Texas Lt. Gov. Won't Commit To Law Requiring Safe Storage Of Guns

[turbinetree]

Source: Talking Points Memo

By Matt Shuham | May 20, 2018 10:39 am

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Sunday would not say whether he would support a law requiring the safe storage of firearms.

The Friday shooting at Sante Fe High School was believed to have been carried out with the gunman’s father’s pistol and shotgun. Responding to the shooting, Patrick urged gun-owning parents to “lock your guns safely away.”

“Should that be law?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Patrick in an interview Sunday.

“In many cases, there are laws, depending on the states, and I’m sure there is some federal law regarding your culpability in a crime using a gun if it is your gun, or if you own a gun,” Patrick responded.

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-lt-gov-wont-commit-to-law-requiring-safe-storage-of-guns

---

-snip-

Tapper tied once more: “There isn’t a law requiring safe storage.”

“Jake, Jake– ” Patrick began. “I didn’t come on with you this morning to go through the entire penal code of the federal government or the state.”


Then why did you go on the show.................asshole, send thoughts and prayers, and how spineless your legislature is....................


But zippy the pin head can make a comment that "schools" should have only one exit and entrance........................



What a asshole........................

[CanonRay]

1. He has to check with his ownership first

[turbinetree]

2. NO Kidding, see which string will move his mouth

[Paladin]

3. So glad to see Danny Goeb (his real name) humiliating himself on national TV.

An absolutely worthless individual.

[DFW]

4. Our brainless Lt. Gov. is in for a shock

Even in Texas we have laws "regarding your culpability" even if you use someone else's gun to kill people.

Whoever tells him had better keep smelling salts handy, I guess........

[keithbvadu2]

5. Responsible gun ownership - isn't.

Responsible gun ownership - isn't.

The party of personal responsibility doesn't like it for its own actions.

[ananda]

6. This is not news .. that Patrick is an asshole, that is.

He's always been one.

[Igel]

7. He's not stupid.

"Yes, I support such laws."

"That means you support mandatory jail time for anybody with a gun who doesn't keep it under lock and key in a safe approved by this regulatory body at all times, unless it's with you at a practice range or for some other legal use?" Along with 20 other provisions.

It's foolish to agree to something you don't know in detail.

If there was the presumption of cooperation and ill will, then there could be a discussion and once reported on, good will would still allow for ambiguity and misspeaking. But in a highly polarized, highly judgmental society replete with gotcha politics, the best response is the response that has the least information; the best candidate is one that has all the right words and no past.

[duforsure]

8. More evidence

How completely corrupted Texan Republicans truly are. Nov. will be here soon.

[NutmegYankee]

9. Such laws are useless window dressing in the United States because of the 4th Amendment

All that they could be used for is punishment after the fact. Prevention would require compliance or enforcement measures, but since homes cannot be subjected to search without probable cause that a crime is occuring and warrants issued based on that probable cause, those laws cannot prevent reckless storage.

[thucythucy]

10. Well, lots of laws can only be used for "punishment after the fact."

Laws against rape, murder, kidnapping, assault and battery, robbery, burglary....

So we should scrap those laws because they can't "prevent" the crimes listed?

Maybe if a few careless gun owners were sentenced to serious prison time for their negligence, it might wake up some others to their responsibility. The idea here would be deterrence, which itself is a form of prevention.

[NutmegYankee]

13. The laws you mentioned are malum in se.

They are universally recognized as wrong and normal moral people will avoid committing them. Malum prohibitum laws on the other hand usually need some enforcement to get people to comply.

I believe permits to buy a gun are a better way to go. Every potential gun owner gets trained on safe storage (and consequences of not doing so) as part of that training.

[thucythucy]

14. You mean to tell me that most gun owners don't think leaving guns out

for their children or adolescents to use is "wrong"?

Seriously, that's your argument?

[NutmegYankee]

15. You and I consider it stupid. but believe me, we are not as common as you'd like.

I even saw a police officer go home and just put his service pistol on a high bookshelf. He has kindergarten age children. I practically went apeshit when I saw that.

[thucythucy]

16. All the more reason then to pass and enforce laws that punish this kind of stupidity.

People used to think it was no big deal to drive drunk, and deaths from drinking related accidents were considered "just the way it is." Then Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other victim groups began a campaign to pass tough laws punishing people caught driving under the influence. The result: a measurable drop in drinking related fatalities and injuries.

The fact that so called responsible gun owners are in fact mostly cavalier about how they store their weapons makes the case for such laws that much stronger. We wouldn't be in this mess if so many "responsible gun owners" weren't in fact such clueless dolts.

[NutmegYankee]

17. I think requiring a permit (with education) prior to purchase would do a bit better.

Drunk driving currently can be enforced with road checkpoints and roving patrols. These stop many drivers driving under the influence before they cause a wreck or death/injury. My original point was laws requiring locking weapons away are good policy/good practice, but they cannot be effectively enforced to prevent the deaths. All that can be done is punish the negligent after the event has occurred.

Requiring a permit process to buy a gun would make everyone get educated on the penalties/responsibility/securing methods first, and likely reduce some of the deaths/injuries.

[thucythucy]

18. The one reform doesn't preclude the other.

Laws against murder, rape, burglary, shoplifting... only come into play after the crime is committed. that's hardly a valid argument against having such laws.

By all means, gun permits, mandatory safety education, also good things.

[NutmegYankee]

19. As I mentioned in post 13, those types of laws are different.

And people treat them differently in their daily lives. Basically every person will consider murder, rape, theft, etc to be wrong. But people often don't with storage - and the issue you keep running into is "not my child" or "it will never happen to me". I've heard people talk about their parents leaving a shotgun beside the door during their childhood and they never touched it because they were told not to. That is what we face.

[thucythucy]

20. I don't understand why you think this is a salient point.

Most gun owners, you say, don't think it's important to safely store their guns. Therefore, we shouldn't pass laws requiring them to do so.

There are people I know who consider a stop sign to be more a suggestion than a command. So maybe we should take down all the stop signs?

Everything you tell me about "responsible" gun owners you know only reinforces my conviction that such laws are needed.

Strange how one of the prime go-to arguments for those opposed to reasonable gun laws is that gun owners won't obey them. And yet we're told again and again how most gun owners are law abiding responsible citizens. Bizarre.

[NutmegYankee]

21. You keep misrespresenting my point.

You can pass such laws but unless you generate a way to bypass the prohibition on warrant-less searches, it accomplishes very little. It's just human nature, backed by countless psychological studies on human behavior. I'm not saying we shouldn't have such laws to punish negligence, I'm just saying they won't be very effective at prevention. As I stated earlier, most states already have such laws.

And as for the rant on responsibility - just look at the fucking slobs that back trump! Do you actually think they are capable of responsibility or common sense?

[thucythucy]

22. Passage of such laws will almost certainly be more effective

than having no such laws at all.

True, we won't be breaking into people's homes to see that they're obeying the law. Of course not. But if a gun owner somewhere reads or hears about someone going to prison because a gun they didn't safely store was used in a crime, and that gun owner then takes steps to secure THEIR guns, we might well prevent another atrocity. Surely that would then be worth it, don't you think?

I would say preventing one mass shooting, saving those lives, is accomplishing quite a lot. Especially if it's my life, or the lives of my loved ones, directly involved.

[NutmegYankee]

23. It would be worth it.

I think keeping some of these people from getting guns at all would be even more worth it. A thorough and paced permit process would weed out the less serious people who also tend to be the most reckless. Though even then, there are just some really stupid people...

[lark]

11. Murderer by proxy.

All legislators who vote against sane gun laws are murderers by proxy, same as the dad of the Santa Fe killer. He knew his son was unstable and had posted on FB that he was a wanna-be killer and still left his guns unsecured. He should be in jail with his son as an accessory to murder. Thats one of the bigger changes needed, gun locks have to be mandated along with storing guns in a secured location. Also, no large capacity magazines, no bump stocks, no assault weapons, buy back for assault weapons before owning becomes totally illegal, background checks for any and all purchases including private party, waiting period of 10 days, no one with warrant for stalking and no one on terrorist watch list get guns, CDC compiles all data on gun injuries and reports on this to the public once a year.

[Aristus]

12. " 'Course not! 'Cause the Injuns is gonna attack our homesteads,

and the neegras is gonna rise up in insurrection! So we's got's to have our gunz, pardner!"

[Initech]

24. He has got to go!

[mpcamb]

26. Agree. Kick his ass to the roadside. Seems like 50% of voters could agree/ are sane.

[dlk]

25. Why be Logical, Even if it Saves Lives? Too Much Lobbyist Money is at Stake - the Real Priority

[lunasun]

27. Not even his real name and he was a talk radio guy so thoughts and prayers are his fake schtick

plus fake distractions like this . Wish media would stop giving him time to talk
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/us/texas-lieutenant-governor-dan-patrick-reasons-for-school-shootings/index.html

wiki
Dan Goeb Patrick (born Dannie Scott Goeb;[1] April 4, 1950)[2][3] is an American radio talk show host and politician from Houston, Texas. He is the 42nd and current lieutenant governor of Texas, serving since January 2015.

[inwiththenew]

28. It a good common sense bill but will really only prevent small children from getting the guns

A late teenager or adult with a hour so could defeat almost any safe you could realistically fit into a residential building with an angle grinder. Still I'd be for it.

[apnu]

29. Hey Dan, in case you're too stupid to get it, Tapper's asking about TEXAS laws

Since you are the Lieutenant Governor. That is something that falls under your jurisdiction and you could talk about it.

Gods and Demons, what a moron he is.