Opinion: I was at the table when Gov. Greg Abbott seemed serious about gun reform

In the days after the 2018 mass shooting at Santa Fe High School, which followed on the heels of the murders at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and the resulting March for Our Lives movement, Abbott convened the first of his closed door “roundtable” discussions on gun violence. My advocacy organization at the time, Texas Gun Sense, was invited to attend. In a room filled with our state’s top elected officials, law enforcement, educators and mental health professionals, the governor sought input on a variety of small but meaningful reform proposals. These included establishing a red flag law, increasing the penalty for failing to secure a firearm, and mandatory reporting of stolen firearms — modest but groundbreaking for a Texas Republican. His knowledge of these policy areas was impressive and his interest appeared genuine. So what happened? Why didn’t any of these ideas get signed into law?

During the roundtables, I sat immediately to the left of the governor, and we engaged during the breaks. I vividly recall an extended discussion of red flag laws passed in other states — including Indiana — a Republican stronghold. Officials there reported success in identifying individuals who posed a threat to themselves or others and removing their firearms, with a judge’s order, before they could act out. This was a concept the governor seemed keen to embrace. He was interested in the Indiana model, he said, because Texans may be more open to accepting ideas adopted by a red state.

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick would later destroy the notion of crafting a Texas red flag law, announcing it dead on arrival in the Senate. Abbott said nothing. He inexplicably remained silent during the session as his modest gun security and theft reporting reforms were killed in committee. This end result was a stark contrast from Florida, where a Republican-dominated Legislature passed a red flag law just three weeks after the shooting at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Following the massacre of 23 in an El Paso Walmart on August 3, 2019 I was wary of participating in another Abbott gun summit, but the victims of that heinous, racist attack deserved to be honored by having advocates at the table. The meeting, held in the same reception room at the Capitol where many of us gathered 14 months earlier, was colored with urgency. An uneasy El Paso legislative delegation was in attendance. A crowd of angry folks carrying their AR-15s gathered outside the building. After initially declining the invite, representatives of the Texas State Rifle Association were there, seated directly across from the governor. In contrast to the first meeting, I was assigned a seat at the far end of the table — about as far away as possible from our state officials.

What unfolded over the next several hours was a candid, urgent and somewhat surreal conversation covering many facets of gun violence. Surprisingly, it was the lieutenant governor who set the tone, with an animated presentation in favor of taking meaningful action, such as expanding the state’s background check system to cover what he called “stranger to stranger” sales. He was clear and rather blunt in his assessment that elected officials would face major repercussions if they did nothing.

Patrick went on to express his disdain of some firearms dealers, gun traffickers and others he said had an incentive to oppose certain reforms. He acknowledged the perceived threat posed by the open carry of semi-automatic rifles like the one used by the shooter at El Paso, stating the public was terrified by the sight of people openly displaying these weapons on the streets of major cities.

Both Patrick and Abbott seemed open to exploring ways to rein in the startling presence of assault-style weapons in the streets. Patrick floated the idea of a license to carry long guns in cities. This would involve a simple expansion of the existing system, which at the time required a background check and training to carry a handgun. Abbott directly offered this up to TSRA leader Mike Cox as something meaningful that would not differ much from current requirements. Cox explained his group did not recommend the carry of semi-automatic rifles in the streets, yet he feared any perceived expansion of the system would be viewed by members as burdensome and a threat to individual rights.

The meeting continued, hours past the allotted schedule. As a group we proceeded to discuss a variety of ideas, including raising the age of purchase for semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, differentiating weapons like the AR-15 from a standard hunting rifle and establishing a more robust system of welfare checks on individuals with a history of violent threats or behavior — something that sounded a lot like “red flag lite.” The discussion of these ideas was open and honest. Options were not dismissed out of hand. Out of obligation to the many victims of gun violence, I personally made the pitch for universal background checks, safe storage laws and limits on ammunition magazines. I also pointed out to the governor his set of original proposals following Santa Fe still held great value and would be welcomed by most citizens. He did not respond.

A few days later Patrick appeared live on Fox News to outline his background check proposal and was infamously quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying he would gladly “take an arrow through the heart” to oppose the NRA.

Well, we all know what happened next. Nothing. At least nothing positive. A series of statewide legislative hearings to discuss “mass violence” sputtered and received little coverage before quietly dying during the pandemic. The next legislative session kicked off with Abbott declaring his full support for so-called “constitutional carry” — allowing almost anyone to carry a handgun without a license or training.

In the wake of Uvalde, it is important Texans realize a massive failure in courage contributed to the nightmare in which we are trapped. Our state leaders abandoned their own proposals and even their personal sense of humanity in favor of a dogma that grows more extreme with each day. In a calculated move to avoid addressing the role of guns in gun related crime, lawmakers chose a path of expanding the availability of firearms and relying heavily on law enforcement and traditional deterrence. Millions of dollars were pumped into the “hardening” of school sites, improved tactical response, threat assessment, information sharing, surveillance of the internet and boosting the number of armed school marshals - especially in rural districts. All of these measures failed at Uvalde. All of them.

In recent days it has become difficult to shake the notion that I was a naive but willing prop in a sideshow meant to distract. I can’t help but believe most rational folks are currently revisiting their words and actions in that room. Valuable time and energy were wasted trying to persuade elected officials who don’t even control their own agendas.