Episode 28 - Can the Government GPS My Firearms?

Welcome to the top Texas Lawyers podcast. This podcast is brought to you by the law firm Abercrombie and Sanchez PLLC.


Your hosts are Bryan Abercrombie and Samuel Sanchez. Bryan has been practicing law for 18 years and his board certified that sort of legal specialization in the area of family law. Sam has been practicing for 13 years, is licensed in both Texas and Florida, and is a certified mediator. This podcast is for informational purposes only and all views are the opinion of the hosts. It’s not designed to provide legal advice for your particular legal matter, and it should not replace the advice of competent counsel. Welcome. And we hope you enjoy the top Texas Lawyers podcast.

Good afternoon and welcome to the top Texas Lawyers Podcast. I’m your host, Bryan Abercrombie, and with me, as always, is the Garth Algar to my Wayne Campbell. How ya doing?

Doing well, doing well. Rock on.

On or the Doc Holiday to my Wyatt Earp.

Absolutely. Maybe with traffic today, that’s more appropriate than you think.

All right. So we are going to talk today a little bit about firearms. We’re going to talk about some changes that might be coming down the pike. We’re going to be talking about the new proposed gun law in the that’s before your Congress this this term. And we’ll we’ll go and do a deep dive into that. But first, Sam, you got the any juicy tidbits for us? Anything, anything going?

Well, I thought since we were going to do something gun related and trying to up guns and celebrities isn’t always the easiest thing. But I did come across a celebrity cheat sheet about celebrities who own firearms, and I thought it might be kind of interesting to talk to you on the left here. All right. So obviously, one of the big ones that isn’t really a surprise to me, but I guess was a surprise to many people that Samuel L. Jackson.

I can see that. Yeah.

You know, it says he grew up in the south, in the South. And so, you know, that’s where guns were everywhere and no one ever shot anybody, but everybody had one. I can relate to that for sure. Next up, Johnny Depp. This is somebody who I see walking around with like a pirate sword more than a weapon.

But I thought he lived in France and then allowed guns in France.

I don’t know. But you know how it goes. You know, money, status — you can say it’s only for hunting purposes. It’s only for hunting. Sure, sure.

Sure. That’s what they say.

ok, so not to just stick to the middle categories, but Jennifer Lawrence is somebody who said that she’s a fan. She said…I think what let me get the quote exactly. She said, her ideal future involves having a nice house with a big dog and a shotgun. That was in Rolling Stone. And they got to like her.

I can see her. She’s from Kentucky. Maybe if I’m not mistaken, she’s from the middle…I think from the mid southwest. I don’t know what Kentucky is considered, but it’s rural. They’ve got some rural there.

There’s some hunting down there for sure. I don’t know, going out there for you that I thought was kind of a surprise. Whoopi, Whoopi Goldberg. I mean, so obviously, this is somebody who’s very outspoken. She’s one of the host on The View. I don’t think she’s, you know, any one about membership in the NRA. She’s definitely somebody about like that. She owns a gun. And, you know, I think a lot of celebrities and things that people don’t understand is, you know, they’re in a position where they feel like being constantly threatened or potentially in harm’s way. Another example that I’m a man know somebody who grew up in South Central. Give me a break. Like he’s not going to break and have, you know, weapons, but he’s definitely somebody who’s on the pro-gun contingent.

Well, I mean, you know, you talk about celebrities and when you talk about, you know, potentially being on the threat, you know, I remember this interview I read a long time ago with with Michael Jackson, obviously, before he passed away and and everything like that. And he was talking about in the 80s, he would come home to his big palatial estate there in the in California, and there’d be people, people sneaking in and sitting by his pool waiting for him. I mean, you just you know, I mean, if you’re in the in the spotlight, you’re and if you’re one of these really popular celebrities, I could see where you might get your fair share of stalkers or, you know, various people that it might have some sort of agenda or mental illness or whatever the case may be where they’re there one to one to get a piece of the action, right?

Oh, without a doubt. Without a doubt. I you know, I really feel for these celebrities a lot of times, you know, everybody kind of looks at, you know, why I would be so great to be a celebrity. But you give up so much for that life. I am privacy, a sense of I think being safe and anonymous in any type of situation is gone. So I can definitely see where that would be one. So I got to two good ones for you. And obviously this is one of my favorite movies of all time, Mr. Mrs. Smith, Angelina Jolie, big time gun owner. She said, you know, not only is she a gun owner, she had some custom set made by Jesse James. It’s pretty cool.

She’s also one of my favorites. I mean, the movie is one of my favorites of all time. So her ex, Brad Pitt, Big Man, he’s a big he’s a big gun owner, too. So, you know, she has a pair of custom custom made Cisco 1911’s. So, I mean, how cool is that, that was made for her by Jesse James? It’s not too bad. She says you can use them both. Right. So, yes.


Yeah. Also, I mean, yeah, just a couple of names out there. Obviously, some big superhero thing people didn’t like in the past. I know you’re you’re you’re sure to wreck. This named Bruce Willis, I mean, you may remember him from this really small franchise called Die Hard.

Ahh, Die Hard.

And to wrap it up, I thought I thought you’d like this one. Pop little pop star is a Madonna. Madonna is definitely somebody out there who…she’s rolling with action. She’s rolling. She has what we call a heater.

She definitely has a heater and knows how to use it. So there you go. Not a comprehensive list, but some interesting people that I don’t know that people would automatically say, oh, yeah! But they do. But they do.

ok, so, Sam, I don’t think it’s any secret. I’m pro-gun. I think you’re pro-gun as well. But you own a gun. I own a gun. You know, you have several. I have several. We live in Texas. It’s one of the best states, in my opinion. But I’m a little biased, but obviously one of the the largest states with respect to gun ownership in the United States. And it’s not just for me. You know, it’s not just for hunting turkeys and deer and and birds. It’s you know, it’s it’s for home defense as well. I mean, people do own guns here. And, you know, you grew up around them. I grew up around them. Heck, my dad was in law enforcement, so we always had guns around the house. So let’s talk about this gun law. Obviously, new administration came into came into office in January 20th. And there’s been a number of different things that have happened. But one of the things that’s kind of jumping out is the this is probably one of the most and, you know, there’s there’s pundits on both sides that that that have opinions as to whether or not this has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually passing the Senate.

But it is kind of a good discussion point of what the tenor is out there. So there’s obviously a very, very big pro-gun lobby and there’s a very, very big anti-gun lobby as well nowadays. So let’s let me just hit you with the highlights of this bill, and then we can kind of kind of dive into it. Basically, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee out of Houston, Texas, in your neck of the woods. Yes, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your side of the political spectrum. But in any event, she proposed a gun control bill that would create a national firearm registry, set the minimum gun ownership age at twenty one and require licensing and psychological evaluations before you can own a gun. Now, I don’t know what it says about people who currently own guns, but that’s that’s a pretty strong. We’ll get into the rest of that. But let’s touch on that one for a second. That’s a pretty strong reach, I feel like, in my opinion.

Well, any time you’re going to create a whole other agency or expand the extension of an agency such as the ATF, it obviously already has a pretty wide purview for the federal government. And we look at imposing something like that on all the states. You know, some states may be in favor of this. I would tell you that Texas is probably not going to be one of them. But you’re talking about some very substantial invasions, in my opinion, on your your personal liberties and a sense of privacy, because, you know, and we’ll get to all of this as we go through. But even just the registration and psychological evaluation. First of all, I’m sure that’s a psychological evaluation done by a doctor who’s pre-approved by the ATF. And so what does that look like?

So we’re going to have shrinks now deciding who can own guns and who can’t own guns. Are they? Is that the job of a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine gun ownership?

Well you and I both know as litigators who have been on both sides of using and defending against psychological report, you know, those aren’t always telltale as far as making sure that somebody is sane or has the ability or the comprehension ability to be able to own a firearm or drive a car. I mean, because I would tell you, a lot more people get killed in all the states in vehicles than they do using firearms. Well, good. But you to take a psychological evaluation to do that. I had one.

One of the foremost psychological experts told me one time, well, do you really think that any expert can get a an accurate psychological read on somebody with a three-hour interview? And that’s pretty comprehensive sometimes in some of these litigation cases, a psychological evaluation where they’re interviewing the subject for three hours is pretty fairly comprehensive. But if you think you can get a read on every facet of that person’s personality, you’re sorely mistaken. And that was an expert telling me that.

Agreed exactly. So you’re saying one minute and six hours later you’re not you know, I mean, can you pass a psych eval and then get your weapon and then six hours later be in a traffic accident? You just lose your shit. That’s entirely possible, improbable, completely implausible. And so I don’t know if that really is going to be anything, hopefully that anyone would sign up for, believe that it’s going to be a valid gatekeeper for who should own a firearm. But it’s something that they’re proposing.

Let’s get into this a little bit more because it gets better, Sam. And ok, so you it would it would be a crime to possess a firearm or ammunition, not just not just a firearm, but ammunition as well without the new license or to sell it privately. You ever been to a gun? Shows that I’ve been able to know or to sell sell a gun to someone who doesn’t have the license. So you would have to go get the license or you can buy anything or you can sell a gun. So, you know, a highly regulated gun industry is what it looks like. I mean, and ammunition the same as those. So if you wanted to go buy some shotgun shells to go bird hunting, you have to have a license to do that. Well, theoretically, yeah.

And not only that, but I mean, I think what they’re trying to do on this type of legislation, this is you know, they’re they’re probably, I would say 90 percent. You know, that’s obviously a guess on my part. But let’s just say 70 percent, 70 percent of the gun owners out there are law abiding citizens. Right. Especially the people who have registered firearms, who are licensed to carry. You know, these are individuals who are trying to adhere to the law. So the only type of restrictions that they’re trying to impose are on people who are already law abiding citizens. Right. So when you talk about creating all these additional hurdles for individuals to get into these, you know, these are designed for the shooters who like the Las Vegas shooting or Sandy Hook or whatever. You’re looking at these these are exceptions to the rule. And so but you want to make the rule apply to everybody and you’re missing out on the people who really you’re trying to control and restrict. This isn’t going to stop someone who is crazy or who’s a criminal, who really wants to utilize firearms in a way that’s going to do mass shooting or harm individuals. You know, they’re going to get it through illegal means. Illegal means you’re just really making it harder for the individual that’s law abiding in each state. And not only that, but when you talk about these types of restrictions and like you said, that are so comprehensive and so really suffocating for the individual gun owner, which do is you you further create a wedge between the federal government and people who have been raised around firearms, who want to have them, who feel that it’s a part of their constitutional rights, and that they believe that they needed to kind of maintain their level of protection for themselves and their family. And, you know, that’s the worst place the government really wants to be in, in my opinion. But this is definitely something she feels is going to be helpful. I don’t know. I think it’s just really going to have the opposite effect.

I’ve never I heard her give a talk about about AR-15s and that they’re .50 caliber and things like that. And it strikes me as a person and she strikes me as a person that doesn’t know a lot about guns, trying to, you know, legislate legislate guns and gun ownership, which is a huge problem. You have a lot of people that don’t necessarily know anything about guns, writing these laws and putting these laws in place. And, look, nobody wants a school shooting. Those those things are horrible. But if you look at the places that have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, they don’t it doesn’t cut down on gun crime and take the city of Chicago, for example. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. And there’s gun there’s shootings every weekend.

And the most murders were in the US. They were like the murder capital of the world there for a while. I mean, but the bigger part of it for me, Bryan, is obviously one of the very first provisions that we talk that we’re going to kind of talk about. I want to bring up is this registration requirement. ok, one of the things that it’s a really nice small clause at the end of a sentence, which I love, that they always do these in laws like this, but it says that they want to know the make model serial number, ok, they already get that when you purchase the identity of the owner of the firearm, if you’re going to buy legitimately, they’re going to get that. And the date will. It’s on the federal application that you have to fill out now. But the next piece is and where the firearm is or will be stored. So are you saying that the federal government is now going to have a map that says, hey, you know what, Sam has firearms in his bedroom and a biometric safe that’s underneath his bed. He also has a gun closet where the majority of the weapons I mean, it’s just it’s insane that the Federal government is over it.

I mean, extreme overreach. Some like, you know, hopefully they never would get it passed.

You and I both. Litigated cases where there have been potential gun issues, where you have people that are gun owners and there may be off the deep end or things like that, I’ve had I had to store one hundred and fifty guns in my office one time because that’s what the judge ordered until we could get a case resolved because there was an agreed protective order involved. And, you know, there’s there’s there’s ways to if you believe someone is truly at risk, then there are ways through the state courts and through to to prevent possession of firearms. I mean, I think this. Oh, and let’s let’s get into this more, because then you’re talking about also gun owners would have to pay insurance for how are the guns if

I going next. Yeah, I bet that I bet that policy is going to be super cheap.

Right. And then you can’t have like I said, you can’t own anything, anything .50 caliber or greater. So, you know, that’s completely illegal. What about if you already own a gun and it gives the US attorney general and and the ATF jurisdiction over licensing and over the guns of your guns and licensing? It just seems to me that this is like a kind of a Trojan horse for a further gun. ok, well, we know your guns in the living room closet, so go delivering closet turn of your gun and bring up the porch and we’re taking it. You know, this is a mandatory buyback. I’ve heard rumors of the not rumors, but talk of a mandatory gun buyback and things like that, that that’s further on down the road. But I think this is a Trojan horse towards that, in my opinion. ok, there’s also a gun. Owners will have to complete a government training course, have a clean record and register the firearms we we talk about. That registry would be available to law enforcement from the local, federal and well, as US local, federal and US military would also have all of the information on your gun ownership. Now, I, I personally, I don’t have a I don’t have any any concern about that. But there are people that do I mean, there are people that don’t trust the government. There are people that, you know, live out in the out in the wild and, you know, like their privacy and don’t aren’t comfortable with that.

So, right, yeah, and and not only that, but look, I would love to tell you that the government always has the best of intentions, right? That they always are going to do things and take the high road. But you and I both know that that’s not always the case. And there plenty of times that the federal government overreaches using your private information. And so this type of thing really kind of plays to a faction of our society that’s already out there saying that there’s already too much and there’s already too much of the federal government monitoring you, your communications, what you do or don’t do your preferences and utilizing them against you, whether it’s health insurance laws, whatever. This is just another way for them to collect additional information on individuals and potentially be able to use that against you in the future. We don’t know. And so while I agree with you, I don’t think that there is necessarily going to be anything that they’re going to find out about you and I, that it’s not that we don’t want to turn it over because there’s something to hide. It’s just why should we have to turn it over? I mean, give me the legitimate basis for what that information garners you. And the only thing that, as you know, as a child of someone who is in law enforcement for his entire life, too, I would tell you that they would know police officers, state, federal, you know, whatever level they all want more information just so that they can kind of look at it and say, I know who I’m dealing with.

Well, you know,

I understand that perspective. You know, I want officers to be safe. I want them to have as much information as is necessary to enforce laws and keep to society as a whole safe.

But I mean, I would just I would I would think that the people that are going to use firearms in the commission of a crime or something like that would be less likely to follow any of these any of these requirements.

I don’t think they’re going to take any tests and I don’t think they’re going to take the training course. I mean, what is the training course entail?

And I mean, we’ve had this this is an ongoing discussion, you know, I mean, obviously, we’ve had this discussion, you and I, about, you know, laws are passed for the people who follow them, not for the people who don’t. And so this type of law, in my opinion, is directed at individuals really who are on the fence about maybe having firearms. Right. Because if you looked at it and you said have to take a psychological evaluation, even if you’re totally sane, that’s a pain in the ass. I have to keep an insurance policy. And so these are prohibitive measures, I think, to kind of dissuade the the people who are on the fence about potential gun ownership. And then on the flip side, can’t go deer hunting this year because I didn’t pass my psychological evaluation. Is that what we’re talking about?

Not only that brother, but like, you know, times are tough, times are tough. And so what about the individual out there who inherited a weapon but doesn’t make a good living, is living hand-to-mouth? And so you’re looking at, well, hey, I can either have an insurance policy to so that I can own a weapon to protect my family or I can just give it up because I don’t want to have I don’t have that extra money to spend on a monthly basis on an insurance policy because who knows how much those are. And so, yeah, I’m not going to do it. You know, these things.

So Sam, do you have any do you have any antique guns or something that might be displayed on a display in your home. Yeah, that would, let’s say you never shot that gun. Let’s say you had a flintlock from the Revolutionary War. Or, I’m sorry, a musket from, you know, from the Civil War or the Revolutionary War or whatever. You’d have to have a license to have your flintlock.

Yeah, I got my grandfather’s black powder. I’ve got my great grandfather’s old, old Winchester. So you mean these are things that, you know, they’re not going to be fired, but they are on display just for the history of what went on within the family and what they mean to us. And so you’re going to have to have a license for that as well.

I have an old one, and it was that way that we have a gun in the family. That’s not an automatic weapon. It went to World War One with my great grandfather. And yeah, you’re going to have to have a license for that.

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Not only that, Bryan, but a big part of this, too, is let’s say, you know, because obviously they want to talk about what’s a military-style weapon. Well obviously AR-15s are going to be military-style weapons, right. But it’s such a broad, broad brush you’re painting with. We’re talking about semiautomatic rifles, handguns, as well as some shotguns, and anything they can get under an umbrella of military-style weapons. What does that even mean? Military weapons are typically automatic weapons. They’re weapons the normal person can’t get, so right.

I mean, so let’s say it’s got a folding stock or a pistol grip where they consider that a military style, if it’s semiautomatic, but it’s a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic weapon. So that can tell you that that in and of itself, that particular term that encompasses a whole lot of firearms that are out there, that are people in possession of, you know, the ability to accept a detachable magazine. I mean, you know, a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds. So that’s a Mini 14. I mean, this is a weapon that I hunted with as a kid since I was 12. It’s wild.

Could nobody in the military is going to want to use an AR-15 in the military. They they got access to better weapons and all that.

Right. So, you know, I mean, these are the kinds of things that it makes it extremely difficult for somebody, one, in my opinion, to be compliant, but to it’s really designed not to allow people to have them, but to dissuade them from having them, you know, and and then potentially, if you’re like, well, hey, you know what, I’m going to be non-compliant. It sure gives you the ability to be in a whole lot of trouble based on not having your insurance policy because you couldn’t pay it that month. You know, things went bad, but you’re not going to give up your guns because these were gifts. I mean, just…

So let’s talk about just who’s going to be completely just axed from the list right away without without hearing, without review or without anything. Anyone who has ever been hospitalized due to a mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, homicidal or suicidal thoughts or a brain disease would not be eligible to obtain any kind of firearms license. Period.

So you had a drinking problem in your 20’s, but you’re done now. You can’t get well; you can’t get treatment. I mean, clearly, they don’t believe in that. You know, I mean, that is a huge paintbrush. That is a huge swath of a paint brush across.

It gets better, Sam. It gets better. The psychological evaluation process would also take into account the psychological condition of other members in the licensee’s household, current and former spouses, relatives and associates. Now, your ex-wife just crazy, so you can’t get one.

Right. They’re going to go talk to your ex-wife and then they’re going to decide whether you need to have a firearm because you had a bad marriage.

How many times do we have somebody, a client come in and say the first thing they want to say is what? I’ve diagnosed my my other person, my other spouse, the other side, the bipolar label. Psychopath. Sociopath. There you go.

Okay, well, it continues. Also let’s say in my in my household all of my guns are completely locked up. I’m the only one who has access to it. I guess my wife has access too, but I have trigger locks. I have every safety precaution that I think is is appropriate. But this means that if, let’s say you have somebody that they deem potentially a risk and you’re living in your household, even though they may not even have access to the guns, you could be prevented from having this license.

The mother-in-law comes over. You’re in trouble, Bryan.

I’m in trouble anyway.

But, well, there are some big penalties for violating those laws if it were to make it. I mean, she’s not making it a slap on the wrist. I mean, you’re talking about some substantial penalties right now. I think it’s knowingly violating the sections is like seventy-five to one-hundred-fifty thousand dollars. You could be imprisoned, no less. Fifteen to twenty-five years. I mean, you know, these are federal charges. And the challenge is, I don’t know if, you know, most people know out there, but most federal charges, you know, they have like a ninety-eight percent conviction rate. And the reason being is because, you know, once you’ve violated those, the conviction is pretty hard pressed to get around. So, I…

I mean, let’s give you an example. There were twenty-three million firearms sold in the United States last year, and that’s just last year. So, you know, you’re talking about a tax on every one of those guns. You’re talking about potentially having to get a license for every one of those guns. I think the government’s going to be so inundated with licensing requirements that I don’t know that you can ever get a license approved and that maybe, you know, maybe you have to wait like seven years to get your license approved.

Or say that’s part of the strategy.

I mean, you know, obviously whenever the these bills go through the legislation process, obviously things get taken out and things get amendments and things get added taken out before it ever goes to the to the Senate. But I think, you know, I guess the question will be whatever this bill looks like when it passes the House, because I assume it’s probably going to pass the House and then it goes over to the Senate. What does the Senate do with it? You have some very fairly pro gun…and I don’t want to say pro gun, but pro 2nd Amendment senators out there — even some Democrats that are particularly pro 2nd Amendment. So do I think this is going to pass? I mean, hopefully not, but I think it’s a really good illustration of where the the two sides of this argument are right now. And it’s it’s definitely the most radical gun law I think I’ve ever seen.

Yeah. It’s definitely taking it in a direction that obviously should raise a lot of challenge. One would hope, but it is a big part of that. It made it to the floor in this forum that it was really proposed from someone who’s from Texas, even though she’s from a fairly large Democrat constituency in Houston, or the Houston area. I would tell you, like still Texas, the heart of Texas. Right. I mean, and so, you know, this is a conversation that’s not going away. Every time the legislation comes up, it comes up in a different fashion and it seems to be moving further and further along this trajectory, which is, you know, it’s scary. You know, it’s really something that I think individuals really need to pay attention to. And we talked about it before, right. Politics is where the rubber meets the road.  And with politics, it’s really going to be locally. And so paying attention to the vote that you cast for the individuals that are proposing laws are going to come up. But not only that, but then once they do come up, really paying attention to what it is that they’re proposing to happen. So, you know, I think this is going to get obviously a lot of attention.

But that’s a good point you make, because there was a bill even just before the Texas legislature this year where a representative was looking at trying to repeal the Castle doctrine in Texas, which is a big, big law in Texas. That’s something that we Texans are very, very sensitive to, and that was the law that you can’t shoot somebody that breaks into your home. I mean, I think that’s…

Retreat, basically.

So what do you do? What do you do in that situation? I mean, it’s just there’s not a lot of middle ground on some of these things where there I think there could be because nobody wants a school shooting, nobody wants those things to happen. Those are obviously horrible tragedies and they don’t need to happen. But at the same time, I think there’s some sensible middle ground in here, but nobody seems to be concerned about middle ground anymore. It’s it’s all one way or the other, right?

Yeah. I mean, middle ground. I don’t even know what that means anymore. But I agree with you.

I mean, do we think a three year old should be able to own an Uzi? No, it’s…

No, but I do feel like that. You know what? If it’s your home and you want your family to be safe because you travel, they should be able to own and possess a firearm. These are things that help offer families and individuals a sense of security and peace of mind. And I think that challenging that informationally and process wise by passing these types of laws is an extreme challenge to that fundamental liberty that we’ve enjoyed for a long, long time.

But it’s definitely my personal opinion on this. The purpose behind the Second Amendment is not to not so you can have a deer rifle. It’s it’s to have be able to own a firearms to protect yourself and protect from, you know, theoretically a tyrannical government. That’s why the founders thought it was important. The framers thought it was important to have this law or have this amendment in the Constitution to protect protect yourself, depending on. No, depending on what the particular threats of the day are.

And if you want to talk about restricting ownership, I mean, nothing is more restricted currently other than maybe like, you know, certain certain types of maybe like plutonium or some as far as, you know, owning something as guns. The laws on the books across the states, across this country are voluminous, voluminous, and it hasn’t stopped gun violence in this country. It’s not. I get it. I understand that part of the conversation. And I want to fix I want it to be where, you know, we don’t have this except to defend yourself in the worst situation at the last minute and to keep your family safe. But unfortunately, that’s happening more and more everywhere. Everywhere. It’s not just at home. It’s in your car. It’s at the mall. People there’s all kinds of news reports about people getting assaulted and attacked outside of working capital. So, you know, I’m saying like, it doesn’t matter where you are. These are things that are really that we utilize and have been implemented since the inception of our Constitution to afford individuals the right to have the ability to protect themselves and maintain that against all comers. And I think that’s important. I think it’s something that we need to continue to protect. And if we’re going to try to limit it, it needs to be really well thought out in that conversation between both sides need to be very open and honest about what it’s really designed to try to do, because this is

All things and all things being fair. I mean, I think there are some some middle ground that that people can agree to in here where you don’t want to give, give, allow the mentally ill to have access to firearms and things like that. I mean, that’s obviously that’s something that’s a no brainer right now. You just have to you have to you have to balance the need for public safety with respect to the need for having a constitutional right. Well, a good example would be if you want to make sure nobody dies in a traffic accident, well, have no cars, then. No one can. Well, that’s not that’s not society. That’s not that’s not how society functions. And, you know. People feel the same way about guns. You can you can come up with sensible, sensible alternatives to this where you can keep the guns out of the hands of the most risky. But at the same time, this seems to be like a dramatic government overreach to private citizens who are, like you said, law abiding citizens.

Yeah, I mean, it’s I get it’s not really targeted at the individuals. I think it’s really trying to restrict. But this is something that we’re going to watch closely. I’m sure everybody else that’s listening out there will probably hopefully do a quick Google search and do their own reading and research and form.

They don’t take our word for it. Go, go for your own opinion. Do the research yourself and see, like I said, look at the crime statistics. Look at the gun ownership statistics. Look at this look at this law to see if it makes sense to you and see if it’s reasonable to you.

I mean, and it’s like I tell my kids all the time right there as a closing. But for me, I would tell you, you know, when the government tries to limit an individual liberty, everybody should be involved in that conversation. And it’s something that should be very well thought out and discussed from all perspectives, because the more that you give up an individual liberty, the less free you are, irrespective of what it is, whether it’s going to be on this tax or any tax. If it’s a personal liberty, you should really think about how best to protect it and protect it as much as you possibly can. And that really involves being active, being educated and having a voice and let people know.

So get involved, whether you’re whatever side of the ledger you come down on this thing, get informed. And like you said, if you’re going to if your rights are going to start being restricted, know the ins and outs of of the of the arguments. You know, if you want to linger too sensitive to learn the arguments, learn your learn your position on it, I would suggest going on and going to a shooting range of shooting some of these guns and seeing what you think. I mean, sometimes people people are scared of the thing they don’t know. I mean, my have a very, very close friend who grew up around guns. Guns were a normal part of their life. Guns were out on the kitchen table when they came home because they were a very big farming and hunting family. And he’s not concerned about guns in the least because he grew up around them. Nobody ever shot anybody. Nobody ever did anything. Like everything was very sensible. But they knew guns were dangerous. They know their you know, they know they’re deadly and they know they practiced proper gun safety. But at the same time, you know, they’re not not afraid of them. Maybe sometimes education is is important. So get to know these issues. And then you can then you could form a reasonable and informed opinion whether for or against it.

So if you guys want to talk to us about anything, we can be reached at my phone number 281-374-4741 or my email babercrombie@www.aswlawoffice.com. Our website is www.www.aswlawoffice.com. We are on Instagram and Facebook @astxlegal. Sam. How did they get a hold of you?

Well, I’m up in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. You can come by the office. We’re in the north Fort Worth area. You can call me directly at 817-914-5470. Or you can hit me via email at ssanchez@www.aswlawoffice.com.

And we also have offices in Round Rock. We have offices in El Paso and we obviously are in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and The Woodlands, and we can cover pretty much anywhere in Texas.

And I’m seen occasionally in Miami, everyone, as well.

Well, that’s true, very true. But we’re happy to talk to you. We appreciate the time, Sam. We’re going to be coming back next week with another exciting topic. I think we’re going to jump back into the family law and do a series of a couple of different things we got got coming around the corner. But thanks for the time today, buddy. And we will talk soon.

Yes, sir. I look forward to it.

So thanks for the time, Sam, and I appreciate you, sir. Take care, brother. See you soon.

All right.

Thank you for listening, and we hope you enjoyed the Top Texas Lawyers Podcast. If you’d like to schedule a consultation with either Bryan or Sam, please call 1-888-981-7509. Or visit us on the web at www.aswlawoffice.com. Once again, that’s www.aswlawoffice.com. Thank you very much.

Request A Consultation

If you d like an attorney to contact you for a consultation please complete this form, or call us at (888) 981-7509.