Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot recently had much to say about guns and gun rights in an interview with The Washington Post’s criminal justice reporter Tom Jackman.
On the topic, Jackman began with, “Let’s talk about guns,” asking Creuzot what he believed needed to be done in the Legislature and in prosecutors’ offices to address mass shootings like the one in Uvalde earlier this year.
“The problem in Texas is … it’s almost a free gun state,” Creuzot responded. “I mean, there are some limitations, but for the most part, if you’re the average citizen, you have the right to carry a gun, buy a gun, whatever.”
“We don’t have much by way of red flag laws,” he continued. “We have a governor and a lieutenant governor and an attorney general who think it’s a good idea to even carry guns in schools.”
Anti-gun advocates claim red flag laws are viable policy solutions to remove guns from the hands of individuals who have allegedly demonstrated dangerous warning signs.
On its website, the national anti-gun group Moms Demand Action frames red flags as a means to “empower family members and/or law enforcement to work with a court to temporarily restrict someone’s access to guns when they are showing strong warning signs that they pose a threat to themselves or others.”
As The Dallas Express reported previously, the red flag laws in Illinois seemingly did nothing to stop Robert Crimo from gaining possession of the firearm he eventually used in the Highland Park Fourth of July parade mass shootings earlier this year, despite the fact that he had a documented history of threats and self-harm.
Charles Lehman, a fellow at the domestic policy-focused Manhattan Institute, studied the effectiveness of red flag laws in preventing killings and concluded that they fell far short of their proponents’ claims.
Lehman found that such laws potentially lowered suicide-by-gun rates but not homicide rates.
“Red flag laws are, in other words, not the solution to gun control’s conundrum that some would have them be,” concluded Lehman.
The district attorney then asserted in the interview that tenured professors have left their positions in Texas because “they were not going to be in a school, or a classroom, with an individual or individuals with a gun.”
National pro-gun group Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) has taken issue with Creuzot’s justification for opposing so-called “campus carry” laws that allow a legally eligible student to possess a firearm while attending class or using facilities.
Refuting common arguments against campus carry laws, such as the one Creuzot used in the interview, SCC argued that “regardless of how any particular student or professor feels about the issue, laws must be based on facts, not feelings. Feeling safe or unsafe is not the same as being safe or unsafe.”
In 2018, a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a case brought against Texas’ campus carry law by three professors at the University of Texas at Austin.
The professors had argued that having guns in their classrooms would have a “chilling effect” on discourse and thereby limit free speech.
The lower court ruled, and the appeals court upheld, that the professors had not offered any “concrete evidence to substantiate their fears.”
Max Renea Hicks, the attorney who represented the three UT professors in their failed lawsuit, claimed that “virtually any normal person” would support requesting guns be removed from college classrooms.
“We have a Second Amendment right to have a gun in the home. It doesn’t go beyond that,” Hicks asserted.
But Amy Ivey, a Texas Tech University police department member, told local media in an interview two years after the implementation of the campus carry law, “I believe [the policy] makes the campus a safer place.”
Explaining why, Ivey said, “I like to think we’re no longer a targeting opportunity for [active shooters] because they know if they come on campus, there could be the potential for an individual to act to stop the shooting.”
Endorsed by Soros-funded political action committees like “Real Justice,” Creuzot touted that his office aggressively prosecutes gun crimes under current Texas law, including adding enhancements to crimes committed by someone carrying a gun.
“I know that I don’t have the authority to restrict guns … on the other hand, it doesn’t mean we can’t prosecute those cases,” he said.
But Chris McNutt, executive director for Texas Gun Rights, commented to The Dallas Express, “Mr. Creuzot should worry about prosecuting the criminals he is refusing to punish in Dallas County instead of trying to restrict the gun rights of law-abiding Texas worried about protecting themselves from Creuzot’s criminals.”
“The problem in Texas is … it’s almost a free gun state,” Creuzot responded. “I mean, there are some limitations, but for the most part, if you’re the average citizen, you have the right to carry a gun, buy a gun, whatever.”
This is not a “problem” – this is what our 2nd Amendment (a codification of our Natural Rights) provides for. The right of an “average citizen” to protect themselves from criminals and from a potential tyrannical government wishing to take away our Natural Rights.
I agree! Criminals don’t care about laws, which is why they are criminals. Example: Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in existence, yet every day people are injured or killed by lawless low life’s with illegally obtained guns that were either stolen, or bought out of state, or bought from another criminal. Law abiding citizens have to obtain a Firearm Owners ID card after submitting to a background check for criminal activity, convictions and mental illness which takes time. Criminals have no such restrictions. Then after you purchase a firearm, there’s a waiting period before you can take possession. Do criminals have to wait? NO!
Maybe what needs to change is the manner in which we deal with mental illness and criminal behavior in general! Guns are inanimate objects that can only do harm in the wrong hands. Fix that problem, instead of preventing those who live decent, productive lives, from being safe and secure.
Well said and most Americans agree.
“Most Americans” actually don’t agree! This is the problem with you people. You won’t support common sense regulations that come with every other enumerated Constitutional right.
Nobody is trying to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! Stop saying that! But when you don’t support ongoing firearm training, thorough background checks with no loopholes, red-flag laws and other common sense regulations, YOU are the one with the problem.
Not real bright, are you? go ahead, keep believing what the lamestream media tells you. But, I’m telling you right now that you make forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein.
Sorry, I have to disagree that nobody is trying to take your guns away. One of the candidates running for governor in Texas, Robert O’Rourke, said during a Democrat Presidential debate that, if elected, expect them to come for your guns. We need to be realistic about a tough problem. There are in fact people who do want to eliminate guns and the 2nd Amendment. There are in fact people who should not have their hands on guns. There are in fact lots of laws about guns already with very few enforced. If we focused on enforcing those it would be interesting to see the impact before implementing new laws. We need to look at how to help people with mental health issues. We need a serious debate about what to do about true criminals (as defined by our current laws) to understand how best to deal with different types of crime and keep dangerous criminals away from the 95% plus of the law abiding public. With all that said, the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms and Mr. Creuzot laments that fact.
No, Beto DID NOT say that! Rewind the tape! Didn’t say he would take your GUNS away! During a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, he was referring to the AR-15 and AK-47. He said “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” He also said “I don’t need this weapon to hunt, to defend myself. It is a weapon of war. So, let’s do the right thing, but let’s bring everyone in America into the conversation. Republicans, Democrats, gun owners, and non gun owners alike.”
I know the FEAR MONGERING gets you points with the MAGA (Make America Gross Again) crowd, and low information voters won’t seek out the facts, but to keep saying Beto and Democrats want to “take your guns away” is misleading if not an outright lie.
Keep hammering away at “Nobody is trying to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!!” As usual with the Wacko Left, “truth” is nothing more than a lie screamed over and over until people accept it.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/760386808/orourke-promises-to-take-your-ar-15-but-americans-are-split-on-buybacks
I didn’t say it. Beto said it. It’s been confirmed, even including CNN and NPR.
You are a liar, and your lie is exposed and proven. Hit the showers – you’re done.
The government wants to take our rights to protect ourselves so that we look like china. The only weapons these people have when they protest are ROCKS. Is that what you want for a FREE COUNTRY?!’
We have, and even honor, the 2nd Amendment. What is your excuse, Creuzot? What do you honor, the Mao RED Book?
Any D.A. endorsed by George Soros needs to be removed from office. He’s unfit for the position and his patriotism is in question if such a notorious globalist likes him!
Democrat = Loser
Republicans =COWARD
Those are fighting words, junior. I suggest you either back up your words or run back home to hide behind your momma’s skirts.
After all, Republicans aren’t the ones who cry for “safe spaces” and the like.
Some Republicans = Nutcase
this is one of the reasons I moved out of Dallas! Dallas is becoming Austin II.
Good riddance
Great song 😁
Who elected this mentally challenged Commiefornia clown? Maybe he should just go back to Cali and crawl back under a rock
If this ^**#¥£€ wanted to change the law(s), one would think he would have run for an office where that might have been possible. Here’s a novel concept, why don’t you do what you were elected to do…and enforce the laws already in place!
PS. Do your research next time to ensure that the office you are running for is capable of accomplishing what seems to be your idiotic crusade!
This is exactly what they want. DA who doesn’t enforce the laws thereby is changing law. Even if only temporary. Look who funds all the DA’s that do exactly what he is doing.
I worked with several years ago with Creuzot when he was a Judge. He banned employees from using the back elevators because he was afraid of an employee attacking him or other Judges. Since then I have watched as he became the District Attorney who is ridiculously soft on crime. For someone who was so afraid of his own co-workers it seems strange he allows criminals to run rampant in the streets of Dallas. Those same streets where he constantly turns a blind eye to crime yet speaks out against the average citizen carrying a gun to protect themselves. The Hypocrisy of his view is so laughable but it is disturbing at the same time.
Some of the reasons mass shootings occur at schools-
Gun free zone makes it a reduced risk to the psycho and maximum opportunity for targets,
The shock value for their 15 minutes of infamy.
I agree with Ms. Ivey RE: responsible citizens carrying guns on campus make the school a less appealing target.
Creuzot’s criminals is an apt description of what happens when a District Attorney is such a leftwing radical that he actually creates criminals who end up murdering, raping and robbing decent people in the city he is supposed to be protecting.
Vote him out. Less than 2 weeks Dallas has a choice
So let me get this straight:
He laments the inability to restrict guns but he won’t restrict dangerous violent criminals by keeping them in jail?.
you know like the guy who just showed up Methodist Hospital & killed 2 innocent nurses after the birth of Illegitimate child?.
Oh what fun what fun what fun when we put [D]emocrammunist’s in charge
the parole board let that man out of jail, that is ran by the state. He has enough flaws, you don’t have to make up any.
Good point.
Yes the Texas parole board is responsible for letting him out but i believe he was due for a 20 year sentence and ended up with a plea deal for 8 years and did 2 years. One problem with the justice system is that we don’t execute enough criminals. I’m sorry but there are those that deserve a trial and maybe 2 or 3 appeals, but it shouldn’t take 25 years to execute someone. One example is the guy who robbed a gas station and after the attendant did everything he asked the guy sets her on fire. All on video. Why should he be on death row for more that 5 years?