TomDoe

23 GUN BILLS FILED IN TEXAS. And one of them could allow a judge to order someone to surrender their firearms BEFORE a hearing. It's called House Bill 218. The proposal would establish a red flag law in Texas. Here's how it could work. A qualifying petitioner goes to a judge and alleges that a gun owner poses an immediate danger. Under certain circumstances, the judge could issue a temporary order without notifying the gun owner first. The person would then have 24 hours to surrender their firearms. A hearing would follow within 14 days. ALL OF THIS IS BEING PROPOSED IN TEXAS. And HB 218 isn't the only bill. Another proposal would restrict certain semi-automatic rifle transfers to people under 21. Following the November election, Democrats are preparing to take control of the governor's office and Texas House. Republicans still hold a majority in the state Senate. So these bills are proposals, NOT laws. Supporters of red flag laws argue that temporary intervention can prevent imminent harm. Critics raise concerns about due process, mistaken allegations, and enforcement. Here's my question: Should a judge be able to temporarily order firearms surrendered before the gun owner gets a hearing? And what safeguards should the law require? Let me know what you think. Full breakdown on my YouTube channel.

HE JUST WON A SEAT IN THE U.S. SENATE. Now listen to what happened when Jesse Watters asked Abdul El-Sayed about the Second Amendment. Watters wanted to know whether he'd replace the right to bear arms. El-Sayed started talking about healthcare. Watters pressed him again. And El-Sayed continued discussing healthcare before eventually mentioning that he supports people owning hunting rifles. But here's the question. IS SUPPORTING HUNTING THE SAME AS SUPPORTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT? The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, including for lawful self-defense. Hunting is only one use of firearms. El-Sayed's campaign has said his earlier remarks about amending the Second Amendment don't represent his current position. And now that he's been elected to the Senate, his legislative votes and judicial confirmations will provide more information about his views. Here's my question: Did he adequately answer Watters' question? Or should he have explained his current Second Amendment position more directly? Tell me what you think. Full breakdown on my YouTube channel.