Improved response to mass shooting is goal of 'Uvalde Strong' bill approved by Texas House
The Texas House gave unanimous approval on Tuesday to a bill that would improve how law enforcement responds to mass shootings. The bill was proposed by state Rep. Don McLaughlin, who was the mayor of Uvalde when a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary school in 2022.
House Bill 33 would mandate law enforcement agencies across the state to create crisis response policies. This stems from the shooting in Uvalde, where nearly 400 law enforcement officers waited more than an hour before confronting the shooter who barricaded himself in a classroom. That delay went against nationwide active shooter protocols and was widely criticized as the shooting was investigated.
The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. In a statement, McLaughlin said the bill ensures confusion and hesitation will never be an excuse again.
McLaughlin said: 'It demands clear command, real-time coordination, and immediate actions when lives are on the line. We can't undo the past, but today we made sure Texas is ready for the future.'
The bill has several requirements in it that could create a more organized response to another mass shooting. It would require school districts and law enforcement to meet annually and plan their response to an active shooter situation and mandate officers to complete a training program on how to respond to an active shooter at primary and secondary schools. It would also provide training grants for officers.
McLaughlin, who was critical of the response to the shooting in Uvalde, also included in his bill a requirement that policy and emergency medical service providers file a report detailing the event if they respond to an active shooter scene. The report would be due no later than 60 days after an incident — a requirement aimed at giving the public faster information on mass shootings.
Ahead of the vote, McLaughlin spoke about the support he's received about the bill in committee meetings.
'This is a good bill for school safety, law enforcement coordination, communication and training,' McLaughlin said.
Cheers erupted in the room when the final vote was announced.
The Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde is the deadliest shooting at a Texas public school. Families of the victims have sued officers and law enforcement agencies over the failed response, including 92 officers with the Texas Department of Public Safety. Former Uvalde schools police Chief Pete Arredondo and one of his former officers were also charged with multiple counts of child endangerment.
Investigations into the shooting revealed an uncoordinated response among law enforcement officers responding to the shooting. Officers reportedly waited for instructions, couldn't find the right keys to enter classrooms, and were fearful of an AR-15 style rifle as there was a lack of ballistic shields and flash-bangs.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court leaves in place District of Columbia's gun restriction on large magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Follow live politics coverage here The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri eyes free college tuition for public safety personnel and dependents
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (News-Press NOW) — New legislation headed for the governor's desk would provide free tuition in Missouri for a wide-range of public safety personnel if approved, a new tool designed to address staffing shortages and boost recruitment. Senate Bill 71, sponsored by Sen. David Gregory, R-St. Louis, would provide college tuition awards for public safety personnel such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, telecommunicators, first responders, emergency medical technicians or advanced emergency medical technicians. Public safety personnel with at least six years of service shall be entitled to an award worth up to 100% of the resident tuition charges, including fees, for an institution of higher education located in Missouri. The legal dependent of public safety personnel with at least ten years of service is also eligible for a tuition award if he or she executes an agreement with the institution of higher education outlining the terms and conditions of the tuition award, including the legal dependent's commitment to reside in Missouri for the next five years. Buchanan County Sheriff Bill Puett called the measure a new and innovative" tool that would not only benefit public safety personnel and the departments they work for, but the communities they serve by offering new ways to recruit and retain valuable officers in Missouri. "This is a good hand in glove kind of concept because the more we train, the more we educate our staff, the better they serve the community," he said. "It's a win-win. It keeps our folks here in the state of Missouri and it allows our universities that have really quality programs to continue to prosper." Puett said the measure would focus on degree programs designed specifically for public safety and public safety-oriented fields. Individuals who have already earned a baccalaureate degree are ineligible to use the tuition award to earn another degree. The measure passed both the Missouri House and Senate this legislative session and now awaits approval from Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe. The governor has identified fighting crime and enhancing public safety as a top priority. "Kudos to the governor, Department of Public Safety and the legislature because the governor came in with a law enforcement priority and he is holding true to those values," Puett said. "This is one of the planks in that effort to recruit and retain good law enforcement officers for our state. Puett said if the measure is ultimately approved, the department would look to utilize it immediately, helping them save local tax dollars that are currently used for tuition assistance. According to a fiscal analysis, the measure would lead to a decrease of roughly $3.4 million in general revenue funding. Four St. Joseph Police officers talk at the scene of a shooting at 16th and Grand streets in 2024 in St. Joseph. Cameron Montemayor | News-Press NOW
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
