Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed hand guns on public colleges and universities. With the bill currently on its way to Governor Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it, it will soon permit the presence of concealed weapons on college campuses. But this raises some serious questions about the levels of danger the schools could potentially face as a result of the new law.

The final version of this bill allows private institutions to opt out, while public universities would be able to create gun-free zones in areas of campus. This new bill allows licensed gun owners to carry their handguns in classrooms, libraries, and other campus buildings. The law would be in effect in September for four year colleges and universities and by fall 2017 for community colleges.

Some key components of the law include a requirement for university presidents to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university may also create rules on policies regarding carrying guns into dorms and the storage of guns. The bill does not change who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Any locations that have their own rules off campus, such as bars and hospitals, can keep those rules. Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

As a student, and someone looking at law schools in Texas, I am not sure how I would personally respond to a bill like this being passed on my college campus. In addition to attending classes, campus is a place where students eat, sleep, and live. It doesn’t really seem fair to invade one’s home with a weapon without really asking. That sentiment is consistent with some of the reactions coming out of Texas and the country right now in response to this legislation.

Julie Gavran, the western director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, said she worries accidents involving guns, gun thefts, and suicides will increase. She also fears that if the bill is passed, colleges will have to invest more money into hiring security officers and buying metal detectors, which will be taken away from education spending. Gavran stated:

The legislators were more concerned with (concealed handgun license) rights rather than the quality of research and education that the state provides. This total disregard of the voice and concerns of the campus community is an insult to the State of Texas.

Despite these fears, Bill McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System does not seem to agree, stating:

It is helpful that the bill was amended to allow our campus presidents to consult with students, faculty and staff to develop rules and regulations that will govern the carrying of concealed handguns on campuses. I pledge to our students, faculty, staff, patients and their families and to all those who may visit a UT institution that, as UT System leaders, we will do everything in our power to maintain safe and secure campuses.

The bill’s House sponsor, State Representative Allen Fletcher explained his motivation for filing it, stating:

Currently, a student, faculty member, or other adult with a concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun throughout a campus as long as they remain outside, but the moment they step foot into a building on campus they become criminals.

Despite that point, the safety factor is still a large issue. Fletcher believes that the media, parents, students, and higher education officials exaggerate the bill’s consequences. He argues that the measure will just broaden current laws that already allows concealed handguns on campus outside of buildings. Those in favor of passing the bill also believe permitting gun owners to carry weapons on college campuses can help students and faculty members defend themselves.

The arguments in favor of this bill are extremely valid, but I feel like there could be a different solution that accommodates the needs of all people. An increased presence of weapons on campus still makes me and many others very wary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Will Allow These Weapons on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) has taken a new, innovative approach to dealing with the insane conspiracy theorists in his state. He appears to have joined them.

Since President Obama was elected in 2008, a number of particularly unhinged individuals have spouted theories that he’s going to enact some sort of martial law, or take over the country. It’s a fringe theory, to be sure, but one that has permeated many facets of the extreme right wing side of the internet. Go ahead, google “Obama martial law.” I’ll wait here patiently, while you get sucked into the crazy wormhole. The theories all boil down to one particular idea–Obama wants to remain President, so he’ll declare martial law and take over. This will, apparently, be the end of the United States as we know it.

One of the places where this conspiracy theory has taken hold is in deeply conservative Texas. So when the federal government announced that there will be a series of training exercises held by the United States military in a number of Southwestern states, including Texas, it raised red flags for some. Some very, very red flags.

Operation Jade Helm 15 will involve 1,200 special operations forces. It’s designed to help these special forces practice their readiness skills, and will take place in various sites across Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and California for two months this summer.  While in some cases it will not be immediately obvious that this is a military operation, as some of the forces involved may be blending in as civilians, only public land will be used, or private land if the government has gotten permission to use it. Practice operations like this are a relatively normal practice for our military, and happen on a fairly regular basis.

However, the  people waving those very red flags seem to think that it will lead to tyranny, martial law, and takeover by the federal government.

Operation Jade Helm 15 Huge Step Closer Towards Permanent Military Presence On Main Street http://t.co/w4eKQcwXF7

— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) April 30, 2015

Some are even purporting that the protests in Ferguson and more recently, Baltimore, are a set-up for more extended martial law in Texas and around the country. Again, not only is this completely bonkers, but it does a complete disservice to the very real issue in our country of police militarization and abuse. 

Obama is taking over Democrat-held cities via martial law like ISIS is taking over places in the M.E. via #SocializedTerrorism @CyberMommie — Kickin’ It Crews (@imcrews) April 28, 2015

The riot in Baltimore is exactly what operation jade helm 15 was about to prepare for martial law where we the people are the enemy

— Kevin Lancour (@kevinlancour30) April 28, 2015

In light of this totally irrational paranoia and terror, Governor Greg Abbott decided to get on board and stoke his citizens’ fears by ordering the Texas Militia to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15. Abbott elaborated in a letter to Major General Gerald “Jake” Betty his reasoning for the monitoring, stating:

During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.

In response to Abbott’s horribly misguided call, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest spoke for many of us when he bluntly stated: “I have no idea what he’s thinking.”

Abbott stating that he will be monitoring Operation Jade Helm 15 so that Texans know that their rights will remain in tact can mean one of two things. The first that he could be acting like a dad who will check in the closet for monsters so his child will go to sleep, even though the father knows that there are no monsters in the closet. That’s an unflattering picture to paint of a chief executive of a state–that he thinks his citizens are so idiotic and immature that they can’t simply be told that there is no monster in the closet.

Or, by ordering the forces to keep an eye on the operation, Abbott is telling his citizens that their worries are warranted and that there’s a chance that their rights won’t remain protected. By doing so, Abbott is legitimizing the conspiracy theorists who are freaking the fuck out about a relatively normal military practice operation. That’s not so great either, because that tells me that the head of our second biggest state thinks there’s a chance, however infinitesimal, that the federal government could be coming to take over his state.

I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, I think we’re all a little too old for conspiracy theories and monsters in the closet. Too bad Governor Abbott doesn’t agree.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Governor Greg Abbott is Pandering to Conspiracy Theorists appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

When most people think of Texas one of the first things they associate with this great state is guns–and they would be correct. Texans love their guns! And now lawmakers in the Lonestar state are considering expanding our gun rights.

According to Fox News, Governor-elect Greg Abbott was very open about this the day after his election in November: “If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for the state of Texas,.”

Texas has had an open carry ban since the 1870s and I think it might be time to reevaluate those laws. The whole purpose of the original ban of carrying handguns was “when the carpet-bagger government was very anxious about former Confederates and recently freed slaves carrying firearms.”

There are now about 810,000 registered concealed handgun license holders in the state. That is the entire population of San Francisco.

Despite the early momentum of this idea, there are no guarantees open carry will even pass. Bills to allow concealed handguns on college campuses appeared to have huge support in 2009, 2011, and 2013, but they didn’t go anywhere due to objections from universities and law enforcement.

There are plenty of Texans who have their concealed handgun license, so we already know that at least those people are carrying guns. Why not let them show that they are carrying the gun instead of hiding it from all to see? Some people get a certain level of comfort from knowing that they could protect themselves if need be.

I do understand the objections of universities allowing handguns on campus. There haven’t been many shootings on campuses in Texas; but one notorious shooting could keep most universities on edge. Back in 1966, Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the University of Texas Tower with three rifles, two pistols, and a sawed-off shotgun. This guy was an ex-Marine and an architectural engineering major at UT who had already murdered his mother and wife before going to the UT Tower and continuing his killing spree. He had perfect aim at the five-block radius below to kill whomever he wanted. It took 96 minutes to take Whitman down, but 43 people were shot and 13 of them died. That is one chilling tale and enough to have anyone want to oppose an open carry law. However, Charles Whitman was a very sick man and there have been steps taken to prevent something like that from happening again.

Texas has the most federal firearms license holders in the country. The state allows public displays of long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Concealed handguns are allowed inside the Capitol, where license holders can bypass metal detectors. And yet Texas still insists that handguns be concealed.

According to Fox News, most of the country already allows some form of open carry of handguns but Texas, California, Florida, New York, Illinois, and South Carolina–which make up more than a third of the U.S. population–do not.

A majority of the open carry bills already filed for the upcoming session would still require a license. One, by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, would eliminate the licensing requirement for concealed or open carry. This is something I don’t agree with. If you are going to openly carry a gun around then you need to have a license. You need to have something that says you understand how to use the gun, what the gun laws are, and what kind of power a gun has.

Texans love their guns. I was raised on how to use them but also how to respect them. It is a culture down here in the South. By all means allow us to show that we have a gun but still make sure that those who carry have the same knowledge and respect for those guns.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Considering Open Carry of Handguns appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to hypocrite junction, which is the nickname I’ve given to the corner of the internet that’s still discussing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis speaking out about her abortion. For those of you who missed this whole story, here’s the skinny: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis made headlines last year when she filibustered against a restrictive abortion bill for 11 hours. Now, she’s running for governor of Texas, the first woman to run for that office since 1994. Currently she’s trailing the Republican candidate, Greg Abbott, but she’s still making headlines left and right. She’s tough and she’s smart, and regardless of how the polls turn out in November, she deserves a hell of a lot of respect.

In the midst of the current campaign, Davis’ book came out. That’s by no means an uncommon practice — it’s a pretty normal undertaking by candidates on the campaign trail. Davis’ book contained a story about how she has had two abortions — both for medical reasons.

Most people responded to her admission well, either recognizing the struggle that she must have gone through, or applauding the courage she had to tell her story.

And then there are the people who accused her of making it up for political purposes. I think we may need a new phrase beyond “double standards” at this point. First, she was attacked for standing up for the women who Texas’ insanely restrictive abortion law would have punished. When she first entered the national spotlight, she was called “abortion barbie.” Some of her critics went so far as to create “abortion barbie” posters of her. Click here to see them, but fair warning — they’re about as tasteful and subtle as you’d expect. Then, when her back story came to light, which includes a stint in a trailer and as a low-income single mother, people criticized her parenting skills. Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, was one of the loudest critics. Now that Davis has come out with the story of her abortions, she’s being accused of making them up. Do you have a headache yet? Because I definitely do.

Oh, that might be why.

Politicians have lied before, sure. I highly doubt that Wendy Davis is lying in this case, but I’m not privy to either her life story or her medical history, so I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty. But come on people, do you really think that she’s stupid enough to make up that lie in the first place? And more importantly, how shitty of a person do you have to be to accuse a woman of lying about what very well might have been two of the most difficult, traumatizing, and upsetting decisions of her life.

That’s exactly where the problem is — those who are criticizing her don’t realize how normal Davis’ story truly is. Her critics are attempting to use facts here, so in order to save my sanity I’m going to take a second to debunk one of the most egregious among them. One of the claims is that Davis probably didn’t have an abortion for medical reasons, because those are relatively rare. Texas Right to Life’s Emily Horne claimed, “it is extremely rare — if not non-existent — for a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. As for fetal anomalies, it simply isn’t necessary to abort a child because he or she is sick or has a medical condition.”

Well one of the two abortions Davis has discussed involved an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube. It’s estimated to happen in one of 50 pregnancies, the baby most likely won’t survive, and given that the condition is life threatening to the mother, often emergency care is needed. In some cases the pregnancy may need to be terminated. As the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine’s site puts it:

Ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life.

Women have abortions to end ectopic pregnancies, and they also have abortions because of the quality of life that their unborn child may be subjected to, as was the case of Davis’ other pregnancy. The baby was going to suffer severe medical issues, and Davis chose to terminate the pregnancy rather than have her child suffer. The truth is that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. The exact statistics for why are often debated, but according to a comprehensive study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, four percent of women seeking abortions do so out of concern for their own health, and another three percent choose to terminate a pregnancy out of concerns about the fetus’ health.

This was not an attempt to justify Davis’ choices — they don’t need to be justified by me because they were hers and hers alone. Rather this is my attempt to point out the argumentative flaws of those who are attempting to cast doubt on Davis’ story right now because not only are their arguments disrespectful, they’re also pretty weak.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter why Davis had an abortion, or why any other woman makes that choice. What does matter is that they have the resources to make that choice, or any other, for themselves — exactly what Davis stood for eleven hours to protect. I applaud her for sharing her story, and her work to make others who have had equally difficult choices understand where she is coming from.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Standing with Wendy Davis: A Story That Deserves Respect, Not Doubt appeared first on Law Street.