California, Dave Dave Workman, Heller discussed on Ethan Bearman


Check legislation. Keijo ten studio number four one five eight hundred eighty eight ten speaker of the house Pelosi talking there. She did not mention anything about firearms state of California. Of course is probably the most restrictive is pretty close as well. But one of the one of let me phrase it this way, one of the most restrictive in the country with our firearm laws. Our new governor Gavin Newsom is a leader on that front of implementing or or pushing for more in legislation on on firearm ownership and. Well, there's a specific case that had to do with the unsafe handgun act at our our legislature passed that requires new semi automatic firearms, pistols in particular or handguns that they have chamber load indicators magazine detachment mechanisms, and they have these micro stamping is really I think the biggest issue this being appealed all the way through it's been through the ninth circuit. And now it's being requested to go for, sir. She Harari with the supreme court right now. And joining me on the phone writing about this and working on this issue from the gun MAG Dave workman. Dave. Thanks for coming on the show today. Oh, it's my pleasure. To an interesting case. Yeah. I mean, so so speaker speaker Pelosi did talk about new universal background checks, but that's very different from restricting the availability of handguns, which is really with the unsafe handgun acted here in the state of California. Tell me a little bit more about what it did to to handgun ownership in the state of California. Well, I think the. The law was designed to kill handgun ownership down in California. You know, there's no state constitutional revision in California. That protects the right to keep and or bear arms is there are in forty other state up in Washington, we will one of the strongest state constitutional amendment. So this case cold via ran, and it's a challenge of the the unsafe hand act, which essentially craze to ignore the fact that there was a a ruling in Heller in two thousand eight and another one in the McDonald's case in two thousand ten by the supreme court that protects handgun ownership. The the regulation that California has passed. Is literally impossible to comply with the new gun manufacturer that I know of he's even looking at trying to. Institute some kind of a micro steeping thing just just to comply with the state of California because it cost Paribas even I think in Maryland, they discovered that really doesn't work. It doesn't help solve crimes at all. So these corrupt the system back there. But this could wind up before the supreme court it if it does it could wanted to a landmark ruling once again on on second amendment issues that holes. To task. Federal courts. That's the key though. Dave Dave workman's joining me on the phone, and we're talking about California, unsafe handgun act, and that's the key here. So I probably totally disagree with you. I well studied on Heller and McDonald, and I've debated with David French on this among others where we agree. Let me start. We disagree in what Scalia wrote I in my mind when I read section three. It's very clear. He's like, you can do all kinds of restrictions on firearm ownerships, and he gives very specific examples, and I've gone back and forth with David French on this. But what we need and where I do agree with David French unlikely you is clarification from the supreme court because like everything in the law. It depends on how you interpret something. How you read it what did Scalia actually mean when he said this sentence in section three? And so the supreme court might take this case and clarify what is meant by the ability to restrict because Scalia very specifically talked about things like. Concealed firearms lawfully restricted as described in section three of the Heller decision recognizing limitation and the separation of the prefatory clause, for example, Scalia wrote all of that in section three of Heller. However to your point McDonald's, specifically said, hey, you can't make law that effectively bans the possession of handguns. And so between those two you have this unsafe handgun act here in California, which doesn't outright ban handguns, but essentially bans new handgun sales. Yeah. That's that's really what's going on here. And as I mentioned that I don't think there's a manufacturer. On the planet right now. That is looking at is is a viable engineering thing for any new handgun model is certainly don't know a one if you do. I don't actually I've talked to some other some dealers on this exact topic. And they're like, Yep. Nobody's going down that path at all. They all are avoiding it. If both from the technology standpoint, but there's also the the marketplace the point that you would basically be making a firearm for the state of California that nobody else wants well. Yeah. And. Yeah. You know, you said something just a second ago. I think that the listeners really understand this just because a case to the supreme court for review or request doesn't mean the court is going to accept that. I know very few are probably get on maybe a thousand cases a year asking to review, and they pick what like fifty or so. So we don't know yet where this is going to go. But I if it does wind up before the the high court, especially with Neal Gorsuch, and and Brit cavenaugh Nell seated as associate justices, we can see some interesting things coming out of a a ruling. I mean, I just I totally agree with that statement. We could we could if they accept it will be an even sometimes by the way workman sometimes when they deny hearing a case and send it back sometimes in their denial. They make statements as well that can be of interest. But the new court makeup would make for a very interesting ruling to see where they go with it. Because as we've seen recently chief Justice Roberts, sometimes doesn't go the way that people think he will either. Yeah, that's true. And I think right now, we do have a situation that we did when Kennedy was still in the coroner we've got a a four four with Justice Roberts, probably holding the hand he could go either way. Yeah. This is really interesting. I, you know. I'm I'm people will be a little surprised to hear that. I I am not at all against firearm. Ownership. I have this conversation all the time. It's really an urban rural in my mind is is where the split really happens you go live out in the middle of nowhere. You gotta have firearms sometimes for your own protection. Whereas people living in San Francisco, never see it that way. But this will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the courts. Dave, I I appreciate your time. Come on the show and having the discussion day Dave workman from the gun MAG dot com. Thank you. Appreciate your time. I it is. It's very interesting to me. What those limits are. It is part of the constitution. We do not have a constitutional amendment removing the right to bear arms. And again that Heller decision in two thousand eight was fascinating was the first one ever in the nation's history clarify exactly what the second amendment meant. So speaker Pelosi talked about background checks. I am just curious to hear your thoughts on on her speech, and this conversation, I just had with Dave work. My four one five eight hundred eighty eight ten. K.

Coming up next