In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, rejected among the proposals for gun reform, along with historical past exams, purple flag legal guidelines, and adjustments to age restrictions, earlier than advocating for extra protection in schools.
While Crenshaw did well known updates to the historical past test regulation will be helpful, he stated he nevertheless does now no longer aid frequent historical past exams.
“This can be some thing we may want to agree on is enhancing our historical past test device because, look, again, he went via a historical past test. So the hassle is not that a purple flag regulation may want to have solved this, it does not appear clean that might have passed off,” stated Crenshaw. “The hassle is that the historical past test did not seize the entire tale of this man or woman.”
Crenshaw argued frequent historical past exams could be unrealistic.
“People ought to recognize what frequent historical past exams, meaning that I can not promote a gun to my friend,” he stated, adding “The individuals who are least probably to stick to frequent historical past test are the criminals who intend harm, so I again, it is an final results hassle.”
Crenshaw stated purple-flag legal guidelines ought to be as much as the states, however he could now no longer aid it in Texas. “What you’re basically looking to do with the purple flag regulation is put into effect the regulation earlier than the regulation has been damaged. And it is a honestly hard element to do, it’s hard to evaluate whether or not anyone is a risk,” he noted. “Now if they’re this sort of risk that they may be threatening anyone with a weapon already, well, then they have already damaged the regulation. So why do you want this different regulation?”
He argued converting the age restriction on shopping for a gun to 21 could be a slippery slope. “You understand, what takes place then whilst we see a 22-year-antique devote an atrocity? Are we going to elevate it again? And are we going to elevate it again? And at a positive factor we ought to ask ourselves in which a proscribing precept is.”
The one inspiration he appeared open to had not anything to do with limiting get right of entry to to guns. “I suppose what desires to alternate is the matters that might have the maximum on the spot and succinct impact, or tangible impact on those matters. And it truly is real protection at a school,” he stated.
Pressed via way of means of Bash on whether or not protection and gun reform are together special to him, Crenshaw stated extra gun control “likely wouldn’t have the final results that you’re searching for,” and could “infringe at the rights of millions,” while extra protection could be “pretty clean to afford.”
However, he mentioned in advance withinside the interview regulation enforcement at the scene did now no longer observe protocol and resource students. “Now, I understand higher than maximum now no longer to always choose the man or woman who is on foot via the breach, and is in that moment, withinside the arena. But it does appear clean that protocols have been now no longer followed.”
“You ought to positioned away your feel of self-upkeep and undergo that door. The schooling truly states you may get shot, however the man in the back of you is probably capable of get in and store harmless people. You ought to positioned them earlier than you. It does not seem that passed off here.”