Horowitz: There is no good federal response to school shootings



They are not coming for your guns; they are coming for your bodies.

Unlike most other policy issues, Republicans tend to be united about guns and rarely submit to pressure – even when induced by a tragedy like Uvalde – to promote broad gun control measures. However, there is a greater political threat to which they might succumb, one that not only criminalizes guns but criminalizes our existence. Beware of the clamor to “do something” on mental illness tied to red-flag laws, for nothing good will come of it.

On the surface, focusing on mental illness and flagging those who seem to fit the profile of the Parkland or Uvalde shooters seems to be an attractive alternative to gun control. Which is why Republican senators are flocking to it in droves. After all, we are all frustrated about the fact that nearly every one of these shooters was known to members of the community (and even law enforcement) as a potential threat, and nothing was done to intervene. However, any effort to give more authority to the legal system, particularly the federal government, will not result in stopping a single one of these shooters and will instead be used against people like us.

Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) are all joining with Democrats to work out a federal response to mental health and red-flag laws. From the get-go, conservatives should draw the line at federal legislation. This is the sort of issue that needs to be dealt with at the county and school district levels and must be focused on fostering concealed carry and better security at the schools. Any federal intervention will lead to tyranny with numerous strings attached to funding programs they funnel through the states. In fact, the only federal legislation that is appropriate is the repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.

Let’s not forget that in the country we live in today, our government considers conservatives to be the biggest red-flag threats to society. In February, the DHS posted a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin identifying ordinary people who hold different views from the elites on COVID policies and election security as the number-one terrorism threat. Under “Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment,” the very first factor listed is “The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions.”

Then there is the Garland memo on school boards. Last year, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he is directing the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with state and local law enforcement on how to combat what he referred to as "threats of violence" against school board officials by protesters of critical race theory.

"The Justice Department will also create specialized training and guidance for local school boards and school administrators," said Garland in a DOJ press release. "This training will help school board members and other potential victims understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes."

Does anyone think that a federal program to “deal with” mental illness and red flags would not be turned against us? Consider the number of conservative veterans they can easily suggest suffer from PTSD and use these new programs and policies to flag their public statements as looming threats. They can use their political statements as pretext to not only confiscate their guns but even to commit them to mental institutions.

Remember, we already have laws on the books in the states to commit people to mental institutions by force. In fact, it’s the left that has long opposed, and successfully stopped, the states from locking up the criminally insane, especially among the violent homeless criminals we see in cities like New York. So why would they be so eager to pass new red-flag laws rather than using the ones on the books? It’s all about due process or the lack thereof.

As Rep. Thomas Massie, chair of the Second Amendment Caucus, warned last week, unlike existing laws, which require a formal hearing and counsel for the accused, red-flag laws being proposed could strip people of their rights based on a written complaint from a neighbor alone. We have already witnessed so many doctors who prescribed ivermectin who had their licenses threatened based on complaints – not from patients, but from political enemies. We live in such a terribly divided country that leftists will use these laws against conservatives who absolutely don’t fit the profile of the Uvalde shooter.

Sensing conservative opposition to red-flag laws, Sen. Lindsey Graham claims that he opposes a federal law, but at the same time he is now pushing for a federal grant program to help fund state red-flag laws. But we all know how that ends. Just like with the endless COVID funding, where states were beholden to the CDC’s policies, so to the states will follow the feds’ lead on who is and isn’t a mental health threat and the process through which to determine it.

Now consider which agency would likely be involved in spearheading such a program. Well, none other than the FBI, of course. This same Lindsey Graham recently suggested he agrees to FBI Director Christopher Wray’s request for record funding for the organization. As Julie Kelly warns, “If he gets his way, Wray will control a $10.7 billion budget next year—a $1.4 billion increase over 2020—and nearly 37,000 employees.” She reminds us that “for nearly a year and a half, armed FBI agents across the country have raided, interrogated, and arrested more than 800 Americans on mostly nonviolent offenses related to January 6, 2021, a four-hour protest that Wray considers an ‘act of domestic terror.’”

If you think that pumping more money into an FBI red-flag program will be used to thwart the next shooter rather than being used against us, you must be on a ventilator.

The real answer is to terminate gun-free zones. That is the real political battle that will have an immediate impact on saving lives. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who led the investigation into the 2018 Parkland shooting, actually changed his position in favor of arming school officials and teachers. “People need to keep an open mind to it, as the reality is that if someone else in that school had a gun, it could have saved kids’ lives.”

We need to neutralize threats, not allow a very flawed and capricious government to arbitrarily determine who is a threat based on proceedings outside due process. If COVID didn’t teach us that allowing government to determine who is a threat to others is extremely dangerous, then we deserve the trap in which we they will ensnare us.

Jean-Pierre Says Biden Doesn’t Care About ‘Hardening Schools’

'That is not something he believes in'

Dan Crenshaw rebuffs CNN's Dana Bash time and time again in back-and-forth interview about guns and gun control



Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R) sat down for a lengthy interview with CNN anchor Dana Bash over the weekend to discuss the nation's path forward following last week's atrocious school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 children and three adults dead.

In the aftermath of the massacre, Democratic politicians and progressive media figures have urgently called for further gun control legislation as the only obvious solution despite mounting evidence that security failures and a lax police response were major contributing factors.

In the interview, Bash peppered Crenshaw with questions and proposed a litany of various gun control measures in an effort to secure a concession from the gun-rights advocate. But each time, Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL and staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, rebuffed the progressive anchor, schooling her on the issues.

The Texas lawmaker explained that many of the so-called solutions offered by Democrats — such as "red-flag" laws, universal background checks, and raising the gun purchasing age — are bad policies since they likely would only serve to infringe the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens while doing comparatively little to stop mass shootings.

Dana Bash presses GOP lawmaker on gun safety solutions www.youtube.com

"It's an outcome problem," Crenshaw explained. "I don't think [these proposals] would have the outcome people think they would have."

"What you’re essentially trying to do with a red-flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken, and it’s a really difficult thing to do," he said. "It’s difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat."

"Now, if they're such a threat that they are threatening someone with a weapon already, well then, they've already broken the law. So why do we need this other law?" he added.

When asked about background checks, Crenshaw explained that Republicans are the ones who have actually proposed improving the background check system with legislation such as the Fix NICS Act. However, he said he does not support a universal background check proposal, since that would unduly regulate the private transfer of weapons, and again, not solve the real problem.

"People have to understand what universal background checks mean. That means that I can no longer sell a gun to my friend. If my neighbor — let's say her husband is gone for the week and she wants to borrow my gun, that would make us both felons," he argued, adding that "the people who are least likely to adhere to a universal background check are the criminals who intend harm."

Frustrated, Bash cut Crenshaw off, acknowledging that "there are so many real-world scenarios that are hard to police" before jumping to more proposals, such as eliminating the supposed "gun show loophole" and raising the age required to purchase "weapons of war."

Each time, Crenshaw politely repudiated Bash.

When finally allowed to share what solutions he would offer to prevent similar attacks from happening in the future, Crenshaw argued that ramping up security at schools would provide the most "immediate" and "tangible" effects.

He added that "the correlation between gun violence and gun ownership is not very strong, it’s not as strong as people tend to believe it is."

Flummoxed by that notion, Bash said, "Congressman, it sounds like you’re saying guns in this country are not a problem," adding, "I mean, there are 300-something million people [in this country, and] 400 million guns. You don’t see that as a problem?"

"No," Crenshaw plainly replied.

"If I destroyed all my guns, it would have zero effect on gun homicides, because I’m not the person who goes and shoots somebody," he said. "I am a person who might protect somebody from being shot."

Rep. Chris Jacobs Says He Supports ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ For ‘Something Like An AR-15’

'I would vote for it'

California Votes To End Mandatory Reporting On Students Who Threaten Schools

The bill passed two days after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas

FACT CHECK: Did Florida Politician Randy Fine Publish This Tweet About ‘Sacrificing’ School Children For The Second Amendment?

The tweet is from a parody account

Is A Fight Brewing Between Texas Senators Over Stricter Gun Laws?

'An outcome that is directly related to the problem

Law Enforcement Rejects Claim That Texas Shooter Was Previously Arrested

Law enforcement says that Rep. Gonzales' claims are false

Horowitz: It’s time to ban ‘gun-free’ death zones



President Biden asked the most salient question following the Uvalde school massacre. “When in God’s name will we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?” asked the president, after a rare reference to scripture. He’s exactly right. We all know that 100% of school shootings in recent years have taken place where everyone except for the attacker was barred from being armed with a gun or rifle. The time has come to ban the ban on guns at school.

We can debate the root cause behind the unmistakable rise in school shootings over the past decade or two. But clearly, between the mental health crisis, the breakdown of family and religion, and the incessant social media glorification of tragedy upon which so many psychopaths lock their minds, we are in a vicious cycle of copycat attacks targeting schools, among other places.

Throughout the coming days, we will hear many statistics thrown around. But the most important statistic relevant to this issue is “100.” Yes, 100% of school shootings over the past two decades have occurred in places where it was illegal for any parent, teacher, or administrator to carry a gun. Even the most ardent supporter of gun control knows that there will always be numerous forms of firearms available to any sadistic mass murderer. The only question is: Will he be the only one armed and know with full confidence that he can kill scores of people before being stopped?

Obviously, we need a standard, set by local officials, to have one point of entry into schools while they are in session, with a security detail manning that entry. But that is not good enough. Security or police officers are identifiable to the attacker, and if the assailant successfully takes out the guard, he knows that he has free rein in the rest of the “gun-free zone.” This point was not lost on the Buffalo attacker when he wrote in his manifesto: “Areas where” carrying with a concealed weapon “are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.” It won’t be lost on the next mass murderer either.

While it is hard to prevent every attack and avoid any loss of life every time, it is simply a disgrace that someone could mow down as many as 21 people without being stopped. With the unidentifiable element of surprise, having multiple workers and administrators in each school carrying concealed every day – with the requisite training and scenario drills – we can at least make sure that a mass murder of this scale never happens again.

None of this gets to the root of the cause of these loner psychopath shootings, but over time, if the gunmen were mowed down on the spot or, in the worst-case scenario, only after killing the first person, the glory that tantalizes their demented brains, knowing that the faces of victims will be plastered over social media after each one of these massacres, will be neutralized. Yes, these attackers are unique and much harder to deter than typical street murderers. They don’t care about dying. But they do want to claim scalps. It is that desire that is in our power to foil. If following the next few attempts, we all see pictures of a dead attacker lying in a pool of blood at the school entrance rather than faces of 20 children, it would clearly deter the next “copycat,” at least to some extent.

While the news coming out of Uvalde is still murky and conflicting – itself an ominous sign – it’s becoming obvious that this atrocity was not about guns. Police now concede that the attacker walked through an open door and was not confronted by a school resource officer or anyone else. The Wall Street Journal reports that one neighbor claims there was shooting outside for 12 minutes before he even entered the building. Then, once he entered, multiple parents are claiming they urged police to enter the building, and one was even restrained by U.S. Marshals for wanting to charge into the building. Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told reporters it took at least 40 minutes for officers to enter the building, and even then, it might only have been due to the presence of the Border Patrol agents.

In other words, government failed at all levels to protect the children, but they were sure keen on preventing others from stepping in to fill the void. According to Uvalde County law, as in most counties, “a person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm … on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution.” Furthermore, “It is not a defense to prosecution that the person possessed a handgun and was licensed to carry a handgun.”

That law sure performed well, didn’t it?

What would actually work? Well, obviously there should be an officer stationed at a single entry point into the building at all times. But let’s not forget that such a person will become a clear target, and if he is taken out by an assailant, then there is no backstop. What we need is a form of “sheriff’s posse,” in which local law enforcement deputizes citizens to help take shifts and unassumingly patrol the premises and interior of schools in plain clothes with concealed carry. So many communities are full of retired veterans and law enforcement officers who would love to defend American children on American soil after having sacrificed, usually, for dubious foreign missions. Also, the schools should have training programs for multiple administrators and teachers to carry concealed.

After every school district does this, come back to me if there are any future attacks with so many dead people. And the fewer there are, the less glory of such attacks will be piped into the psychotic minds of future ticking bombs. The more the left invokes Uvalde as a means of disarming private citizens on behalf of the government, the more it appears we need more trained, armed citizens to fill the void left by government.

Questions mount as police now say Texas shooter entered Robb elementary 'unobstructed' through an unlocked door, an hour passed before border agents stormed the building



Questions swirled on Thursday as new information contradicted much of the original reporting about Tuesday's horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 young children and three adults dead.

Over the last two days, the prevailing narrative was that 18-year-old Salvador Ramos outgunned police and overpowered school security on his way to carrying out unspeakable atrocities inside Robb Elementary School. Democratic politicians and left-wing media figures immediately pushed for gun control measures as the only justifiable response.

But in a matter of 24 hours, the account has changed dramatically, raising fresh questions over what else could have been done to prevent the attack.

Speaking with reporters Thursday, Victor Escalon, a regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety, reported that Ramos walked into Robb Elementary School "unobstructed" through an unlocked door before barricading himself inside a fourth-grade classroom and opening fire on students and staff.

And contrary to original reports, the shooter never encountered an armed school security guard on his way into the building. Escalon said that while the school normally has an armed school safety officer in position, "there was not an officer, readily available, armed" when Ramos arrived on Tuesday.

The bombshell revisions come as local law enforcement continue to face mounting criticism over the amount of time that elapsed before Border Patrol agents stormed the building.

According to the Associated Press, Texas DPS spokesperson Travis Considine revealed Thursday that roughly an hour passed between Ramos entering the school and a Border Patrol tactical unit storming in to neutralize him.

Considine said Ramos began his rampage at 11:40 a.m. An hour later, the federal agents entered and at 12:58 p.m., radio chatter declared that the shooter was dead.

Texas gunman walked through apparently unlocked door, police say www.youtube.com

The is a developing story. check back for updates.