Call for Texas Law to Impede Firearms Ownership: Lower the Drawbridge

Paul Kamprath, a writer for the Austin Liberal Examiner (need we say more?) is calling for a Texas law that would require any gun purchaser to prove that he or she passed a firearms safety course. At the beginning of the editorial Kamprath recalls the story of a recent and unfortunate shooting. A business owner shot a formal employee when that employee returned looking for his old job back. The owner shot the man after a verbal confrontation and was later arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

It’s a sad story. The business owner is 67 years old and now faces a serious felony charge. In Texas, and most jurisdictions if not all, deadly force can’t be used unless one fears for his life or the life of another, or fears great bodily harm. A verbal altercation doesn’t reach these thresholds.

I suppose this is some sort of antidotal evidence Kamprath is using to strengthen his argument that all firearms purchases should require proof of passing a lengthy safety course. Unfortunately for Kamprath his argument is full of holes, even though in his bio he claims he enjoys debate.

For starters, Kamprath argues that the state has a duty to protect the public from “hazardous products, materials and substances. At a minimum, we put warning labels on dangerous items to warn and protect the public.”

Not quite. Almost any material or substance can be a danger to a member of the public. Water is a good example. How many people drown ever year in this country? We don’t have lifeguards at every place it is possible to go swimming. Does the state of Texas have a warning label for the Gulf of Mexico? And as far as warning labels are concerned, most are written by company lawyers to avoid lawsuits. In other words they are written to protect companies, not the public. If you have ever bought a lawnmower you’ll find more warning labels than there are rattlesnakes in Texas.

To make the argument that even a firearm just used for home protection should require a training course, he compares this to the hunting and conceal carry laws of Texas. Hunting is well within the realm of state control. Like in Robin Hood days the beasts of the forest belong to the King. Hunting education classes teach things like outdoor survival, conservation and first aid, along with hunting safety. None of this applies to home protection.

To carry a concealed handgun legally in Texas, the state requires 10-15 hours of classroom training and proof that the candidate is proficient in the use of a pistol. This is a reasonable requirement considering that the handgun will be carried in public. But a similar requirement for home use of a firearm is unreasonable. Your home is your Castle. If you think you are more secure with a firearm near the hearth, the state shouldn’t impede you. (It is interesting to note that so-called liberals say the government should stay out of the bedroom, unless you have guns there).

And finally, Kamprath’s worst argument of them all. He says that Texas requires training and licensing to drive a car. He may have gotten the idea from President Obama who made the fallacious argument for the health care bill that in order to drive a car you have to buy insurance. Wrong. Not true. The President was either lying or isn’t as smart a lawyer as the press makes him out to be. You can drive an automobile on private property without insurance, without a license and without any formal training at all. You can set up stop signs and run through them without stopping all you want. Only on PUBLIC streets do state requirements apply. Why should owning guns that are only used on private property be any different?  Answer: They shouldn’t.