Freshman Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, sparked an intense and emotional reaction following the mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, when he encouraged a discussion about measures to prevent gun violence. On Twitter, Crenshaw wrote, “These disgusting mass shootings have been following a pattern ever since Columbine. Sick and lonely men have decided this is how they will vent their frustration.…The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state ‘red flag’ laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.”
Many of his social media followers were nonplussed. On Instagram one declared, “Well that sellout was quick.” Another reasoned: “You already f—ed it up. You’re losing your base.” Another characterized Crenshaw’s nuanced take as “sprinkling sugar on dog shit.”
The pushback was more like whiplash. While parts of his base seemed to be revolting, Democrats were vilifying Crenshaw for characterizing the AR-15 as a legitimate self-defense weapon. Crenshaw said, “The reality is that an AR-15 type weapon is the most effective weapon for ranges up to 20 to 30 feet, which by the way is the size of your living room if you’re trying to defend your home.”
That’s hardly RINO talk. In fact, no one in American politics today may have more impeccable Second Amendment credentials than Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in combat. Crenshaw isn’t backing away from this difficult and complex issue. The GOP should be grateful.
The Republicans and Congress have been here before. Following the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., my boss at the time, attempted to improve the nation’s background check system in conjunction with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who was working closely with then-Vice President Joe Biden.
The talks ultimately broke down over the issue of record-keeping. Schumer argued that keeping records on gun owners was vital to enforcement, while Coburn argued that record-keeping would not only do nothing to encourage compliance, but would actually fracture the coalition necessary to pass the bill. Still, the effort produced a novel and creative idea that the Washington Examiner recently referenced, which today’s legislators should keep in mind.
Coburn proposed solving the compliance and record-keeping problems by making it easy for prospective buyers to check themselves against what he called the “do-not-buy list,” derived from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The process would be as simple as printing an airline boarding pass. Buyers would verify themselves against the list via a portal or smart phone app. Sellers could then access the portal to confirm the result. No personal information would have to be exchanged except for the fact that the buyer passed the check. No record would be kept of the transaction. And in a good faith transaction (legal gun owners are the nation’s leading gun safety advocates), no gun would be sold to a deranged person.
The private sector has already solved this problem in other contexts. Landlords use software to screen tenants that does not require either party to exchange personal information. Instead, the tenant puts their personal information into a portal and the landlord sees the result.
Congress should take a fresh look at this proposal and perhaps even call on tech entrepreneurs to create the app. Asking government to compete against the private sector is rarely a good idea. Congress and the Trump administration would have to sort out how to facilitate access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, but that is an issue that can be solved easily enough.
Congress will take up this issue in September. While it’s obviously too soon to know the details, the actual details will matter a great deal. Red flag laws may be better left to the states, and should include serious input from all stakeholders, including domestic violence experts and the mental health community. Still, Congress can perhaps take some constructive steps without violating due process. In the meantime, Crenshaw’s “we must try attitude” is precisely what the republic and Republicans need.
The easy path for Crenshaw and the GOP would to play it safe and stand in straight-up opposition to the progressive gun-grabbers. Opposing bad ideas may be necessary, but we need leaders who will put themselves in harm’s way politically. Crenshaw has gone out on patrol in the increasingly treacherous no-man’s land between today’s polarized warring factions. Conservatives should provide cover fire, not friendly fire.
Crenshaw said, “The whole purpose of what the president did and what I’m doing in trying to start a conversation about this is so that we take control of the narrative and propose solutions that actually do protect due process rights and ensure that we aren’t on the sidelines when Democrats are proposing blatantly unconstitutional laws that would not protect due process.”
Following Sandy Hook, Congress missed an opportunity to make the system better. If enough members put country over career, and the safety of citizens over their political safety, the outcome may be different. We must try.
John Hart is founder of Mars Hill Strategies and former communications director to U.S. Senator Tom Coburn.
