican Party gospel when the fringe took over the party. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger (a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon) described it as 'a fraud on the Amer­ican public.'"

I guess Ryan didn't read because he surely would have had something to say.

[Ivanhoe]

3 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

"In the border town of Eagle Pass, drunken arguments have flared into shootings," the newspaper reported. "In El Paso, revelers who legally bring their guns to parties have opened fire to stop fights. In and around Houston, prosecutors have received a growing stream of cases involving guns brandished or fired over parking spots, bad driving, loud music, and love triangles."

Gun vilence increased.

Um, the town of Eagle Pass, these days, is over 50% illegal immigrants.

[Murph]

We have had it for a while, and before I retired I certainly did not see a spike in any gun violence, if anything a slight decrease until 2020 and the war on police started.  I also have seen very few "open carry" people, I saw one the other day at Black Rifle Coffee and had a nice conversation with him on his holster choice (it was a custom elephant hide).  I never open carry, but I carry every day.  

In Texas ANY use of deadly force is investigated and 99.99% of the time taken to the Grand Jury to make the determination if it was justified under section 9 of the Texas Penal Code. Section 9 is pretty darn specific when deadly force can and cannot be used.  The legal standard is "Was the force used, legal, proportional to the threat, and within the law?"  Having had to use deadly force twice in my career, both times the answer was "yes" after the Grand Jury met.  Remember the legal standard is spelled out in Section 9 of the Texas Penal Code.  

Any thing else is just hysterical knee jerk leftist drivel by people who have no idea what the legal standard is.  

Also stand your ground only means you have no legal obligation to retreat when you are inside of your "castle".  In other states the standard is run away! Run Away!.  Castle Doctrine or stand your ground just means you do not have an OBLIGATION to retreat, you have the OPTION to do so, but are not required to do so.  The person who wrote this article is a moron, who has no idea, and probably wears lace underwear, and screams at spiders it is written in such a breathlessly hysterical manner.  Plus I suspect they are from some northeastern state where Criminals are allowed greater rights than citizens.

I have also helped investigate multiple deadly use of force incidents, and none of them were determined to be unjustified under the law as spelled out in Section 9 of the Texas Penal Code.  As a matter of fact a week before I retired I helped the Ranger investigate a shooting where our deputies killed a man, who had just shot his estranged wife three times right in front of them.  Under Section 9 of the Texas Penal Code it was totally justified.  

Reading the breathless, heaving prose of the article, I have little other than contempt for the author.

[sunday]

I wonder if that author has ever written about people, including kids, hurt by stray bullets shot in gang conflicts at such enlightened places as inner Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. 

[rmgill]

They never cover that to any great fanfare, nor do they loudly trumpet the folks injured or killed by BLM rioters.

Like the murder of Secoria Turner. It was never covered to the same degree that Rayshard Brook's shooting involved. 


https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/14/us/secoriea-turner-killing-indictments/index.html

The fact that 8 YO turner was in a car blocked by a barricade erected by 'peaceful protestors' who then fired in to the car as it was turning around...if you want to know why I have such an issue with nimrods using the term "social protest" when it comes to murderous riots...that's an example why. 

[NickM]

6 hours ago, Murph said:

 In other states the standard is run away! Run Away!.

Wasn't this how 'Stand your ground/castle doctrine' got started (sort of)? Some dolt DA tried to prosecute a senior citizen because they didn't/couldn't 'run away' from their attacker? In one case, there was an old lady who 'retreated' to her house, then retreated upstairs, when the perp broke into the house; then she retreated to her room when the perp continued to pursue her. Finally she locked herself in her room and when the perp broke down the door, she shot him. The prosecutor tried to charge her saying she should have 'jumped out the window'.

[rmgill]

I think that stand your ground has been differentiated from castle doctrine. Where it manifsts is cases like domestic violence/estranged spouse incidents where a separated partner enters and asserts some ability to be there and there's question as to if the, usually a woman, must retreat. 

Clayton Cramer cites these in a blog posts.

Fortunately, the courts have had the good sense to recognize that there is no duty to retreat in your own home and have ordered retrials with different jury instructions.  Just a couple of examples: State v. Livesay, 233 P. 2d 432 (Idaho 1951) (woman shot, perhaps by accident, her abusive husband when he returned home from jail for domestic violence and attacked her; her right to defend herself in her own home was upheld against a jury instruction denying her the right to use deadly force when she had provoked the confrontation; also found that a “duty to retreat” instruction was incorrect). Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) (duty to retreat not applicable in one’s own residence, even when the attacker is her spouse).  State v. Thomas (Ohio 1997) (no duty to retreat in one's own residence, even when the attacker has an equal right to be there):


Here's a more expansive paper he wrote on the SYG laws. 

 

If you prefer a video format, he's Massad Ayoob and Clayton Cramer covering the subject. 
 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by rmgill

[Skywalkre]

On 10/29/2022 at 8:13 AM, Ivanhoe said:

With diligence, focus, and hard work, maybe in two or three generations Texas can achieve the homicide rates of St. Louis, Chicago, etc.

Interestingly enough I've seen some pushback on this narrative in the last week or so.  This post made the front page of reddit a few days ago (to be fair the article and discussion focused on all aspects of mortality, not just homicide rate).  Before that a talking head on one of the programs I was watching mentioned this study from a center-left nonprofit I've never heard of.  Initially it just seemed like D flailing against what we've seen as an effective strategy from Rs pushing the 'rising crime' narrative as a major issue in the election.  Looking closer, though, there may be something to it. 

Just go look at the CDC's listing of homicide mortality by state (latest info is from 2020).  As you can see IL and MO have a higher rate than TX... but go look at CA.  Largest population in the country, solidly D, and a lower rate than TX and AZ.  Sort the states by mortality rates and the majority of the top ten are all solidly R states.  That page also links to more info per state and per the discussion in that reddit thread CA has much better infant mortality and life expectancy than TX and AZ (IL even beats TX in life expectancy and has similar infant mortality numbers).

Shock, surprise... but this discussion may have more nuance to it.

[Tim Sielbeck]

As in all things statistics I want to see the data they used to create the chart and a description of their methodology.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Tim Sielbeck

[rmgill]

And track by Zip code. Again, in Georgia. Atlanta's metro area, run by Democrats, is going to have the lion's share of homicides, police dysfunction and violent crime. 

[Skywalkre]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:23 PM, Tim Sielbeck said:

As in all things statistics I want to see the data they used to create the chart and a description of their methodology.

I'm in complete agreement.

I think the follow-up to that was were we always doing this with the notions we've been pushing all along?  Reading the start of that think tank article they mention that while many of these D cities we all know of do have high murder rates... there's apparently several R cities with issues as well that were never part of the narrative.

Going back to that CDC data - if the R states that are the majority of top states with the highest murder rates are there because of a few D cities inside their borders... why aren't states that are overwhelmingly D at the top of the list?  If it's simply Ds being in charge then states that are heavily D across the board should be at the top of the list.  Instead, many of them are near the bottom (OR, MN, New England, the list goes on).  Something just doesn't add up here...

[rmgill]

Which cities? Which demographic? There's a common thread among ALL of these cities with poverty stricken parts of the city. ALL are on federal teat. All have the war on poverty making poverty and single fatherhood more attractive. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

... there's apparently several R cities with issues as well that were never part of the narrative.

Really?  There are large cities run by R's for many years/decades?  Where?

[Skywalkre]

19 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Really?  There are large cities run by R's for many years/decades?  Where?

The example they use is Jacksonville.  Except for 4 years it's been run by Rs going back to '93.  Homicide rate isn't near the worst in the country but still up there for major metro areas.  How many other R cities aren't near the top but further down the list and ignored?  Maybe these cities aren't the worst but possibly still bad.  This could help explain why so many R states are overall high up on the list. 

[Skywalkre]

22 hours ago, rmgill said:

Which cities? Which demographic? There's a common thread among ALL of these cities with poverty stricken parts of the city. ALL are on federal teat. All have the war on poverty making poverty and single fatherhood more attractive. 

There are poverty stricken parts to cities in predominantly D states as well... so this wouldn't really matter.  Unless you're arguing that D policies in those states may be contributing to lowering the homicide rate (never penned you for a D-policy sympathizer 😜 ).