Gov. Abbott Issues Executive Orders

[TexCHLFan]

I must be in the minority. I read most respondents saying they don't have a problem with these.

I have an issue with each and every one of them.

Key words to ponder: Exec Order #4: "so that the general public and friends, family members, coworkers, neighbors, and classmates will be more likely to report information about potential gunmen". So most of you don't have a problem with encouraging co-workers to "turn in" people they deem a threat? This is not good.

Exec Order #2: The DPS "shall develop clear guidance, based on the appropriate legal standard, for when and how Texas law-enforcement agencies should submit Suspicious Activity Reports". Many of the major cities are run by liberal mayors. The Police Chief reports to the Mayor (or City Manager). Law Enforcement agencies will turn in EVERYTHING in fear that if they miss EVEN ONE, they will be wildly criticized, fired, and sued in Civil Court by impacted family members of some event that they didn't report.

Exec Order #5: The DPS "shall work with the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on ways to better inform schools, students, staff, and families about the importance of Suspicious Activity Reports and how to initiate that process". Let's see, the Texas Education Agency will drive their agenda down the throats of anyone who tries to get in their way. Listen to just one TEA board meeting and you will be disgusted with their political agenda.

Exec Order #6: DPS "shall work with local law enforcement, mental-health professionals, school districts, and others to create multidisciplinary threat assessment teams for each of its regions, and when appropriate shall coordinate with federal partners". MANY of the local school boards are LOADED with liberal activists with an agenda. Many Mental Health Professionals who have a liberal agenda will work hard to be appointed to these "multidisciplinary" teams. This is loaded with problems.

Exec Order #8: "all future grant awards from the Office of the Governor to counties shall require a commitment that the county will report at least 90 percent of convictions within seven business days to the Criminal Justice Information System at the Department of Public Safety". We have (or at least I thought we had) a conservative Governor. The political landscape in Texas may continue to shift, and the first time we have a liberal governor, and we will, this is an order that is filled with the opportunity for abuse. And they will say "well, this was a rule implemented by Governor Abbott, a Republican, and that will be pushed down our throats.

Exec Order #7: "and better monitoring and analyzing social media and other online forums" for the purpose of reporting people. Say one wrong thing in exercising your freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and you are opening yourself up to scrutiny of being reported to investigate as a threat.

I could go on. But I am somewhat perplexed to read so many respondents saying they don't have a problem with these Executive Orders. But put me on the side of the ledger who does NOT support ANY of these, and has a problem with every single one of them. I could go on about each of them, but this is a big step in the destruction of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and probably several other Amendments.

[thatguyoverthere]

Well, that's great and all... I guess. My immediate question is though, once they do "identify potential mass shooters or terroristic threats" (from order #4), what are they going to do about it? Is this all just a precursor for a red flag law? If not, what? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something?

[Oldgringo]

#4 is a straight up assault on the 2nd amendment and probably the 4th amendment as well. Most of these talking points were probably written by liberals in washington.

I could not disagree with your statement more.

with you, Lynyrd.

[hondo44]

Well, that's great and all... I guess. My immediate question is though, once they do "identify potential mass shooters or terroristic threats" (from order #4), what are they going to do about it? Is this all just a precursor for a red flag law? If not, what? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something?

that's what I was saying, it's a straight up red flag law. This sort of nonsense is what the liberals in washington and california do. someone must have gotten to Abbott or Dan Patrick. it makes no sense for the governor to straight up rape the 2nd and 4th amendments.

[G.A. Heath]

First off, there is no 'confiscation' or 'search and seizure' component to the EOs issued by the governor. In the case of both the Odessa/Midland shooter and the El Paso shooter people had supposedly reported the lunatics to law enforcement. The Executive orders are essentially directing Law Enforcement to better investigate reports they receive and to help educate the public about what to report.

Lets say I'm reported as a crazy man that someone believes is going to do something bad, possibly with a gun to the local LEOs. First they need to investigate if the report is accurate. Lets say I'm normal and sane, which they determine is the case so they inform the reporting party of their findings and ask them to report anything they observe that might change the LEOs minds.

Lets say they determine I am crazy, and dangerous. First thing they need to do is gather evidence to get me involuntarily committed, take me into a court, have the court agree I am crazy and declare me so. Once that is done I'm a prohibited person and getting mental help which may have prevented a potential mass shooting.

Lets say that they determine I am not crazy, but I am part of ANTIFA or a white nationalist group and it appears that I intend to do something illegal. Now they must investigate further, collect evidence, get a warrant, arrest me, put me on trial, convict me, and then they can take my guns.

The thing is that in both instances where they take my guns I have due process and those options are already available to LEOs across the country as you are reading this. This isn't a red flag law, it's an effort to use the tools we already have to make sure that a red flag law is seen as unnecessary by enough politicians to ensure that such legislation doesn't pass.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I will withhold comment on the specific Exec. Orders, but I will say this much. The iWatch Suspicious Activities Reporting Network needs to be revamped to require that the reporting person to provide their name and contact information. This information should be immediately verified and if this is not possible, the report must be deleted. The Legislature needs to make submitting a false or misleading report a First Degree Felony.

Chas.

[montgomery]

I must be in the minority. I read most respondents saying they don't have a problem with these.

I have an issue with each and every one of them.

Key words to ponder: Exec Order #4: "so that the general public and friends, family members, coworkers, neighbors, and classmates will be more likely to report information about potential gunmen". So most of you don't have a problem with encouraging co-workers to "turn in" people they deem a threat? This is not good.

Exec Order #2: The DPS "shall develop clear guidance, based on the appropriate legal standard, for when and how Texas law-enforcement agencies should submit Suspicious Activity Reports". Many of the major cities are run by liberal mayors. The Police Chief reports to the Mayor (or City Manager). Law Enforcement agencies will turn in EVERYTHING in fear that if they miss EVEN ONE, they will be wildly criticized, fired, and sued in Civil Court by impacted family members of some event that they didn't report.

Exec Order #5: The DPS "shall work with the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on ways to better inform schools, students, staff, and families about the importance of Suspicious Activity Reports and how to initiate that process". Let's see, the Texas Education Agency will drive their agenda down the throats of anyone who tries to get in their way. Listen to just one TEA board meeting and you will be disgusted with their political agenda.

Exec Order #6: DPS "shall work with local law enforcement, mental-health professionals, school districts, and others to create multidisciplinary threat assessment teams for each of its regions, and when appropriate shall coordinate with federal partners". MANY of the local school boards are LOADED with liberal activists with an agenda. Many Mental Health Professionals who have a liberal agenda will work hard to be appointed to these "multidisciplinary" teams. This is loaded with problems.

Exec Order #8: "all future grant awards from the Office of the Governor to counties shall require a commitment that the county will report at least 90 percent of convictions within seven business days to the Criminal Justice Information System at the Department of Public Safety". We have (or at least I thought we had) a conservative Governor. The political landscape in Texas may continue to shift, and the first time we have a liberal governor, and we will, this is an order that is filled with the opportunity for abuse. And they will say "well, this was a rule implemented by Governor Abbott, a Republican, and that will be pushed down our throats.

Exec Order #7: "and better monitoring and analyzing social media and other online forums" for the purpose of reporting people. Say one wrong thing in exercising your freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and you are opening yourself up to scrutiny of being reported to investigate as a threat.

I could go on. But I am somewhat perplexed to read so many respondents saying they don't have a problem with these Executive Orders. But put me on the side of the ledger who does NOT support ANY of these, and has a problem with every single one of them. I could go on about each of them, but this is a big step in the destruction of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and probably several other Amendments.

[K.Mooneyham]

I will withhold comment on the specific Exec. Orders, but I will say this much. The iWatch Suspicious Activities Reporting Network needs to be revamped to require that reporting person to provide their name and contact information. This information should be immediately verified and if this is not possible, the report must be deleted. The Legislature needs to make submitting a false or misleading report a First Degree Felony.

Chas.

100%

That's my biggest concern, false reporting for personal vendetta or even political purposes. Having a proper mechanism to punish maliciously false reporting is essential. And, if the state government doesn't care about ruining peoples' lives, well, maybe they would be concerned about all the money and resources that would be wasted chasing false reports.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is a question that nobody wants to answer. If all of the procedures required by the 8 Exec. Orders are implemented and a report of Suspicious Activity has been submitted about a person, what will happen if:

• 1. the person reported does not have a serious mental disorder such that they are prohibited from possessing firearms;
  2. has not committed a crime; then
  3. what will be done with the person and/or their guns?

This is the question that needs to be asked of anyone and everyone who supports these efforts. The unavoidable answer will be "confiscation of firearms" from someone who has not committed a crime and who is not mentally incompetent.

The "do something" attitude is clearly understandable in light of the acts of these murders, but it is also clearly dangerous, clearly wrong, clearly unconstitutional. This will turn into the 21st century version of labeling someone a witch, so you can do with them (or in this case, their guns) as you wish.

Chas.

[Soccerdad1995]

Here is a question that nobody wants to answer. If all of the procedures required by the 8 Exec. Orders are implemented and a report of Suspicious Activity has been submitted about a person, what will happen if:

• 1. the person reported does not have a serious mental disorder such that they are prohibited from possessing firearms;
  2. has not committed a crime; then
  3. what will be done with the person and/or their guns?

This is the question that needs to be asked of anyone and everyone who supports these efforts. The unavoidable answer will be "confiscation of firearms" from someone who has not committed a crime and who is not mentally incompetent.

The "do something" attitude is clearly understandable in light of the acts of these murders, but it is also clearly dangerous, clearly wrong, clearly unconstitutional. This will turn into the 21st century version of labeling someone a witch, so you can do with them (or in this case, their guns) as you wish.

Chas.

completely.

The list sounds innocuous on the surface. But the problem is with the "and then what" aspect. If the Suspicious Activity Reports simply provide a basis for further LE investigation, that's not a huge issue. But does anyone here really believe that any LE agency is not going to be quick to "err on the side of caution" and just look for any excuse to confiscate guns so they are not in the position of having been notified and doing nothing when someone does turn out to be a real threat? I'd expect that the vast majority of these reports will end up with citizens deprived of their fundamental human right to self defense regardless of whether the report has any basis in fact.

It's the same as anything else. The devil is in the details. Color me suspicious. Especially when I heard our Lt Governor on the radio just this morning extolling the need for universal background checks.

[E.Marquez]

I will withhold comment on the specific Exec. Orders, but I will say this much. The iWatch Suspicious Activities Reporting Network needs to be revamped to require that the reporting person to provide their name and contact information. This information should be immediately verified and if this is not possible, the report must be deleted. The Legislature needs to make submitting a false or misleading report a First Degree Felony.

Chas.

THAT ^^^
LEO resources MUST be provided to investigate possible or proven false reports.
DA's MUST assign sufficient resources to build a proper case and see it through to conviction.
State Reps MUST push for the media to cover and report on these cases.

All of that in effort to limit or reduce false reporting... The reporter needs some skin in the game. The problem is, the bar for calling it a false report has to be higher then it turning out to be not justified. Investigators need to be able to find clear evidence the false report was made with malice intended.