35 Burst results for "Second Amendment"

Why Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Objects to the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:47 min | 15 hrs ago

Why Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Objects to the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act

"We have a very special guest on the line none other well you know have friends fellow. Patriots called mt g representing georgia's fourteenth district congresswoman. Marjorie taylor green. Is it true you just left the flow of the house. What's going on there. Tell us give us an update. Yes i did. I just walked off and i'll have to be heading in here in a few more minutes. We're voting on amendment after amendment Most of this is going for the nda. So this is one of those wild weeks where vote after vote Most of them are democrat amendments. Because as you know they usually don't take republican amendments and some members of the freedom caucus have said that the nda should not be voted on by republicans until we see certain other actions taken by the white house. What's the state of play is going to go through. What's the latest number. Well there's a lot of us in the freedom caucus that are taking a stand against it we are. We're against drafting our daughters strapping young women. Especially when there's seventeen million young men eighteen to twenty five already signed up the flex services and our current Active duty military forces or at one point three million. And we're not even at war so there's no need to even be talking about drafting women at sample ridiculous. Of course we know women are capable and they're equal but we're just not into drafting our daughters our our wives and and don't think that that's that's necessary. It's another one of those Racing gender you know social issues. It's just pointless with that we can't trust this. How can we trust the military the leaders especially after they abandoned americans and and look what they did they arm the taliban so there's a lot to unpack

Seventeen Million Eighteen Marjorie Taylor Green Republicans One Point Republican Three Million White House Twenty Five Georgia Freedom Fourteenth Democrat Mt G ONE District Americans
The Media Is Positively Complicit in Biden's Disaster of a Presidency

Mike Gallagher Podcast

02:09 min | 1 d ago

The Media Is Positively Complicit in Biden's Disaster of a Presidency

"Maddening is a hell crazed. Do you become when you see how complicit the media is in giving this president today a pass on a daily basis not holding this administration accountable for practically anything after the four years we had to endure of these hyenas and jackals going after the trump administration and everybody in it day in and day after. how how. how hard is that for you personally to witness this ben. Oh my goodness mike. I mean you talk about a contrast over the last four years to what joe biden faces every day. I mean you're right when when we were there in the white house. If president trump so much took less than five questions before leaving the room. This shouts from the press would almost be deafening. You wouldn't be able to even hear what was going on. Because they would continually asking questions claimed that he was ruining or tarnishing the first amendment or or getting rid of press freedom whereas joe biden can't barely be bothered to leave his beach vacation in rehoboth delaware to answer questions for the failures of his administration. it's total projection on the part of the press on the part of democrats. And i think it's so funny. Oftentimes what you see with the left in washington. Dc you know how certain people when they get defensive. They project their failures onto people they oppose. No no one has been more guilty of that than the democrat party with press freedom. I mean you think about for years. For four years mike they consistently accused donald trump of harming freedom of the press of damaging the first amendment of not respecting the rights oppress oliver the country. Donald trump was out there every single day during the cova crisis during whatever crisis was going on facing the press taking questions from them answering whatever they wanted to hear and the american people knew exactly where their president stood at all times and with joe biden. That's not the case you're you're right. It's absolutely banning the double standard but frankly democrats in washington would have no standards that they didn't have double

Joe Biden President Trump Mike Rehoboth BEN White House Donald Trump Delaware Democrat Party Washington Oliver
A Comprehensive Defense of America's Embattled Constitution

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:34 min | 6 d ago

A Comprehensive Defense of America's Embattled Constitution

"We are blessed everybody. We are very very blessed to live in. A country still has some semblance of a divinely. Inspired form of government of the independent jewish judiciary rule of law consent to the govern- checks and balances and that started today. Not actually today. But on this day i should say many many years ago in seventeen eighty seven the united states constitution after it was the seven articles were at least conditionally approved by the constitution convention. They had to go state by state so they had to go. Delaware was the first state rhode island was the last state to ratify and to approve it and there are seven articles of the united states constitution. It wasn't until seventeen. Ninety one that the bill of rights was passed and ratified by all the states. And that's actually what most people know is their constitutional rights first amendment second amendment amendment fourth amendment first amendment right to speech not to be infringed upon by government. Secondment the right to bear arms third amendment. That soldiers don't come into your home fourth amendment. The government can spy on you fifth amendment. You're right against self-incrimination. Six seven and eight all about process speed and a speedy speedy and quick jury of your peers against long imprisonment unfairly ninth amendment which actually one of my favorite amendments to the constitution which says that anything that is not in the constitution does not mean that it's not protected tenth amendment. Things that are not in here are protect are then given to the states and to the people that the for. That's the first ten amendments to the united states constitution. But that actually wasn't part of what we're celebrating today. If i remember correctly december seventeen ninety one that the bill of rights was was ratified. James madison wrote. It is our reason alone that must be placed in control of the government. Our passions must be controlled by it. The constitution spreads power over time and over land makes it hard to change. Things makes it hard to conduct. Quick revolutions you see the founding fathers in this constitution. And this is the best way to defend. Somebody asked me say charlie what conservatives actually believe said. It's very simple. We believe in natural law. We believe in a natural law. Giver founders knew this they wrote it in the declaration which is why the declaration is a partner of the constitution. They go right into each other. As dr larry arnn from hillsdale college would say it's the founders key. They are meant for one

United States Rhode Island Delaware James Madison Charlie Dr Larry Arnn Hillsdale College
Minnesota High Court OKs Ballot Question on Minneapolis PD

AP News Radio

00:49 sec | Last week

Minnesota High Court OKs Ballot Question on Minneapolis PD

"The Minnesota Supreme Court has cleared the way for Minneapolis voters to decide if changes should be made to policing in the city where George Floyd was killed Minnesota's highest court has overturned a lower court ruling that rejected ballot language approved by the Minneapolis city council the question surrounded wording to describe a proposed charter amendment that would replace the Minneapolis police department with a new department of public safety that could include police officers if necessary the proposal is part of the de fund the police movement that gained momentum after George Floyd was killed last year it doesn't define the police but it would take away a requirement that Minneapolis have a police department with a minimum staffing level I'm Jackie Quinn

George Floyd Minnesota Supreme Court Minneapolis City Council Minneapolis Police Department Minneapolis Minnesota Department Of Public Safety Jackie Quinn
Biden's Business Vaccine Mandate and the Legal Challenges It May Face

The World and Everything In It

02:04 min | Last week

Biden's Business Vaccine Mandate and the Legal Challenges It May Face

"Last thursday president biden announced sweeping vaccine mandates for four categories of americans workers in private companies. That have a one hundred or more employees. Most federal workers and federal contractors teachers and staff at federal programs related to education and finally healthcare workers at facilities that receive money from medicare or medicaid. All in all the mandates cover about one hundred million american workers. If they don't comply they could face getting fired. World's sarah weinsberg reports in some respects. Rebecca wasn't all that surprised by the binding administration's new vaccine mandate she figured the government would require federal employees and maybe even medical workers to get back sedated. But she was surprised. Her company got caught up in the requirements. Rebecca works for an appliance repair business in washington state. It has about one hundred thirty employees. Were not using her last name to protect her job. I don't think anybody thought that it would be mandated for private employers. Especially see i think. I am a little surprised on that. Rebecca doesn't want to get the vaccine. She and her husband had been struggling with infertility for the past two years. She's concerned about how it could affect her hormones. she also doesn't want to get it for religious and political reasons. I don't feel like the government should be telling us what her husband works at a hospital. So he's also affected by the mandate if the federal government is able to implement its vaccine requirements. They could both lose their jobs. So life is up in the air. But that's a big if says jonathan inward. He's an attorney who specializes in health law. Claims he says the biden administration mandates violate the constitution as well as federal law for those who have natural immunity. This likely violates the protection clause of the constitution it likely violates the tenth amendment and as applied to the states that would violate what's called the anti commandeering doctrine

President Biden Sarah Weinsberg Rebecca Medicaid Medicare Jonathan Inward Washington Biden Administration Federal Government
Judge Blocks Enforcement of Florida's 'Anti-Riot' Law

The South Florida Morning Show

00:59 sec | Last week

Judge Blocks Enforcement of Florida's 'Anti-Riot' Law

"Just handed down. A federal judge is blocking florida's anti riot. Law are these judges before even go further in this as we did when we first talked about this when it got passed. It's called the anti riot law. Who's gonna block at doing this. It was put into office. After last year's racial justice protests it was signed by governor onto scientists in april is along. This has been around well yesterday. Us district judge mark walker granted early injunction against the law. He calls it overbroad. oh unconstitutional. Law violates the first amendment ohio and that quote the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize protected speech of hundreds. If not thousands of law-abiding floridians. That's they don't understand that because it's only targeted at people who are writing causing destruction causing violence attacking police officers and destroying property. So what's the

Mark Walker Florida Ohio United States
Learn the History of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Mark Levin

01:47 min | 2 weeks ago

Learn the History of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

"Case in the case, known as Jacobson vs Massachusetts. Jacobson. His lawyers argued that the Cambridge vaccination order was a violation of the 14th amendment rights. Which forbade the state from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Question then was whether the right to refuse vaccination was among those protected. Of the personal liberties, the Supreme Court rejected Jacobs argument and doubt the anti vaccination movement is stinging loss. Writing for the majority Justice John Marshall Harlan acknowledge the fundamental importance of personal freedom. But also recognize that rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times under the pressure of great dangers. Be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulation, says the safety of the general public main demand. This decision established what became known as the reasonableness test. The government had the authority to pass laws that restricted individual liberty if those restrictions, including the punishment for violating them were found by the court to be reasonable means for achieving a public good. Bottom line. There had to be some kind of real and substantial connection between the law itself and legitimate purposes. The Jacobson decision provided a powerful controversial president. To the extent of government authority in the early 20th century. In 1922, the Supreme Court heard another vaccination case, this time concerning a Texas student named Rosalind sucked, who was barred from attending public school because her parents refused to have her vaccinating. Zach's lawyers argue the school district ordinance requiring proof of vaccination denied her equal protection of laws. Under the 14th amendment. The court disagreed. Justice BRANDEIS wrote in the unanimous decision long before the suit was instituted, and they cite Jacobson vs

Jacobson Justice John Marshall Harlan Supreme Court Cambridge Massachusetts Jacobs Government Rosalind Zach Texas Justice Brandeis
Virginia Removes Robert E. Lee Statue From Capital

All In with Chris Hayes

02:06 min | 2 weeks ago

Virginia Removes Robert E. Lee Statue From Capital

"All learn the story of the warren school at least the basics of it slavery and the rights and status of enslaved people through america into a civil war from eighteen sixty one eight hundred sixty five north. The union eventually won the south confederate states. That had seceded were vanquished and president abraham lincoln was assassinated. But we are not taught. Hardly ever i certainly was taught this only a little bit. We know less about is what came after after the union's victory which is a successful effort by those same confederate forces to win back white supremacy in the south and to win back. The story of their own nobility and those victories are marked with monuments to the confederacy to the losing side to the traders. Like this one. A robert ugly erected in the former capital of the confederacy in richmond virginia in one ninety twenty five years after lee's surrender napa mathematics and after the thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteen commitments which made slavery illegal and unconstitutional enshrined due process in our constitution and gave men of any color of the right to vote and full citizenship and after the union victory there was a hope born for people like frederick douglass and thaddeus stevens and harriet tubman of a true multiracial. Democracy enshrined in those civil war amendments of equal citizens under law with dignity and respect and freedom and the beginnings of that the period the period of reconstruction the south with federal troops deployed to keep the peace confederacy reduced to shameful abject defeat. Black people were voting. They were registering to vote and they were going to school. Becoming becoming local office. Holders and mayors town councilman and members of congress. Like senator hiram revels of mississippi. I bet you've probably never heard that name. Maybe some of you know it. We don't learn his name. The first african american to serve in the upper chamber these were the actual beginnings of a true genuine multiracial democracy in the south and in america that were then destroyed

Warren School Robert Ugly President Abraham Lincoln Thaddeus Stevens America Frederick Douglass Harriet Tubman Richmond Virginia LEE Senator Hiram Revels Mississippi Congress
Texas Death Row Inmate Seeks Pastor's Touch at Execution

AP News Radio

00:38 sec | 2 weeks ago

Texas Death Row Inmate Seeks Pastor's Touch at Execution

"A death row inmate is seeking his pastors touch during his execution a Texas death row inmate set to be executed for killing a convenience store worker more than seventeen years ago is asking that is pastor be allowed to lay hands on him as he dies by lethal injection the request by John Henry Ramirez is the latest clash between death row inmates and prison officials over the presence of spiritual advisers in the death chamber Ramirez is set to be executed Wednesday his lawyer says Texas is violating Ramirez's first amendment rights to practice his religion the state now allows spiritual advisers in the death chamber but there can't be contact between a prisoner and the adviser I'm Walter Ratliff

John Henry Ramirez Texas Ramirez Walter Ratliff
Mike Lindell: The Biggest Problem We Have in America Right Now Is Free Speech and Fox News

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:30 min | 2 weeks ago

Mike Lindell: The Biggest Problem We Have in America Right Now Is Free Speech and Fox News

"The biggest the biggest problem we have in our country right now is our first amendment right of free speech and fox news and fox news by not saying anything about machines vaccine. They've completely shut out from november fourth on the have not talked about the election. They have not talked about when you consider. Hey there's two sides to every story there was fox. Was the side that you figured. That would talk about stuff last summer. therapeutic sense stuff they didn't they fox's disgusting. I pulled all my ads off of fox. They are the one of the biggest problems we have. It's one thing to have the the bad media. I call it the fake news media putting out fake news. At least they put out something. You can see through the lies. There's one about me today saying mike. Lindell claims spreading lies about voting system is good for business now. I never claimed that of course. I'm not rooting for. Let's let's review even if we are totally wrong about the election. Okay the fact is. There is a an unprecedented controversy in the united states of america. Right now you think that everybody would be covering that and others even if they show how you're wrong but notice that they're not trying to show how you're wrong there's simply badmouthing you. Ad hominem attacks and they don't deal with any of the evidence that to me tells me unfortunately more than i need to

Fox News FOX Lindell Mike United States Of America
What Got Mark Schrad Interested in Liquor Prohibitions?

Historically Thinking

02:22 min | 2 weeks ago

What Got Mark Schrad Interested in Liquor Prohibitions?

"Talk about the question that you begin with Obviously you well. You've been studying this. The question of prohibition liquor policy around the world for a while What led you into this. Why did you get involved. Why did you start thinking about that. I think there's a couple of different tangents. One on the american side one on the international side on the american side just as a kid growing up i was kind of venerated. The constitution as like the sort of the the collective wisdom of the leaders of the united states. Going all the way back. You know it started with a pretty good document that we amend it and things get better you know you look at going through all the amendments. And you're like oh you know slavery okay. That sounds good. You know equal rights that makes sense you know women can vote great know and eventually gets the eighteenth amendment and it just as no liquor and you're like wait what it just didn't make any sense to me all right well whatever and then just kind of move down to the twenty-first and you're like okay. Okay okay forget. That whole thing is just kinda erase it from and so that was like wait a minute. How how did we get so wrong. You know on this that you had to put that into your constitution and then have to erase it out so that was one thing that was always just kind of in the back of my mind since i was first learning about politics But beyond that. I guess you know i'm i'm not an american historian by any stretch My focus is always been on on silver comparative politics. and in russia in particular have always been fascinated with russia And you know so. That's the has been a long standing question you know because you have all these stereotypes drunken russian. We all know these things. I've got plenty of anecdotes a my own of drinking in russia. And and and you know that something more than just a a stereotype but i wanted to get to the bottom of that and say okay. Well what's what's going on with alcoholism in you know in russia and so he start looking to the history of it And you know it didn't take long before he of looking at the history and you find that actually. The first prohibition country in the entire world was imperial russia and that just kind of blew my mind. When i first learned about twenty some odd years ago because i thought prohibition was american exceptionalism meshes something. That's weird about the united states and apparently it's weird about a lot of

Russia United States
Guinea President, Alpha Condé, Seized in Military Coup

NPR News Now

00:50 sec | 2 weeks ago

Guinea President, Alpha Condé, Seized in Military Coup

"African nation of guinea soldiers have arrested the country's president in an apparent coup and npr's ava peralta reports. They took over state television to announce it soldiers draped with the canadian flag appeared. Live on state tv. Your dumpling undisciplined. This time they said to usher in a new adaptable constitution. Another video played widely on local media. Show soldiers surrounding president alpha. Conde conde is the country's first democratically elected leader but last year. Despite huge public protests he rammed through a constitutional amendment that allowed him to run for a third term. The discontent only grew after he won. According to local news. Soldiers have surrounded the presidential palace and told residents to stay home it

Ava Peralta Conde Conde Guinea NPR
Texas Passes Law Stating No Permit Necessary to Open Carry a Gun

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:18 min | 3 weeks ago

Texas Passes Law Stating No Permit Necessary to Open Carry a Gun

"Attorney general talk about the new second amendment bill. That was just passed. That has everyone freaking out of what's happening in texas. Well it's a long time coming. I've been in favor of this forever. You don't have to have a permit to for free speech. You don't have a permit to go exercise your faith. I don't think you should have to have a permit to carry under the second amendment so in texas we now have that we have constitutional carey which allows people to carry concealed or out in the open without going through the government to get permission. Well that's terrific and so are there any. Are there any possible legal challenges to this. I'm sure some groups are going to try. Robert francis o'rourke who calls himself beta was making all sorts of videos about this and saying it's the worst thing ever. But i don't think that's gonna hold up in court. No i mean i have. No doubt will get sued. We'll end up defending that law and will you know that's one of those cases that could could all the way the supreme court who knows either way i think we're on si- obviously solid legal footing with the constitution. It's kind of the basic of our of our of our country. So i feel i'm encouraged. It took a long time to get this through era. I was enlisted for twelve years. We were never able to get it through and finally this session happens. I'm really grateful. So let's talk more. Broadly now just about texas is texas at risk of going. Blue harris county seems to be a blue county now vallis counties whatever it is. What are you seeing on the ground. And how can people help. Were absolutely a risk of going blew. It would have happened this time. Had we not fought these lawsuits. I it's all about whether we can protect the integrity of our elections and that is a constant battle. And that's why this election bill was was passed. And we've got to be vigilant. I think there's another bill. They're considering on on on looking at. Its potential type. Audits like you guys are doing here. I think we've got to do that to make sure that our elections are fair and that people can trust them because once you lose if we lose control in texas. I'm not sure that we'd ever get it back because if they open up mail in ballot let elections. We're gonna end up a lot more fraud and we may never be able to take it back and so it's pretty important that we secure elections now. Because you know you go to california. There's a lot of valen ballots. And i don't know if we'll ever know if there's a fair election california oregon or washington right.

Texas Robert Francis Blue Harris County Blue County Rourke Carey Supreme Court Valen California Oregon Washington
Playing Jazz With Charlie Watts, on Nights off From the Rolling Stones

ACLU Civil Liberties Minute

01:09 min | 3 weeks ago

Playing Jazz With Charlie Watts, on Nights off From the Rolling Stones

"The rolling stones have often been described as the greatest rock and roll band in the history of rock and roll. We're talking over years about mick jagger. Brian jones keith. Richards bill wyman mick taylor and ronnie wood and the drummer charlie watts who was described in a recent new york times headline as the serene drummer who kept the stones rolling. That times article went on to say that while mr richards guitar. Riff defined the band's most famous single satisfaction. Mr watts drum pattern was just as essential. And that he charlie watts was quote relentless on painted black and supple on ruby tuesday and the master of funky groove on honky. Tonk woman not surprising since jazz was his. I love indeed stones guitarist. Keith richards road. The charlie watts has always been the bed that i lie on musically music including songs lyrics and performance. They are a powerful form of free speech protected by the first amendment and the rolling stones have helped us celebrate that freedom. Their drummer charlie. Watts gave us the satisfaction of music. That sustained us. He died in late august at the age of eighty

Charlie Watts Brian Jones Keith Richards Bill Wyman Mr Richards Mr Watts Mick Taylor Ronnie Wood Mick Jagger New York Times Keith Richards Watts Charlie
Oklahoma NAACP Files Suit Challenging Anti-Protest Law

Pacifica Evening News

00:58 sec | 3 weeks ago

Oklahoma NAACP Files Suit Challenging Anti-Protest Law

"Lawsuit claiming a new anti protest bill approved by lawmakers this year is unconstitutional. The Oklahoma chapter of the ACP filed the lawsuit and federal court along with the National NAACP and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center. The lawsuit argues the Oklahoma law was written to discourage peaceful demonstrations and that it violates the first and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The law is set to take effect November 1st. It increases the penalties for blocking roadways. And grants motorists civil and criminal immunity if they kill or injure someone while quote fleeing from a riot. It also authorizes hefty fines for national organizations that coordinate with those sound guilty of committing crimes under the state's rioting statutes. The president of the Oklahoma State

National Naacp Institute For Constitutional A Oklahoma ACP Georgetown University Law Cent United States
Jenna Lewis Calls on U.S. Cabinet to Invoke 25th Amendment, Remove Biden From Office

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:03 min | 3 weeks ago

Jenna Lewis Calls on U.S. Cabinet to Invoke 25th Amendment, Remove Biden From Office

"Get your constitutional loyally take on the current situation. We have people saying the president of the united states the man who deems himself to be that has committed treason. The twenty fifth amendment should be deployed by the democrats as somebody who's been in swamp long enough now who's been fighting the swamp creatures. What he's jenner ellis's expectation given the last two weeks. I don't think the democrats are going to this guy until they find a better option. I don't think so either. I mean if the cabinet were operating sincerely and in good faith they would have already invoked twenty fifth amendment. And it's actually surprising to me that come on a harris hasn't an immediate. She's trying to do that behind the scenes. Because you need the vice president hand. The majority of the cabinet members so the twenty fifth amendment. I think does apply and of course the operational language is unable not unfit because remember. I made that distinction. Nancy pelosi was calling for twenty five against trump. because she's like oh he's unfit for office. Well that's a very subjective term. Unable literally means he cannot perform. Yeah or he's in very diminished health mental capacity. A like clearly. Joe biden is so the twenty-fifth amendment here rationally and constitutionally could apply. I think joe biden needs to resign. If there were any just just moral turpitude left in washington. He would absolutely resign in step down. But i also think that. There's a very good case to be made for impeachment on the basis of treason because treason remember is defined in english common law and within the context of treason. Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors within the language of the constitution to mean of course including aiding and abetting or getting eight giving aid and comfort to anyone and to put eighty five billion dollars worth of military arsenal and to be excluding citizens from the united states of getting out from behind enemy lines. Everything that joe biden has done as the commander in chief. I think fall squarely within the definition of treason under that

Jenner Ellis Cabinet Joe Biden United States Nancy Pelosi Harris Washington
How Should Conservatives Break Up Big Tech?

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

02:04 min | Last month

How Should Conservatives Break Up Big Tech?

"Alibaba kerry. The book is hash tag deleted. It's about how they tried to delete how they tried to stop the trump mega movement. And we only have a few minutes left as conservatives. What is the solution to all of this. Some say go in like ma belle. Break up the The the the the the cartel quasar monopoly these organizations have denude them of that. What is it to thirty immunities. That were they would provide in the nineteen ninety s. What if we had a magic wand what would be viansa to seeing the first amendment alive and well on social media as well as everywhere else though clowns. Thomas has a very good opinion on that but everyone should read nation back in april for the night bus. The is biden buses nights. Best amendment you pay and essentially the food so you can have public accomodation laws or you can have common carrier laws. We can have a simple anti discrimination law. any one of those will work and texas is Once the once the house democrats come back them. You know. stop author being crybabies Texas willpower the law that will essentially apply Common detector and then i think is the way to go home and carry it probably dates and the all antidiscrimination the laws carrier option. If you're coming carrier then you have to provide service on an non-discriminatory basis Weasel nondiscriminatory basis to everyone. Who wanted him there. You can still nice service but the reasons which you can deny. Service are very limited and restricted by statute. It's not the wide expansive ban. Anyone any sorts like access to telephones. The social media must be as unrestricted as as having a hotline in your house precisely and yukon band. Meeting telephone

Alibaba Kerry Ma Belle Biden Thomas Texas House
Who's Worse: Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:34 sec | Last month

Who's Worse: Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?

"Are witnessing a crisis. America is in crisis right now. We have a president who is so far. Gone that it's not. It's not out of the norm to talk about the twenty fifth amendment. But then of course. America realizes if we remove joe biden. Because this poor guy is addled. We're stuck with comma and a lot of people are saying what's worse joe biden or kamala harris. You talk about a tough tough answer to a question

America Joe Biden Kamala Harris
"second amendment" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

05:50 min | Last month

"second amendment" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"The us supreme court ruled that that piece of legislation only applies to state action not to private action and so basically the slaughter that that domestic terrorism by these private groups was fine. President ulysses s grant was beside himself. And then we had the hamburg massacre shortly thereafter again. The disparity the a symmetry it access to weaponry and he said all of this has in common is not what the states all have. A comment is not. Christianity is not civilisation. It is the right to kill negroes. And i just went. Wow wow now. Let's get back to our conversation with carol anderson about her new book the second race and guns in fatally unequal america so we could probably carole go through all the ways in which as you said the end of the civil war doesn't solve the asymmetry and civil rights amendments. Don't solve the symmetry and doing away with jim. Crow doesn't solve the at every turn and it does bring me to the black panthers where for the first time we have this claim That's made i think that really robust gun rights four black americans will lead to symmetry we will have equality and i guess we should really caveat here. The black panthers are talking about Police terror not clan terror. But that's the argument. It's an argument. I guess we hear reverberate. In clarence thomas is gun rights jurisprudence. Where i think. There's this theory that the only way to make sure that we have freedom for always to have guns for all Does that prove more successful. No spoiler alert. No so what happened is that you have this police. Brutality raining down on the black community. And you don't have any accountability for that terror for the killings for the beatings. Nothing and so a rising from that are the black panther party for self-defence founded by huey p newton and bobby seale and one of their key. Things was to police the police and they new california law open carry law. They knew the kinds of guns. They could have. They made sure that their guns were registered. They made sure that they didn't point them at anybody In a threatening manner they knew what the law said they also knew what the law said in terms of the distance that they had to maintain from police officers as the police were arresting people but the police did not like having these leather up gunned up black people looking at what they were doing. They hated policing the police. And so they ran to don mulford who was a conservative assemblyman in the california legislature. And said we need help with the black. Panthers are a problem a serious problem. We need help. And and so it was to make illegal. What the panthers were doing So that it banned open carry And and they had the help of the nra in drafting this legislation and you had ronald reagan eagerly awaiting this legislation. I i will sign it. The moment gets on my desk. And so this configuration. Of what you. We normally think of as these gun rights folks were actually targeting the black panthers for carrying guns and carol. I think because you opened your framing with the nra it's useful to return to. And i think you're absolutely right. That when the nra defends ruby ridge defense waco there's not the corresponding outrage for a philanderer casteel. But i think that one question that. I guess i'm curious is your sense. That the days of the ascendancy of the nra or presumably behind us there in every kind of trouble The gun rights movement and certainly the constitutional and legal gun rights movement may not be steeped in that hypocrisy that you say pervades the nra's analysis of the situation. I guess my question is does this dual narrative Guns for white people. Good guns for black people dangerous did does it evaporate with the potency of the nra. So diluted in this moment I don't see that happening Because this is a phenomenon that preceded the nra and was embedded before the ira was founded in eighteen. Seventy one by union soldiers. Who really wanted to improve the marksmanship of those in the area and what it's really going to take is the really hard work that this nation appears to be unwilling to do which is to dismantle anti blackness as an operating code in this society. Think about how. Many times we've heard will danger threat. I mean i talk about the thugs location of trayvon martin..

panthers President ulysses s grant carol anderson nra panther party for self-defence huey p newton us supreme court don mulford hamburg california legislature clarence thomas carole bobby seale Crow jim america ruby ridge ronald reagan california waco
"second amendment" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:55 min | Last month

"second amendment" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"And that's your answer to the question of why the debate that we see in heller And the subsequent second amendment cases where we start to see the court latch onto the idea that there is an individual right to bear arms. It's not a militia. Based and i think your point is that is orthogonal all to urinalysis because whether it's a militia based right or an individual right. Each of those rights was not in fact afforded to african americans at any point historically. Okay i'm feeling. So roberta flack right now killing me softly with your song. This is exactly what i'm saying. Is that when. I looked at the individual right to bear arms when i looked at the right to a well regulated militia. When i looked at the right to self-defense over time i'm seeing that it does not apply that in fact each of those have been used against african americans because it is the quality of anti blackness and that is to define african americans as a threat as dangerous as criminal as people who need to be subjugated and controlled that so. That's what i'm saying if you are unarmed. You're still a threat. And how many times have we in this current day. Heard of a black person being gunned down simply because they had a cell phone and somebody felt threatened because they thought it was a gun Or just seeing a black person like jonathan ferrell in north carolina who had been in a car accident And and was happy to see the police finally there because he thought help was on the way and the police gun him down and they said we were afraid He he was dangerous. He was threatening. And we see that somebody like philander castille. Who has a licensed gun is a threat. And he's gone down so it doesn't matter whether you have a gun or you don't you're blackness is the threat and it is the default threat in this society. And so this is also why. Stand your ground. laws Are have such a strong racial bias because it says wherever you have a right to be so. If i'm at the grocery store if i'm in a parking lot if i'm in a park and i perceive a threat i have the right to use. Lethal force will win. Black is the default threat in american society. That perception of threat puts the crosshairs on black people. And so when you look at the. Us civil rights commission report on standard ground. We see that for whites who kill black people using. Stand your ground that they are ten times more likely to basically walk with justifiable homicide. Then blacks who kill whites. We also see that whites who kill black people understand. Your ground are two hundred and eighty one percent more likely to walk than whites who kill whites because when blacks are the victims in these killings it becomes much more likely justifiable because of the default threat. Yeah i think you make that point early on when you talk about. Philander casteel carol when you sort of say literally. The only thing he did was say. I have a gun. I'm not reaching for my gun. It's a licensed gun. I'm getting you might papers. And that act of simply saying i have a gun becomes perceived as a threat for the police officer who shoots him absolutely. And it's the way that i juxtapose in the book for instance the treatment of kyle rittenhouse versus tamir rice. So kyle rittenhouse was the seventeen-year-old white teenager who cross state lines within the legally obtained a are fifteen to basically go to a protest in kenosha wisconsin and there was a protest about a black man. Jacob blake being shot in the back seven times by police. The police see kyle written house and they welcome him. We really appreciate having you here. He's got his. Ar fifteen is hot out here. You want some water. He then goes and he guns down. Three people killing two of them were seriously wounding another. He walks back towards the police with his hands. Up as if to surrender and they pay no attention to them. Nothing is triggering threat for them when they see this white teenager with an ar fifteen but then you juxtapose that to tamir rice..

jonathan ferrell philander castille roberta flack Us civil rights commission kyle rittenhouse Philander casteel north carolina american society tamir rice Jacob blake carol kenosha wisconsin kyle
"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

Red, Blue, and Brady

15:30 min | 2 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

"That status. So i think we have to understand this takeover of this this intention to retake the country that ajan burgers and others mapped out and look at the supreme court. Today they have succeeded and the election trump and it is you know about one third of the electorate so they Restrict voting rights in order to win an election. They have to rearrange things. It's pretty easy to do under the constitution because states. Have you know a floor more rights than than they should you know for any kind of justice to exist so i think it's really important to understand that this you know that that the general public support the second amendment is really problematic because the national rifle association did not become a white national organization. Toll nineteen seventy seven. It was a pretty benign you know hunters homeless and stuff and it's mostly white men. You know book rich white men as thirty million members now they say but it. I'm sure not all those members. Thank affirm sells you know white nationalist and there are some non you know. Non white people were members in to get discounts and stuff but the organization itself was taken over. It's documented taken over by an organization called the the Second amendment foundation which has founded in one thousand nine hundred seventy four by arlen carter. Who was a former border gar. Long time member of the nra nuts. He actually killed a mexican boy when he was fourteen. Years old. got by with it His father was also a border guard. So this hardened carter transformed. Nra into an activist white nationalist organization. And you begin seeing you know in in in the nineteen eighties. Lillies armed militia groups mostly in rural areas exploiting the workers who the de-industrialisation and joblessness was produced by that bringing them in these little white workers. Who had these privileged union jobs of becoming suddenly having to be grocery clerks janitors and stuff so they were you know they were vulnerable to be recruited but still today seventy five percent muscles polled in the united states. Saying believe that the second amendment is a constitutional right individual gun rights and that it should be respected. Even though even though they're only one third of the population even owns a gun even one gun but the average is eight. Average gun owns eight fire. Heart's and it's really important to understand that the general public is embracing the second amendment as if it because there is this is fitted criticizing the constitution and constitutions. Most countries will many countries. Don't have a constitution doesn't really have a constitution. And they do fine without a constitution francis head. I don't know how many but they renew from generally agree generation to catch up with the times. They're not sacred documents constitutions. Why is it here. You know because it established or white republic so we have to. You know this is. The other thing may just getting people to accept that the constitution needs to be totally not amendments. That it's almost impossible to get an amendment but simply done away with and if you wanna concentration create one that reflects the society as it is now the white republic that it was seventeen eighteenth century. I wonder if just in general for our listeners. If could trap america in an elevator with you for for a brief moment you know. Do you wish that folks knew about us history. Us history is released to firearms. Just what's the one thing that you would hope someone would maybe take away from either either your work or the works of others. What do people need to know that they simply just don't. It's a really big question to ask you to reduce all down but yeah well i would In that elevator ride. I think i would say in need to know that. The history of firearms in the united states is history of white. Nationalism based on the founding of the united states is white republic and its intention to eradicate things systens of eight occupants of the continent. And this is enshrined in your constitution. Giving white settlers constitutional right to collaborate with the state and the army and at endeavor and guns are symbols genocidal riots. Two-thirds of us citizens do not own violence. And those who do own average who do own our own eight firearms which reveals Of of self defense and those who do not own firearms are complicit in embracing the sanctity of the second amendment which is a screed written in blood and should be annulled. And that i think really leads into if you could tell folks really quickly about your new book. That's coming out. I think this whole you. Are you telling me that We lot schoolhouse rock in the great american melting pot is not an accurate representation of how things were. Yeah i new book kids I had a. I can tip from six. I think it was. I was reading a little blog for online and Sort of the ranch i would. You know what i was doing. I was ranting about this. And that so i was i said. Stop calling the united states a nation of immigrants and so later my you know editor my broken indigenous peoples history of the united states after you that book without and all she said i have one paragraph in that book saying that you know it's not nation immigrants it was founded et cetera loaning allstate white republican. Immigrants came lighter and she said. Could you make that into a book. So that's the reason. I i did it so it's an interesting book i think. Yeah i mean as someone who's descended from enslaved africans on both sides my family i always take umbrage with this whole nation of immigrants things that like. I don't think you describe the middle immigration. So i'm very much looking forward to reading this book in a day. Said i mean you just have such depth amount. I think is so necessary in general but especially to what we do here because part of what we are contending with when we're trying to advocate for that invention people to just tell the truth and so. I think that your work is so important to that. And i hope listeners will continue to engage with it And yeah. I mean as our time also closer. Just gonna thank you so much for not only coming here today but also for all the work in all activism and all the learning that you've been doing and then sharing with all of us for decades which is so important so really really appreciate you in your time and your work. Thank you so much. It was so kelly. This moment of levity may not be that fun. A rarely day. But i'm prepared. Well you know every week bringing you something new sandwich massachusetts which is a fun name for a town but not a fun story where we find a housekeeper at one of the local ends was tidying up When she found you may be surprised to find this kelly. I loaded handgun. Not the pri- nonetheless horrified. Yes it was just right. There talked into the sheets of the guests. Bed asset even happened Turns out the guest was a licensed gun owner from connecticut who was visiting massachusetts and he just loves the fire in israel when he went out maybe he wanted to get a little bit under. Its little ben pillow. Who knows i mean. Can you imagine how scared that housekeeper had to be when she's just kind of doing her regular thing making the bed and then a gun just out of the sheets. i mean it's so scary but thank goodness. It didn't unintentionally discharged. Oh one hundred percent. I'm honestly floored every almost every single week when we cover these stories where people don't safely store firearms but even in this case Massachusetts actually has a safe storage laws. So the man now has to appear before court for that and for the fact that he wasn't actually licensed to carry a gun at the state in the first place so kelly this week. We have to talk about interested. Ohio's that i think we should be concerned all people but especially people who identify as women so federal agents have arrested a man who described himself as an sell and for those of you don't know uninstall is a subculture of people who say they're unable to find a romantic or sexual partner. Despite wanting one and who feel entitled to such a relationship the man was charged with attempting to commit a hate crime and illegally possessing a modified semiautomatic pistol which functioned as a machine gun. He was also found to have posted a manifesto on an online forum about how he planned to slaughter women and indicated a desire and plans to commit a large scale mass shooting at an ohio university. I mean listeners. Can't see me but i basically just shaking my head as you this all just so scary end this shows how guns in hey do not and should not mix and unfortunately our next case also particularly interesting to me because radio legal team actually handled a similar case. Several years back. That case was in new york. This case is in arizona. Basically what happened is in tucson arizona. Firefighters were called to a house fire but after they arrived. The homeowner opened fire at both the firefighters in. Emc's two medics were shot as well as to firefighters and a good samaritan neighbor the neighbor corey. Michael saunders died from his injuries and tucson fire. Chief chuck ryan said. His firefighters will need physical and psychological help in order to recover from this quote soul crushing incident as ryan fed. That's not what we come to work to do is to get shot at. That's not will be sign up for but sadly it's become part of our experience. Now think kelly and maybe you feel the same way but one of the things. I think this podcast doing this. Podcast is really pointed out to me is that i like that part of our experience. Now is such an american experience right like you can't go to your college in ohio. You can't go to your job as emt. You can't be a neighbor that tries to help somebody without being afraid that you're going to be a victim of gun violence. It's like this new gross normal. And i'm not i'm not okay with it. Nope me either. What does your podcast loose. Now gonna touch with us here at red balloon brady phone text message simply caller texas at four eight zero seven four four three four five two thoughts questions concerns ideas. Whatever kelly are standing by. Thanks for listening as always. Brady's life saving work in congress. The courts in communities across the country is made possible. Thanks to you for more information on brady or how to get involved in the fight against gun island. Please like and subscribe to the podcast get in touch with us at brady united dot org oral on social at eighty buzz be brave and remember take action not type My name is fred gutenberg. I'm a father of two amazing children jesse and jamie. Unfortunately my two children were involved with margaret stoneman. Douglas school shooting my son jesse survived. My daughter jamie did not because my relationship with tv now involves visits to the cemetery. I am dad. Who's committed myself to do something about gun violence. I need help of other dots. I want us to know you can be a gun owner. And foregone safety feel the same way i do about protecting our kids and ensuring they're not the next victims of gun violence because of that i've started this hashtag dads for gun safety movement. A letter is going out. We have lots of wonderful ciders on the letter. But i need everyone else. I want a million to sign this letter. I want to show you do an ever. It takes to protect those. You love your spouse your kids and everyone else. Let's do this together. Hashtag dads for gun safety. Hey this is great joe. If you want to support fred's letter you can add your signature by going and united dot org slash act. Act slash stats for gun. Safety bake and i'm good at this. You have you..

white republic america white national organization arlen carter Nra Second amendment foundation kelly national rifle association ben pillow supreme court carter massachusetts francis allstate pri Chief chuck ryan army ryan fed
"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

Red, Blue, and Brady

07:50 min | 2 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

"Phenomenon of of white supremacy and the fear of losing that status. So i think we have to understand this takeover of this this intention to retake the country that ajan burgers and others mapped out and look at the supreme court. Today they have succeeded and the election trump and it is you know about one third of the electorate so they Restrict voting rights in order to win an election. They have to rearrange things. It's pretty easy to do under the constitution because states. Have you know a floor more rights than than they should you know for any kind of justice to exist so i think it's really important to understand that this you know that that the general public support the second amendment is really problematic because the national rifle association did not become a white national organization. Toll nineteen seventy seven. It was a pretty benign you know hunters homeless and stuff and it's mostly white men. You know book rich white men as thirty million members now they say but it. I'm sure not all those members. Thank affirm sells you know white nationalist and there are some non you know. Non white people were members in to get discounts and stuff but the organization itself was taken over. It's documented taken over by an organization called the the Second amendment foundation which has founded in one thousand nine hundred seventy four by arlen carter. Who was a former border gar. Long time member of the nra nuts. He actually killed a mexican boy when he was fourteen. Years old. got by with it His father was also a border guard. So this hardened carter transformed. Nra into an activist white nationalist organization. And you begin seeing you know in in in the nineteen eighties. Lillies armed militia groups mostly in rural areas exploiting the workers who the de-industrialisation and joblessness was produced by that bringing them in these little white workers. Who had these privileged union jobs of becoming suddenly having to be grocery clerks janitors and stuff so they were you know they were vulnerable to be recruited but still today seventy five percent muscles polled in the united states. Saying believe that the second amendment is a constitutional right individual gun rights and that it should be respected. Even though even though they're only one third of the population even owns a gun even one gun but the average is eight. Average gun owns eight fire. Heart's and it's really important to understand that the general public is embracing the second amendment as if it because there is this is fitted criticizing the constitution and constitutions. Most countries will many countries. Don't have a constitution doesn't really have a constitution. And they do fine without a constitution francis head. I don't know how many but they renew from generally agree generation to catch up with the times. They're not sacred documents constitutions. Why is it here. You know because it established or white republic so we have to. You know this is. The other thing may just getting people to accept that the constitution needs to be totally not amendments. That it's almost impossible to get an amendment but simply done away with and if you wanna concentration create one that reflects the society as it is now the white republic that it was seventeen eighteenth century. I wonder if just in general for our listeners. If could trap america in an elevator with you for for a brief moment you know. Do you wish that folks knew about us history. Us history is released to firearms. Just what's the one thing that you would hope someone would maybe take away from either either your work or the works of others. What do people need to know that they simply just don't. It's a really big question to ask you to reduce all down but yeah well i would In that elevator ride. I think i would say in need to know that. The history of firearms in the united states is history of white. Nationalism based on the founding of the united states is white republic and its intention to eradicate things systens of eight occupants of the continent. And this is enshrined in your constitution. Giving white settlers constitutional right to collaborate with the state and the army and at endeavor and guns are symbols genocidal riots. Two-thirds of us citizens do not own violence. And those who do own average who do own our own eight firearms which reveals Of of self defense and those who do not own firearms are complicit in embracing the sanctity of the second amendment which is a screed written in blood and should be annulled. And that i think really leads into if you could tell folks really quickly about your new book. That's coming out. I think this whole you. Are you telling me that We lot schoolhouse rock in the great american melting pot is not an accurate representation of how things were. Yeah i new book kids I had a. I can tip from six. I think it was. I was reading a little blog for online and Sort of the ranch i would. You know what i was doing. I was ranting about this. And that so i was i said. Stop calling the united states a nation of immigrants and so later my you know editor my broken indigenous peoples history of the united states after you that book without and all she said i have one paragraph in that book saying that you know it's not nation immigrants it was founded et cetera loaning allstate white republican. Immigrants came lighter and she said. Could you make that into a book. So that's the reason..

white national organization arlen carter nra white republic Second amendment foundation united states national rifle association supreme court carter francis army allstate
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

06:25 min | 4 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"And i'm here to assure you that i personally don't see that coming and still don't think the courts are going to be involved in any really significant way and basically if you live in a state that wants to have pretty stringent regulations of guns. They're going to be able to do. And maybe there's a few that they won't be able to you know. Keep on the books but basically it's it's all gonna look pretty much the same way it does now in my view Adam on the substance of bans on assault weapons you wrote with nelson lund the explainer on the second amendment on the national constitutions enters interactive constitution. And you have a wonderful thousand words about what you both agree. The second amendment means but you disagree about the constitutionality of assault weapons Professor lund said that bans on assault weapons defined this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features leaving functionally identical semi automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason. It would violate the first amendment to ban words. That have a french analogy or to require that french fries be called freedom fries. Tell us why you think that Professor lund is wrong and that it would be wrong to strike down bans on assault weapons as a matter of text history and original understanding. Well it's a great question. And i do think that one of the challenges that the court faces in detail defining which arms are protected by the second amendment Is that We don't have great original understanding of what they imagined would be protected by the second amendment And the firearms. Today are so fundamentally different than the firearms. They had in the founding era And i certainly would never be one to say that you only have the right to the technology that existed in seventeen ninety one. That would be an absurd way to think about constitutional principles However i think there is a what the court has said is that arms that are in common use and that are not dangerous and unusual. Weapons are protected by the constitution And i think that and most lower courts have agreed that military style. Assault rifles are in common use. There's millions of them out there. The sort of favourite gun shooters these days to bring to the gun range and whatnot And they are in common use and I think that they're in common use. The court is likely to say that they are protected by the constitution. What we've seen the lower courts. Say as yeah. They're in common use. But we're going to say. These bands are still constitutionally permissible. Because no one's really denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm because of a military assault rifle ban. You can still own a ton of different kinds of semiautomatic rifles. You can still own a ton of handguns And you can still exercise that basic core fundamental right. It's not clear to me that the the the analogy that nelson lon makes to the english language is a particularly good one in that It's very if you're prohibited from speaking. In certain ways it really fundamentally undermined your ability to express yourself I in the kind of nuance way that you wish if we think that the right of a firearm is merely a right to have a tool. That's a successful and functional tool for self defense in the home That's in the shape of a firearm. It's not clear why you would have a. There's any particular difference for why you might favor one particular weapon over another so long as they meet some minimum threshold of effectiveness and of course military style. Rifles are not generally used for self defense. That's not say you can't use them for defense. Any firearm can be used for self defense. But they're not that's not their general use generally the guns that you use for self defense sometimes a shotgun clark teller listeners. Whether or not you believe that. bans on military style. Weapons are or are not consistent with the second amendment. Why they are plainly inconsistent with the second amendment. I think the real question is what the courts will do about it. I don't think the supreme court in particular really wants to get into this debate if it doesn't have to take a little bit different and it's this I think that as long as there is no serious effort to enforce these laws so right now there's no serious effort to enforce assault weapon bans in states. That have them. New jersey for example has one of the longest and most weeping assault weapons bans and the state estimates compliance rate of about three percent And that's pretty standard. So basically as long as there continues to be no serious effort to enforce these laws and we don't have thousands of serve otherwise law abiding mom and pop type people Going to prison simply because they refused to give up their now illegal assault weapon. I don't think the courts will get involved. I think they there won't be any need for them to step in and decide whether there's a second amendment right to own an so-called assault weapon I do think that if there's a change and local governments do start enforcing assault weapon bans in some serious way. Which of course they have not up until this point that may put the courts in the position where they have to step in. Because i think it would be very difficult For this current supreme court to preside over a situation where you know sort of again these. These pillars of the community otherwise law abiding perfectly. Decent people have never committed another crime. At least that they know of in their life or suddenly looking at a five ten fifteen twenty felony simply for refusing to give up their salt weapon. That's going to put the courts in a very difficult position so my prediction is. We'll continue to see assault weapons bans and as long as there are no meaningful effort to enforce them as there has not up until this point the courts will let it slide but if there's a jurisdiction that actually does make a meaningful effort to enforce assault an assault weapons ban then. I think it's much more likely to get involved. And then it would be a question of can the local government Provide enough empirical evidence to meet some heighten. Standard of scrutiny. And that's going to be challenging. I'll just end with one. Really quick quote. There's an amazing case out of the seventh circuit by a judge easterbrook from thousand and fifteen in which he upholds in assault weapon ban in highland park. Outside of chicago at all he can come up with is that perhaps it makes people feel safer. There's no empirical evidence that it actually does and he literally says if a ban on semi automatic guns and large capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from.

nelson lund lund Adam thousand first amendment second amendment New jersey chicago about three percent both english thousand words thousands five ten fifteen twenty felony nelson lon Today one seventeen ninety one one particular weapon seventh circuit
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

05:57 min | 4 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Implications of plying strict scrutiny to gun laws as a matter of course would up so Upset and concern enough justices. That they they they wouldn't do it. I really don't think the supreme court wants to be very much in the business of of helping to set gun policy in this country. And i think they'll go to considerable links to avoid being in the position of You know a of playing a significant role in that area. How they get there. I don't know. But i think that they've got to stay away from strict scrutiny on if they want to avoid getting drawn into a situation where they are as active on the second amendment for example as they have been on the first and the one outcome i cannot fathom is the idea of the supreme court being as active on the second amendment as it has been on the i. I just don't think that's going to happen. Adam let's imagine for the sake of argument. That clark is correct. And the court applies a kind of intermediate scrutiny. Up what other regulations would that call into account. It still invite a whole lot of lawsuits as you said. Since heller a lower courts have been uniformly differential regulations would intermediate scrutiny change that and what other regulations might be vulnerable to challenge. Well it's a great question and it kind of depends on how intermediate scrutiny really is. As clark says the intermediate scrutiny we've seen in the lower courts has looked a lot like rational basis. The court has allowed has said well. We really want important. Governmental interests like intermediate scrutiny traditionally requires. But that's easy for the government to meet restricting access to or reducing crime public safety all important governmental interests the key is always with the tailoring prong of intermediate scrutiny and how much fit is required between the law and the governmental interest. And that's where the courts have done kind of rational basis approach to intermediate scrutiny and that they've allowed much leeway And not a very good fit between the ends and the means and so i think the court could tighten up that fit requirement. And it'd be interesting to see how they tighten it up because almost any way you tighten it up will call into question a number of gun laws that are out there and i think That as much as clark suggests that the court will stay away from rewriting. American gun laws If the court strikes down discretionary permanent it's going to have a huge effect on these cities. Right in los angeles said ten million people less than four hundred people with concealed carry permits well in states that allow show issue permanent. We get about you know. Ten to fourteen percent of the population gaining concealed. Carry permit so if ten percent of the population in los angeles county. Cut it in half five percent of the population in los angeles county. You're going to hundreds of thousands of people. We'll have permits to carry firearms And so we'll have a big effect on these cities and I know there's some debate. About what the ultimate public policy impact of having all those guns on the streets are But it certainly be a very different environment. And i do think that the court is likely to call into question in the coming years restrictions on military style. Assault rifles The courts likely to call into question bands that have been adopted in some places on high capacity magazines when you think about it if you if you take down discretionary permanent you take down. Bands military style rifles used take bans on high capacity magazines. You've basically taken down three of the four main elements of the modern gun control movements agenda. The only thing being left on the table is universal. Background checks which i think the court would uphold if they were actually implemented on so. I think it's a pretty big impact that the court could have even with an intermediate scrutiny. As long as it was a little more tight than the version that we see in the lower courts corporate response to islands point. I striking down. The new york law would have a very large effect in places like la and new york and also that it might lead the court to strike down bans on military style. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines leaving. Only one prong of the gun control agenda namely sworn background checks in place while my reaction is to say that it would have a very big effect on my retirement planning if i won the lottery. But that's not going to happen. And i would say the same year i just don't see any scenario which the supreme court strikes down that much you know of of the current Totality of gun regulation. I think much more likely courses. That and and i kind of one always hesitates to to predict what the supreme court will do. But then of course goes ahead and does it anyway. Might my sense is this. I think that the supreme court would like for the intermediate courts the lower end intermediate courts to sort of lead not the charge sort of lead the march in the direction of a little bit more of substance in terms of reviewing gun regulation. I don't think the supreme court's gonna do make any big moves in this case instead. I think what it may do as remand to the lower court with instructions to apply a bit more robust standard review. See how the chips fall and really not do much more than that in the next. Let's say five or ten years. It may be if they do this. That some of the justices will hope that places like california and los angeles county for example. We'll see the handwriting on the wall and quote unquote voluntarily update their their gun control policies so the courts don't have to force them to do it and we may never get there but i suspect that gun policy is not going to look much different in ten years than it does now and jurisdictions that wanna limit of the so-called military style assault weapons which courses term that i resist but a provisionally accepted for. Now they'll still be able to do it You know high capacity magazines. I think is probably a little bit more up in the air But again i think if you're worried about the supreme court You know having a huge impact on gun policy and changing a bunch of gun. Regulations by requiring government Government jurisdictions to make a heightened showing in court. I'm know i'm the heller guy..

five ten percent Ten los angeles Adam ten years california first second amendment fourteen percent less than four hundred people clark new york three four main elements ten million people hundreds of thousands of peopl one outcome one prong la
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

07:11 min | 4 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"One of the things we have to think about when we look at history and tradition is Is whether there's a history and tradition of recognized government power. Now we know the government. Power has been abused with regards to property rights marriage rights. Almost anything in american law has been distorted over the course of history and tradition to promote racism racial privilege and racial hierarchy. America That doesn't mean government doesn't have the power to issue marriage permits just because marriage permits. Were once racially restricted It doesn't matter that we don't have a basic. We shouldn't throw out basic property law just because property law was often infested with racism in american life Government power to regulate guns has been infested with racism. I don't have clark. And i are in agreement on that That that's always been the case Because any area of law that dealt with violence was going to be used to maintain white supremacy. But i think that the basic recognition of government power seems to be very very well established in this area. I think one of the interesting questions to move to another question is whether you have a right to carry a concealed weapon or whether you have a right to carry in some way shape or form because there is some there are some early or mid eighteen hundreds cases where the were state court said. You can ban concealed carry entirely so long as you allow open carry and it'll be really curious to see what the court says about that question. Is the idea that you can allow you have to allow one care someone to carry in some way shape or form. It might be interesting for a state like california to say okay. We're going to continue to ban concealed carry but we might allow open carry and that's going to mean a lot fewer people carrying guns on the streets because people generally don't want to openly carry and business of course could keep people who are openly carrying from coming into their stores or restaurants. Clark what do you make of atoms suggestion. And do you think the court will hold it. There is a right to carry in some form. Yeah this is kind of a game that that california and some other jurisdictions have been playing sort of like well. We don't allow concealed carry but maybe we would allow open carry. And so i think the way it's to shake out us this I think this is just all kinds of a gambit on the part of states that want to discourage people from being able to carry in any way shape or form outside the house. The bottom line is this in the old days. It was considered to be an act of cowardice to carry a concealed weapon. It was the kind of thing that you know lowlifes. Gamblers and others and assassins. Did an honorable person would carry openly so that people would know that you are armed and that you have the ability to in effect a shoot back on. That of course is completely changed. Now i would say now It's open carry. That makes people feel uncomfortable and concealed carry. That has become the norm. The way it shakes out his this there is i think no empirically valid or constitutionally sufficient justification for saying to somebody. Hey if you want to carry a gun outside house perfectly fine but it has to be open or vice versa. In other words. There's not really any empirically valid of distinction between forcing people to carry open only for forcing them to carry concealed. Only although i think frankly the constitutional if there is any constitutional basis. You're probably points in favor of allowing concealed carry and protecting that constitutionally as opposed to open carry which of course makes lots of people very nervous at the end of the day. Actually don't think it really matters very much Because what we do know is that jurisdictions that have you know authorized of the shall issue concealed carry permanent systems have not had markedly different results than jurisdictions where you can only openly carry so at the end of the day. The facts just aren't there to support this distinction. And i think a lot of states like california will lose interest in it in the event the court protects the ability to carry weapons outside the home in some way shape or form because up until this point the whole concealed versus open carry. Just been nothing but a macguffin and once it doesn't work anymore. They'll lose interest in it adam. If the court by majority vote decides to strike down the new york law by applying some form of intermediate scrutiny. What would the decision look like a would. Just the new york law fallen what other laws would fall involving For cause permits and more broadly what would embracing intermediate scrutiny for the second amendment outside the home mean for regulations and the state's holds a great question I think obviously this case only involves new york law so the Immediate official impact or formal impact of any decision would only be upon new york. However of course a court ruling that. New york's discretionary permanent law violates the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment would encourage lawsuits brought in other states and there's already lawsuits pending in a bunch of those states. Those lawsuits that have been going up on appeal and of course Those cases would love face briefing and summary judgment motions and whatnot and it would likely have brought much broader effect outside of new york because it would affect all the other states that have discretionary permanent And what would it mean. In terms of intermediate scrutiny. I it depends on what the intermediate scrutiny really looks like. So far what. The court is generally said with regards to intermediate scrutiny. I said i should say the lower courts on the second amendment have said that if something's included some right is included within the second amendment than the government can all can restrict it But if it's a substantial burden it's gonna trigger strict scrutiny. And if it's an insubstantial burden than it's going to trigger intermediate scrutiny. Well there's no doubt if you have a right to keep arms and bear arms in public and carry a gun for confrontation. I think there's no doubt that the laws in place like in new york or in california are substantial burdens on that right in los angeles county we have ten million people and less than four hundred people other than Retired police officers have concealed carry apartments. So that's an effective ban. And so that would be a substantial burden. I think and then would trigger under the two part test that we see in the lower courts. A kind of strict scrutiny. So i actually might disagree a little bit with clark on this. And that i he said that i thought the court would stay away from strict scrutiny but I'm not so certain about that. I do think that this would be deemed to be a substantial burden on a right to carry a firearm in public Of the sort that might. Well triggers strict scrutiny. Thank you for that. Clark your response. Mutton might the court applies fix rooney. Adam suggest should it applies scrutiny. And what would the effect of an opinion applying either intermediate or strict scrutiny. Be on other restrictions. Should apply strict scrutiny. And i think it won't apply strict scrutiny. I think it should because if the second amendment really is a constitutional rights of essentially equal stature with others than. There's no obvious reason why it should receive substantially less protection than the right of free expression free exercise. That's being said. I think that the supreme court has at the end of the day a pragmatic institution. And i think..

Adam los angeles Clark less than four hundred people Mutton second amendment ten million people adam two part One new york New york one california hundreds cases one care mid eighteen american America
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

05:57 min | 4 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"This is going to give them any pause whatsoever for a number reasons Like the the up the fact that people mentioned a particular term in particular context may have as much to do with weather The questions have been expressed about that term in that context. And maybe that because there's no question about whether that term applies in some other contexts. They just don't talk about it. You wouldn't expected to show up. Let me give you. An example of the are not the same today. I would say that the role of guns in society At the founding era was somewhat like smartphones are to us. if you're going more than fifty one hundred feet from your house you do not leave the house without that thing in your hand for us. It's smartphones for them. It was guns This is back at a time when we had no professional police force If you lived lived anywhere remotely in a rural area you were gonna take your gun both in order to put food on your table to protect yourself from wild animals to protect yourself from. Potentially you know native americans that were still angry about us being there so everybody carried guns everywhere back in those days practically speaking and the idea that any government could simply disarm you a arbitrarily. Just say well nobody. Nobody can carry guns outside the home anymore. In the late eighteenth century i think would have been as astounding to them as the idea. For example that the government could say you can't own a plow which is the single most important agricultural invention in human history and the only means of survival by many people Who lived in rural areas. During that time it simply would not have occurred anybody that the government even had this authority and i don't think we would expect to see very much discussion of the ability to carry weapons outside. The house in the sort of citizen context therefore doesn't surprise me at all that people weren't talking about bearing arms and asking questions about whether it applied individuals carrying weapons outside their home because there was never any question about whether it did adam. What is your response to quarks argument and more broadly your response to the thought that the conservative justices on the court in arguing. For some kind of heightened scrutiny for second amendment rights are relying less on the original understanding of the founding era and more on the sense that the text of the second amendment does not create a second class right. Well thanks gentlemen certainly there. Are those justices on the supreme court Who have been calling for more engagement with the second amendment precisely because they feel that the second amendment is being treated like a class right. I think that you know that it. To the extent you think that the second amendment protects broad access to guns and a seriously restricts the power of government to regulate guns then. I can understand why they think that the right to bear arms is being treated as as a second class right however i think again you know. Originalists usually looked to original understanding As i mentioned there's absolutely no evidence that the founding era thought that you should be able th- that we were protecting in the constitution right to have a gun for personal protection against confrontation. Clark says everyone carrying a gun. I just don't think there's evidence to support that claim inventories of Of gun ownership at the time of the founding based on probate records. Show that actually. It's only a fraction of the population that even possessed a handgun. A handgun in particular was not the kind of firearm that a lot of people own. They weren't very effective at the time If you wanted to use a gun for hunting You wouldn't use a handgun Remember handguns at the time. Could only you can only load one round at a time. And they were highly inaccurate because it was before the era of the rifling of barrels. So if you wanted to defend yourself when you're out on the roads back in the day you carried. Mike might have carried an arm but it wasn't a firearm. It wasn't a gun. It was more likely to be a knife or or some kind of club on but in any case regardless of that. I think that The courts At least some of the justices have been frustrated. Because the government's government regulation of gun rights has been approved by the lower courts Time and time again and what. I think that. I think that's pretty consistent with the history of the second amendment and the history of the right to bear arms under state constitutional law over the course of american history. We've always had gun regulation and we've seen very very few gun. Laws struck down by the courts. Either under state constitutional provisions or federal constitutional provision because there is this recognition. That government's always had that ability to regulate firearms and firearms owners. Where those guns could be brought And the interesting thing is if the court really does apply a heightened scrutiny under the second amendment after this case it will be The first time in american history that the supreme court has ever applied heightened review to The second amendment. And i should say before the last ten years it would. It would have been the first time that any state constitution has ever performed. Any kind of serious heightened scrutiny with regards to gun regulation So i think what we're seeing. Is that heightened. Scrutiny would be seriously contrary to not only the original understanding of the second amendment but contrary to the history and tradition of gun rights and gun regulation in america. Many thanks for that Clark a strong claim. From adam which i think needs our response that heightened scrutiny for the second amendment would be contrary to the original understanding of the amendment and to nearly more than two hundred years of history in the in the state and federal courts. You know. I really appreciate adam and i. I think that that he makes a very strong case for this position that the challenge i think for me is that as you know. I take the position that that really what we have in this country and what. The supreme court has created is Really functionally to standards of review One is the rational basis test which is nothing more than a stamp..

Clark america Mike late eighteenth century today one round One more than fifty one hundred fe more than two hundred years both first time adam american second class second amendment single most years last ten native americans
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

07:59 min | 4 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"On jeffrey rosen president and ceo of the national constitution center and welcome to we the people weekly show of constitutional debate. The national constitution center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people. The supreme court recently agreed to hear new york state rifle and pistol association versus core. Let is a challenge to a new york regulation on carrying guns outside the home here to explain the case which could be a major second ruling. I'm joined by two of america's leading scholars on the second amendment. Clark neily is senior vice president at the cato institute where he works on issues involving constitutional and criminal law as well as gun rights he served as co counsel district of columbia versus heller in which the supreme court held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun. Clark thank you so much for joining and it's wonderful to have you back on the show. I'll it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me back. And adam winkler holds connell professorship in law at ucla law where he specializes in american constitutional law the supreme court and gun policy. He's also the author of gunfight the battle over the right to bear arms in america among other important works. Adam it's wonderful to have you back on the show. Thanks so much for having me jeff. It's always a pleasure. Clark tell the people listeners. Why new york state rifle and pistol association is important and what the case involves yes so. This is an interesting situation. The court has not granted cert in a second amendment case For more than ten years and has left open a lot of really interesting questions and questions that have generated disagreements among the lower court. So i think a lot of commentators. Think that Perhaps were overdue and you may recall last term. The court accepted sir in another case out of new york involving much narrower and kind of almost it was it was sort of an oddity. It was a law that only affected people in new york city and and Affected who could essentially move a licensed handgun around Under what circumstances within the state of new york that case ended up getting mooted when the when the law was changed by the legislature and ultimately by the state assembly. And so we didn't get an answer in that case About whether that law was constitutional so now with the court has done is granted certain in a case involving a really big issue. And the question is whether the second amendment does or does not protect The right of people to carry guns outside the home. That's a question that has been open. The whole time. It's generated significant disagreement The lower courts. I think the real interesting question in this court cases are they going to answer it and just because they granted cert in a case involving the question does not necessarily mean that they will answer it. I'm sure we can talk more about that later. On adam your thoughts about the new york case and help our listeners. Explain the precise question presented Paul clement from the issue for the petitioners whether the second amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self defense but the court narrowed the question Tell us what the question the courts can. I hear is and why that's significant. Well clark is absolutely right that the supreme court has left open so many questions about the scope of the second amendment. And this case i think most lawyers advocates and advocacy groups out there really hope the court will provide some clarity in this case about Some of those questions and most prominent among them Is the question of whether you have a right to carry outside the home and importantly whether new york's permanent policy which only allows people who have quote unquote proper caused carry a gun Can get a concealed carry permit in most states. They have something called shall issue concealed. Carry permit. Where if you meet certain objective criteria you get a permit to carry a gun but new york is one of a handful of states like california and massachusetts and some others that require a special need. You have to show that you have a very personalized need for self protection beyond sort of the ordinary need for self defense against criminals And in the court case two men and the new york rifle and pistol association Basically the nra's advocacy group in new york challenge the law The special permanent law after new york rejected the concealed carry. Applications of the two men The second circuit court of appeals upheld the law and the challenges appealed to the supreme court And so that key issue is whether the right extends outside the home and importantly whether new york's proper cause permanent requirement is constitutionally permissible clark. Adam says a handful of states similar laws some groups have identified california delaware. Hawaii maryland massachusetts new jersey and rhode island as having the proper caused loans us about how unusual these laws are and then give us a sense of how lower courts have dealt with the question of whether or not restrictions on carrying guns outside the home or consistent with the second amendment you bet so from a purely kind of population standpoint When you when you've got your california in one group you're going to have a lot of people so on the one hand. Not very many states have these Discretionary issue says permanent systems but the states that do two of them are the most populous states in the country. So a lot of people live in states that that have that system It's you know that. I would say the one point to make about the history of these permanent systems I'm not saying that all states are like this but they do have a somewhat ugly history in the sense that The discretionary permanent has been an opportunity for local officials to decide who does or doesn't get permission to carry a gun outside the home. You know one thing to comment on. His new york claims that that the standard in new york is to show a special need. Actually go online. You can get a list of the people who have concealed carry permits a new york donald trump and his son estee lauder howard stern. Sean hannity You'll notice something rather similar about all these people in that. They are famous and certainly have enough money to pay for their own security but nevertheless They have they have a permit. So at the point making here is simply that Lower courts have divided on. This and most courts have actually held the so called discretionary permanent approach. But really. they've only done so by applying re what i think is a standard review that his troubled court. Something not really much different. If at all different from from rational basis review which is of course the lowest standard of constitutional scrutiny and effectively. I think amounts to a rubber stamp The there's definitely an imbalance in the split. But i do think that the courts that have struck down discretionary permiting Had the better of the argument or at least have more faithfully applied. The supreme court's Guidance in the heller case. And i suspect that's what the court has done in granting this case i think they want to provide more guidance whether they answer the question in the end. I'm not sure kinda suspect. They might send it back down with instructions. But i think what will emerge from. This case is more guidance from the supreme court about the correct standard of review to apply. Adam you've written a definitive book about the history of gun Regulations tell us more about the history of this good 'cause licensing law in new york which dates back to nineteen thirteen and has been in substantially the same form since then in upholding a similar law in march the..

Adam Clark adam winkler Sean hannity jeffrey rosen march congress second amendment rhode island Paul clement two men donald trump more than ten years national constitution center jeff new jersey one two new york one group
"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

Red, Blue, and Brady

05:48 min | 10 months ago

"second amendment" Discussed on Red, Blue, and Brady

"This is legal disclaimer. Where i tell you the view slots an opinion shared on this podcast long silly to our guest house and not necessarily brady aubrey's affiliates these note. This podcast contains discussions of violence that some people may find disturbing. It's okay we find it disturbing too red blue and brady stay kelly tackling a very complex conversation about how gender and race impact how police and the law more broadly perceived gun owners to do so. We are talking with an expert. Dr jennifer carlson author of the book policing the second amendment guns law enforcement and the politics of race together. We're talking about police chief. Scum licensing boards the gun lobby and so much more than an armed believable but segment. Kelly and i are discussing a whole lot of guns. That went missing from sheriff's office. Finally in our news wrap up. We remember two young men who were tragically killed by.

brady aubrey Dr jennifer carlson kelly Kelly
"second amendment" Discussed on Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

03:54 min | 1 year ago

"second amendment" Discussed on Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

"With James. How Spirit J. J. J. Conspiracy? I think it's Russia and China and influencing our social media and trying to be very well could be they all this Russia and China hat. They weaken our military tests. Feminism thing lower your test scores and they know that they can't beat our military but they know that if our entire population is on our I totally different and they're like look you and all these soft minded coach Vince him to believe anything we tell them. Well here's where you know that people really are interested in saving lives of people. Okay because that's what that's the argument for the second event. Yeah we gotTa Save the kids. We gotTA save if People's lives. Do you know what you know. You can have a conversation about whether the baby gets to live and Blah. Yeah but that's what I'm saying. It's coming towards the end of the year. I we're almost in two twenty twenty so two thousand nineteen reports are coming out to know what the number one calls. A death was abortion. Forty one Neil Sheehan estimates total or something like that over the years. It's not hang on reacquaint. Let me find that article before. I do also going to be about all the times. We say a abortion just to check with YouTube. Seo stuff a feeling it's a trigger word. Yeah no it is all right so it wasn't a Mary. It's worldwide right so breitbart reported that by Oh I'm sorry. I was way on this. This was last year. So December thirty first of two thousand eighteen. The leading cause of death was abortion worldwide with forty one point nine million so you go to these fact checkers sites and even the fact checker sites actually helped it. They're like actually that data is wrong. Go where to go. Oh Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. It actually shows that the number is around fifty. Six million induced abortions occurred worldwide each year. Now the argument argument is going to be that the vast majority of not in America. Of course we know that all right but if guns are such a huge issue prove it prove in your numbers that that's the case because I looked it up and of the mass shooting in category which is three or more. Is it three or four. More people costars three or more three or more people in in the same aim incident. Okay that's that's a mass shooting. Two hundred forty seven out of there's five million registered in our members. Yup No telling how many more people aren't just registered members that have guns. Well they said there's a billion guns in circulation. Yeah when in the statistic did the left likes to throw in your face a lot twos like well America's I don't even have the exact number but high up there in the in the gun deaths But guess what if you remove all of the gun free cities we fall off the list. Yes we have more guns than anybody else. You remove the gun free zones where it's illegal to own any firearm panel rifle Arafat definitely. Not a are fifteen definitely not high. You mean standard capacity magazines clips. Yeah Magazine magazine. Clips came out killing thousands of children. A minute I mean it's just ridiculous heard for those that aren't aren't light gun shooting people to call a magazine Clip. It's like it's like a trigger word trigger words. There's yeah yeah there's a difference just goes to show.

Yeah Magazine America Russia Vince China Neil Sheehan J. J. J. Conspiracy YouTube James breitbart Arafat
"second amendment" Discussed on Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

09:59 min | 1 year ago

"second amendment" Discussed on Dear America with Graham Allen Podcast

"It's it's a full blown attack to the ends is going to be a full long gun compass purpose door to door gun confiscation. That's what that's where we're heading. They're going to disguise it. They're gonNA talk around it. He admitted an interview. He said that not at this. Are you going to take. The guns is directly what the lady asked him. You know. So what they're wanting to do right now is make owning a are fifteen a felony. MM selling them. We're starting to sell them so selling them is going to be illegal now distribution. Yeah anything with a standard capacity magazines. So basically anything over ten rounds. Suzy legal which is all handguns And many other of my rifles at ours besides a revolver and then they sneak little language language in there. If you go if you go online and look all the stuff up there sneak little language in there so nonspecific anybody can interpret it any way they wanted to so they'll say ar fifteen and the alike. What's that mean Ralph? Yeah you know what I mean like what. What is that supposed to mean right so for possessing thirty round MAG which is Standard Fancy magazine because guess what amendments got nothing to do with deer hunt? We're having a good time hog hunting deer hunt now here. Second Amendment has zero to do with that it. You know I mean it's fun that we get to hunt but second amendment is so that we can defend herself against a tyrannical government if if said tyrannical government decides to come and take I don't know maybe do of the First Amendment which they're also actively trying to do You know the second defense everything else right on gives you. It gives you the means to before you're born free with nobody has to tell you that God gave you that. Second Amendment gives you the mean. So they're coming after us. Hard man has that bill been passed passed yet or I missed that. Still kind of in the way. It's January thinks January or or maybe a little further. Could you have fact checked me on that. But it's it's coming down to is coming out fast and it's not see there's no grandfather clause so it's not like what they've tried to do in the in the past where they've had assault weapons bans like they're trying to do now and they've said well if you already own it. It's not like we can come around and take it from me Brian by anymore. No this time they're saying like you get caught with. It is a felony straight up thirty one. One one MAG MAG. It may be time to change states. I that's that's dangerous at the same time man. It's like I I WANNA I WANNA stand my ground so honestly you know we're GONNA we're gonNA disperse a little bit. We're going to kind of keep one foot. Maybe in Texas or Florida and kind of maybe moved the business business out of state but I WANNA keep a foothold in Virginia and keep fighting the good fight man. 'cause who who else is going to do it. Yeah somebody was It was Jaakko Boolean. Or what a billions chaka billions or. He's turning point guy. He does a lot of turn of events and he was talking about. He's a real spiritual guy. And he was talking about conservatism. He's talking about Surrendering territory and what we are doing. He was talking about it from the a Christian perspective but it but but it fits in this which why bring it up as what we are doing. Were forfeiting territory. Because we just don't want to fight the battle so we're retreating to a different area. Just giving them that territory and then they'll just keep doing what we do here. We'll come out here and we'll shoot her guns Nobel bothers for a little. Oh wow but then what happens. Is they take over that territory. And then they start moving into your new chasm that as it applies the hunters if you think about this and I posted about it and and got some people in my in my community that even in my family and everybody else who was like ooh that was a little strong like you kinda sounded aggressive and I was like I need to sound aggressive. You see what they're doing trampling all right. They'RE GONNA make it up to them by the way to interpret however they wanNA interpret having a firearm arm with somebody that's under the age of eighteen is going to also be a felony. Isn't that convenient. You'll be a felon so in other words if my responsible Oh sixteen year old daughter I dropped her off at her ground. Blonde hander rifles a hate you know safe directions this way. Make sure you know you. I know you're targeting. What's beyond it? And she's been coached at her whole life and she's responsible that rifle and I go hundred Dan one hundred yards away from her felon plus we can't within either rifles. We got anyway. 'cause they're all felonies as well. We'll say like that is brave of the left to do like be pushing this stuff. It's like that's brave because they're never gonNA be able to enforce ultimately elites like like bed to GonNa take the gun show them door. You be the one to kick the door in Sun kick the door in social work perspective though which is what I. Am You would also have because if it comes fell in the now. You're in trouble because you're the one that gave her so many ds that's what happened to get involved. Just be that's a that's A. That's a big senior Nyanza eighteen and under like that's what they're pushing for a meal. Seventeen hundred is it can be considered dangerous and it's and it's left to their interpretation. It's not dangerous is I'm sure some liberal sees me and my eight year old daughter shooting hogs out here. They might think that's dangerous. They might think that's an appropriate there. There are people think that it's dangerous. I just posted like literally just today. Photo made the boys out here man and I was it was one of the it was one of the rare times that wasn't was it trying to stir anything up. I was just trying. Stir stuff up You know I said. Sometimes the best aren't when you see anything I it's it's when you're just hanging out with your kids and somebody was just like oh I don't even have a picture of me with any animal dad of any can yeah L. O.. Onnor say you could subject your children. Well it's trauma. Whoever said they say I don't understand how you could be that out of touch reality like thank you that you're eating and all that stuff? Yeah Yeah enjoy your heart disease from that. Why did you murder? Come back around your GRANDPA's the house. Well you eight or the anyway all right. The point is so I've been saying is a long time. I've been talking about and the listeners. Because she's been with me on most of these the second amendment like speaking tours and I'm going on two years ago I had this. Almost it professionals the wrong word. What was the word? I'm looking for the there. It is funny though. No no lie almost like a foreshadowing battling of something all right. Why Salon Work Prevent Prophetic spiritual anyway? Okay I was on Fox News two years ago and they were talking to me about Second Amendment because it was some some judge or some act. Supreme Court Judge Justice Stevens Evans was his name was saying something against secondhand. I don't even remember more. But I said something that the biggest argument that you hear about the Second Amendment is what was the major thing you here. A lot of people say well. The second was written for Muskie's in things. So so that's like a big one because surely the others couldn't have you know. Thought about the the advances in weaponry right so then. I said well if we're going to go down that route I know where you're going. Maybe how long until we go to the first amendment. Well surely the founding fathers wouldn't wouldn't have known about the Internet TV facebook instagram twitter blogs blogs Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. That's already starting to happen now continued. Can you attack against the Second Amendment is happening and we argued that the second amendment is the most important because it's the one insurance the rest and a lot of people will argue and say it's it's the first I disagree completely is the First Amendment and an amazing ride that we have as Americans of course it is. Well you get to talk about you know the issues you get to have dialogue. You gotta get your debate. You can speak out against the government until the government. No some of that might be hate speech speech and somebody gets offended but we're already species violence. It's it's already happening to interpretation now of what words to write and what words are wrong and without the second amendment. It won't be like you already see it in New York Yard. See it in California words that you're no longer allowed to say however that prosecution yourself. How long before? Well you know you're not able to talk about Jesus more how they're already say I mean school. I know throughout the Obama Administration is one of the first times I can ever remember the American flag being questioned. You know what what I'm saying like. Shouldn't that be beyond beyond contestation behind and all of a sudden people start popping up San. Well that's offensive. We don't know if we should. You know this impeachments each minister who. Yeah maybe stuff cracks me up because they're talking about the constitution and how much they love the constitution and our founding fathers. The same people don't have any problems. Dan Grabs a dead kissed there six months ago. They were like the constitutions up for interpretation Blah Blah Blah and now they care about Rox. I think the Obama Administration ministration started now. And I say this saying that I honestly I'm I'm cool with a black president. Whatever I bother me at all what what what I think? The the negative aspect of the Obama election was was this it feel it felt like the Obama was elected almost in this sense of writing a wrong. Yeah not because now writing a wrong yeah. That was a huge and forever stay on American Society and Culture was slavery no sane person says you know slavery wasn't that bad about I didn't know nobody know the other thing about slavery that wasn't that.

Dan Grabs Obama MM Obama Administration Standard Fancy magazine American Society and Culture Suzy Ralph assault president Brian Supreme Court Virginia Texas Nyanza Onnor New York Yard murder
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:18 min | 2 years ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"He's right <hes> that the court will have this appetite <hes> to take up <hes> more of these types of <hes> regulations to to flesh out the right <hes> now that you know the speculation relation is that they weren't taking these cases because neither side could be sure which way justice kennedy would have gone well just as cavenaugh as you mentioned. There are several cases where <hes> he has has <hes> written in a way that i like <hes> to put it that way <hes> with regard to how to analyze this this right <hes> the the term assault and weapon is a <hes>. It's it's inapt <hes> there is no you know technically speaking the way guns are manufactured. There's there's not a designation. This is an assault all weapon versus. This is a hunting rifle versus. This is you know some other type of of long or short gun or or what have you <hes> as best as i can tell <hes> an assault weapon going back to the federal assault weapon ban. <hes> is something that scares <hes> senator dianne feinstein who was <hes> the ranking member of <hes> or the chairman at a certain point of the <hes> <hes> of the judiciary committee when the assault weapon ban was was coming through <hes> what the sorts of factors that under the previous federal federal assault banned under most state bans <hes> make a firearm into a so-called assault weapon. Are things like it's color all black <hes> whether it has a pistol grip whether there is a mount on which you can put a ban at <hes> whether there's the stock is the part that gets into era shoulder whether that's collapsible all sorts of different cosmetic <hes> sorts of things that do not affect either how quickly the a bullet can be fired how fast it travels when it's fired how many times you can pull the trigger <hes> in a minute <hes> none of these sorts of things <hes> that make a weapon more lethal are actually <hes> affected by its designation as an assault weapon and in fact where the whether whether you're talking about fifteen or other kind of popular <hes> rifles these are common for either self defense for hunting which by the way has lesser the protection constitutionally than self-defense does or any other reason that someone would keep <hes> a long arm these are fundamentally <hes> rifles they they look scary in a sense quote unquote <hes> but they are not machine guns. They are not what the army uses <hes> this is you know people talk about military style. I i don't even know what that means. <hes> unless you're starting to get into things like rocket launchers and tanks and and things like that i went on the colbert report the the old colbert obey report when stephen colbert was a sadness rather than having his own <hes> <hes> ernest <hes> at nighttime talk show <hes> in the wake of the mcdonnell decision and he he asked me so what you know what kind of a regulation is okay and i said no personal <hes> rocket launchers and so that's an example or as i alluded to earlier a ban on having a magazine that spits out just dozens of of <hes> or doesn't spit out but the contains <hes> you know thirty forty fifty <hes> rounds these are really novelties they <hes>. I don't think that's protected or background checks for that matter. As long as it doesn't fundamentally burden you're right as long as the background background. Check doesn't take weeks and weeks <hes> more or less instant twenty four hours away that we can have <hes> given modern technology. I think those sorts of things <hes> because they they don't <hes> <hes> burden the right <hes> that heavily at all <hes> would survive a strict scrutiny regime regime that looks at <hes> the tax in the history and the structure of protecting this natural right to arm self-defense one last point before a closing arguments adam there was a very explosive amicus brief filed in this case ace by senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island and for the democratic senators. The supreme court is not well and people know it <hes> the brief states. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands. It'd be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. That question was from a poll question. <hes> <hes> what do you make of the white house briefing. What does it say about likely <hes> congressional responses..

assault stephen colbert kennedy senator sheldon whitehouse senator white house rhode island dianne feinstein chairman mcdonnell twenty four hours
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

01:56 min | 2 years ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Well. I don't think we should get a hung up on this is what i meant by semantics <hes> even if you're talking about intermediates during the two step method that <hes> the second circuit has adopted that as i you look at whether the regulation involves the core second second amendment right <hes> and then you see whether it then you apply the myriad scrutiny <hes> <hes> <hes> if it's not <hes> to see whether there's an important a <hes> government interest <hes> that's <hes> that's close enough the way that it's <hes> that it's drawn <hes> if if even if we're talking about what the core right is i don't think you can in <hes> plausibly limited to just having a gun in the home <hes> the after all the tech says keep and bear so that means some sort of carrying some sort of bearing airing your firearm which makes sense <hes> people run into all sorts of <hes> needs for self defense outside the home <hes> especially <hes> people living in more or disadvantaged communities where there's higher rates of crime and and what have you or women wanting to defend themselves or there was a brief filed by the pink pistols they l._g._b._t. Community that's targeted for hate crimes. They all want to be able to <hes> <hes> to have the right <hes> outside the home so <hes> it seems to me that if you're going to go into this artificial to step <hes> analysis this <hes> the core right is keeping and bearing now that means certain restrictions like whether you can have a magazine that has forty rounds versus. This is thirty versus twenty at that point. You're starting to get outside of the core right of keeping and bearing arms for self-defence so <hes> again now i i especially for the non-lawyers listening to this. I don't wanna get too bogged down. <hes> on strict scrutiny versus intermediate scrutiny and heller recall <hes> supreme court didn't even mentioned what's the the standard of review of scrutiny is which is partly why we've gotten this mishmash of different kinds of standards or scrutiny types to apply lie in different circuits.

heller
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

03:21 min | 2 years ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Our listeners understand ten why you believe that the text history and structure of the second as originally understood and as properly interpreted compel strict scrutiny. I'll note that on our interactive constitution institution adam winkler and nelson lund agreed that the central original purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from subduing the people through through military force and federalists and anti federalists <hes> disagreed only about whether an armed populace was adequate to deter federal oppression <hes> that that changed <hes> in reconstruction when people became more concerned about ensuring that african americans could arm themselves to defend themselves against racist mobs but what does that history history tell us about whether strict scrutiny as opposed to intermediate scrutiny is appropriate well first of all <hes>. Let me clarify fi that there might not be as much disagreement between <hes> me and adam on <hes> the the effective stress scrutiny. I do agree that a law that <hes> bans nonviolent felons from having in a <hes> a a firearm would probably because there's no real. There's no good reason to do that. <hes> other kinds of restrictions would certainly fall <hes> i i think the problem really has been that those course that had been purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny have been watering down the intermediate scrutiny there've been applying and effectively making it a rational basis that whenever the state or local government just waves it's hands and says public safety then the courts end up <hes> deferring we've seen that on the second circuit here but also <hes> the third circuit with new jersey laws that the ninth circuit <hes> going on bond frequently to overturn even when there's a panel that has a pro gun rights <hes> ruling doing <hes> but but in any event <hes> the the right i think has changed over time and you're right that you character the way you characterized i <hes> the second amendment <hes> at the founding <hes> that the concern was about <hes> government <hes> oppression and things like that <hes> in <hes> in <hes> in in the reconstruction era however and this is we have to interpret things through a fourteenth amendment lens <hes> <hes> this is kind of got into the mcdonald opinion extending it <hes> the right to <hes> <hes> to the states the concern had shifted for unpopular minorities everywhere whether that be freed <hes> friedman black friedman or for union sympathizers in the south confederate sympathizers in the north asian immigrants in the west are all sorts of people who <hes> were being oppressed us by their state and local governments not the federal government in various ways <hes> and being <hes> being disarmed one of the one of the first <hes> aspects of redemption <hes> capital are <hes> when reconstruction was <hes> ended through kind of a dirty deal with <hes> andrew johnson and and beyond <hes> one of the first things that states started doing an implementing the early stages of jim crow was indeed to disarm <hes> black people <hes> as well as putting in all sorts of restrictions on their economic liberties and property rights and what have you so i i do think it's important to look at <hes> that kind of history and the meaning of the right to keep arms the the natural right that was protected by whether you call it the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment or the privileges or immunities clause <hes> in any event <hes> that that that that history and structure is meant to <hes> <hes> <hes>.

adam winkler nelson lund andrew johnson mcdonald jim crow
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

03:14 min | 2 years ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Small arms range or shooting club as long as it's unloaded unloaded and in a locked container and the mission carried separately <hes> if that shooting club is in new york city <hes> and this case the challenger is in this case <hes> including the new york state rifle and pistol association and a number of individual plaintiffs who hold premises license permits in new york city <hes> seek to transport their handguns to other places so for instance they've argue that they should be able to take their handguns shooting ranges and competitions that are outside of of new york city but that's not allowed under the current law or under the previous rule that was in place or one up plaintiff claims that they wanna be able to take their gun to a second home they have elsewhere in new york state but the premises permanent does not allow that so they have filed suit seeking injunctive give relief allowing them to carry their firearms to these select places. The difficulty for them is whether the case is still alive. Controversy controversy are not when although new york did defend this rule through the circuit court and won a at the second circuit below which held that these provisions restrictions fictions were constitutionally permissible under the second amendment and other constitutional provisions nonetheless new york as realized the error of its ways the police department has rescinded the rule and not only because they have they rescinded the rule but the state legislature has stepped in and passed a state law that prohibits new york orca or any other county in new york from enacting such a similar law as a result <hes> the challenge here have really gotten everything that they wanted or at least formally requested in the case that is to say they can take their guns now to shooting ranges outside of the city they can take take them to their second homes and the injunctive relief that they have sought has effectively been provided to them by the new york state legislature. I think the case is undoubtedly moot now. The supreme court may nonetheless hold onto it because moutainous provides plenty of leeway for the justices <hes> but any opinion in this case would clearly be an advisory opinion about a law that is no longer longer on the books in new york or any other state in the nation yulia as adam says new york claims the cases mood and it doesn't want to file a substantive response. What's the new york rifle and pistol association rejects that claim and says that the city is not allowed essentially to change its rules after an appellate loss that frustrates supreme court review and therefore the court could hear it. Tell us more about the argument that the case is not right well. They have filed briefs. The briefing is is done at this point <hes> they make the point that the cases mood and style the rest of their argument is the former law and you know us <hes> verb tenses to indicate that this is a <hes> a hypothetical situation now rather than than alive case good good lawyering on on that part <hes> and as mentioned this is a prudential judgment by the court. It's not a a legal rule or constitutional rule. They're enforcing about when a case becomes mood or when a court can hold onto it <hes> the challenges ears are saying look..

new york new york state legislature moutainous adam
"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:13 min | 2 years ago

"second amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Gorsuch, treat the second amendment can heightened scrutiny be rooted in texture history. Or is it a purely pragmatic judgment is Clark suggest? Well, it's clear that there is no history and tradition. Of course, applying heightened scrutiny to gun laws in American history. Like, we know that there's occasionally cases that are throw a strike down a law here or law there couple in the mid eighteen hundreds in particular, but overwhelmingly history and traditions suggests that court should apply a deferential standard to gun laws. That's a long as the lawmakers. Don't completely ban firearms or -ffective -ly nullify, the right to bear arms regulations should survive. That's what. History and tradition says a true originalist that looks as Scalia often did to the tradition of a right after it was adopted would probably take that a history and tradition. Pretty seriously. Call me skeptical. I don't think. Justice Thomas will approach the issue in quite that, y so I think if you look at history and tradition the answers a pretty clear in that direction. I also think that, you know, we have this perhaps exaggerated view of how the lower courts are approaching second amendment cases, we start with a baseline for we should recognize that American gun laws are the most permissive in the world among western industrialized countries. So our gun laws are actually not that burdensome and even places like California, New York where we have adopted some more burdensome gun laws New York more burdensome than others. But in California any law abiding person can still go out by a handgun by as many handguns as they want for self defense in the home. They can also by various kinds of rifles and other things there are some limitations on what they can do. But no one is really denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm in their home. And as a result are marika's gun laws are pretty mild, and they don't. Offend the underlying right to bear arms. So it's not surprising that courts uphold the few kinds of restrictions that we do adopt. And even then, you know in the DC circuit there's been a twenty two second amendment challenges fourteen of them have been successful. So that's a success rate. Sixty four percent, you know, that's got that's very very high level of success in the idea that the courts are just ignoring the second amendment or crew making a second class, right? Probably just doesn't really fit the data out there. Can we just take one final beat on the history? I always urge are we the people listeners to go to the interactive constitution and striking. When you look at the historic analogues of the second amendment only two of the revolutionary era state, competitions Pennsylvania and Vermont viewed the second amendment as an individual right of the people to bear arms for the defense of themselves or for purposes of killing game. The other eleven used the militia language, but at the time of reconstruction as many scholars including clear Calamar noted the second amendment was viewed as more of a individual or natural right that African Americans could use to defend themselves against violence. So if you were trying to argue to Justice Thomas and give him an originalist case for why the second amendment should not be a second class. Right. What would you say? Well, I would make clear that the people who wrote those provisions had a belief in natural rights. I think Justice Thomas does. Well, and so they would argue that the second amendment and the state constitutional analogs do not create the right to own a gun. They simply acknowledge it. And regardless of what the language of those provisions is regardless of when those provisions were added to the relevant constitution that changes nothing. Everybody has a natural pre existing right to defend themselves and to defend themselves, effectively, whether it's against private violence or violence from the government. This was a bed rock conviction that the founders of our country had and that the people participated in the debate on the ratification of the fourteen amendment after the civil war had. And so what I would say is that we shouldn't get too hung up on the wording of the constitutional provisions that protect the right to own guns..

Justice Thomas Scalia California Gorsuch Clark New York marika Calamar Pennsylvania Vermont Sixty four percent twenty two second