This is a compilation of some of the most compelling stories of the week.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Daily Dive Weekend Edition. I'm Oscar Ramirez,
and every week I explore the top stories making waves
in the news and some that are just playing interesting.
I'll connect you with the journalists and the people who
know the story and bring you news without the noise
so you can make an informed decision. You can catch
a new episode of The Daily Dive every Monday through Friday,
and it's ready when you wake up. On the weekend edition,
(00:27):
I'll be bringing you some of the best stories from
the week. Now that the economy is coming back after
the pandemic, many companies are starting to hire again, and
some have a special requirement before coming on board a
COVID nineteen vaccine. Employers are starting to mandate candidates get
a shot before they get hired, and are also applying
the rule to existing employees. Also, certain exemptions can be made,
(00:50):
but generally it's legal for employers to mandate such vaccinations.
For more on how employers across all industries are beginning
to require these will speak to Chip Cutter, work place
reporter at the Law Street Journal. For months, we've seen
employers tell their staffers that they'd like them to get
the vaccine and we've seen CEOs and others kind of
talk about the importance of the vaccine, why people might
(01:11):
want to consider it. Now with the vaccine being rolled
out to all Americans and with half of US adults
having gotten their first dose, many companies say they want
to move beyond recommendations to mandates. And that's what we're
beginning to see here. And it's an all sorts of
industries from food service. So for example, the Michelin starred
restaurant eleven Madison Park has been advertising some jobs recently
(01:33):
where it says a COVID ight team vaccine is going
to be required to you know, office jobs. We've seen
jobs for accountants in Colorado or people to work in
administrative capacities in Houston. All of those, you know, are
companies are beginning to say that the work here of
vaccine is going to be required. Yeah, and that's the
you know, the interesting part. You know, you mentioned all
the industries hospital networks, meat packing plants also, you noted
(01:56):
in your article. And that's the important thing. When you
start seeing different industry threads that are requiring this, you
know that's something that's going to take off. You know
that more companies are gonna feel comfortable requiring it, and
you as an employee, you're gonna in a lot of cases,
you're gonna have to comply or just go somewhere else.
So one of the big questions on this is is
it legal because the vaccine itself is not mandated by
(02:19):
the government or anything like that, So is it legal?
And for the most part, the answer is yes, that
that that's right. Companies can legally require vaccines as a
condition of employment, though they must accompany religious beliefs or
medical conditions that might prevent workers from getting the shots. Um.
What gets complicated here, though, is that many companies that
(02:39):
have done this that they have received blowback both within
their organizations and outside of it. And I think that
is what has caused many companies to take a pause here.
And so even if executives would like to put these
kind of requirements in place, many say that they worry
that there perhaps could be you know, blowback resistance from staffers.
I talked to some employers that put these requirements in place,
(03:01):
and they've seen employees quit that got an emails to
you know, their staff, to their executive saying they're frustrated
by this. So UM you know, this is not without controversy. Yeah,
tell me a little bit more about some of those conversations,
because one of them, I think you were speaking to
a raw plastics distributor Last Steak International Corps, and they
said that, you know, they had some people leave because
(03:23):
of it. But even when they're going through their interview
process for new employees, they asked them have you gotten
the vaccine? Are you planning to? And if they say
no or something, they're saying, well, you know, the interview
is over. You know, we don't we don't need you
at this point. It's nothing against you, that's just kind
of a requirement. I thought that was a really telling,
interesting anecdote. So this is a company that's kind of
(03:44):
you could say, almost in the manufacturing space, right. I
mean it's it's a place where they're hiring machine operators
for example, and the company so that pays well for
its area. I think you know, starting wages started around
fifteen dollars an hour. The HR director there though. You know,
it's kind of implementing the policy that the owner wanted
to put in place, which was to say that everyone,
both existing employees and new hires, will need the vaccine.
(04:05):
And so she says, when she starts interviewing candidates, she
doesn't want to get down a path where she has
a great conversation with them, but then at the end
they say they're not willing to get a COVID vaccine.
She said that would waste everyone's time. And so that's
why she and her colleagues now start conversation by asking
that right up front, will you get the vaccine? Have
you already had it or are you willing to do so? Um.
And she says most people are agreeable and willing to
(04:26):
do it, but she's had a couple to say that
it's just not for them, and then the conversation ends.
And and I think that that's just an approach that
that perhaps, you know, others may follow. Um. And I think,
you know, trying to kind of set those expectations up front.
It's one reason why I've seen these kind of mandates
spelled out in job posting. Uh. You know, in the
story we note that you know, some companies and some
organizations are spelling this out in big bold lettering. You know,
(04:48):
COVID night Team vaccine required. Uh. You know, these organizations
don't want any ambiguous you know, kind of antiguity here
on one front, I think it's pretty important, right. I mean,
in most workplaces right now, everybody still has to wear
a mask, right, So you talk about let's get back
to normal things like that. I know they can be
cumbersome sometimes, but if not everybody in the workplace is vaccinated,
(05:09):
that might be a rule or restriction that needs to
stick around for a longer period of time. You can't
get back to that normalcy. So in a sense, you've
got to do one or the other kind of thing,
and you're still going to be restricted in some form
or another. So I mean, these are difficult questions that
the managers employers have to walk through, and some of
them are you know, going that extra step bringing vaccination
(05:30):
drives to them, you know, organizing it so that the
access to the vaccine is easier for their employees or
future employees. Even that's exactly it. And and we've seen
a number of companies kind of given sentences to employees
say we'll give you a couple of hundred dollars for example,
if you get the vaccine, or we'll give you time
off to get the vaccine or recover from any possible
side effects. But some companies are going farther and just
(05:50):
bringing those vaccines on site. We site in the story
example of this, you know, kind of beloved Texas restaurant
and uh and this this restaurant in Houston called Fuzz,
and there's a couple of others where they just had
all their staff, you know, they brought They say vaccines
are gonna be required, but we're gonna have a vaccine
drive so everybody can kind of get vaccinated at once, um.
And I think that that was seen as kind of
a way to kind of ease this process, to make
(06:11):
it as simple as possible for everyone. But you rightly
point out that, you know, obviously the vaccine is the
big help and keeping everybody safe, but there are of
course still risks, and I think that's why, you know,
many organizations continue to kind of have other safeguards in
place too. Yeah, if your employer meets you halfway and
tries to do these vaccination drives, I'm sure a lot
are willing to do. And that was an early discussion
in my workplace, and everybody right away was saying, yeah,
(06:34):
I'll get it right away if you can help us
do it. Because the early parts of the vaccine roll out.
We're tough with the getting your appointments and all that stuff,
but we're gonna start seeing this a lot more. You're
gonna hear about this a lot more. Ash people do
start getting back to work more regularly, so we'll keep
an eye out on all of that. Chip Cutter, workplace
reporter at the Wall Street Journal, thank you very much
(06:54):
for joining us. Thanks for having me this week. We
also heard that the Supreme Court will be hearing a
major Second Amendment case that could impact gun laws for
years to come. They will be hearing a case out
of New York in the next term that has to
do with the law restricting the ability to carry concealed
handguns in public. For more and what to know about
(07:16):
this case and how the conservative majority in the Court
may impact this decision, will speak to Ian Millheiser, senior
correspondent at Vox. This is a big, big case. I mean,
this is the biggest guns case probably to hit the
Supreme Court since two thousand and eight, and potentially be
the second biggest guns case in the Court's history. So
to lay out some of that history real quick before
(07:37):
I get into this specific case, the Second Amendment, as
many of your listeners probably know. Starts with the phrase
a well regulated militia. It as a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state. The
right of the people to keep in bear arms should
not be infringed. And the way that the Supreme Court
interpreted that amendment literally up until two thousand eight is
(07:59):
they really took that first passage about a well regulated
malicious seriously. They said, the purpose of this amendment is
to protect people's ability to join militias. It's not really
about the individual right to bear arms. And then in
two thousand and eight, the Supreme Court handed down this
case called d C v. Heller, and Heller was the
first time in American history that the Supreme Court said, no,
(08:21):
this is about an individual right to bear arms, and
it's specifically about the right of individuals to still But
Heller was riddled with caveats. It said that dangerous and
unusual weapons can still be banned. It said that there
could be bands on the use on felons and people
with mental illnesses carrying firearms, and so there could be
(08:43):
bands on guns and what it called sensitive places and
so like. It said, there's an individual right to bear arms,
but it didn't tell you that much about what the
scope of the Second Amendment was, and it did say
that there were some pretty hefty limits on it. Flash
forwards now and the Supreme Court is just much much,
(09:04):
much more conservatives. The lower courts have figured out a framework,
but fairly moderate framework to deal with Heller is that
strikes down walls like you try to ban guns in
the home, those sorts of walls will struck down, but
it actually tends to uphold most state gun laws. And
there has been a dissenting faction amongst the lower court
(09:25):
judges that want to move gun on the interpretation of
the Second Amendment much further to the right. One member
that dissenting faction was Brett Kavanaugh. Another member of that
dissenting faction was Amy Coney Parrott. And so what is
likely to happen here is that a lot of the
caveats from the Heller decision are going to probably going
(09:48):
to be wiped out, and you could potentially have more
than a decade of lower court decision saying that most
gun laws will be upheld, also struck down, and we
could have a whole new world where there's much more
access to fire. Are so what are we seeing in
the New York case? Specifically, it seems something similar to
what we have here in California where I'm at. And
(10:09):
this is all having to do with obtaining your license
to have a concealed firearm basically a handgun. Basically, you
have to prove that you actually needed, as you mentioned earlier,
kind of the thing. Let's say you're a store, a
liquor store owner, or something you needed for protection. That
might be a case for it, or you have a
known stalker, you might need that for protection. But just
(10:29):
blanket everybody can't have a concealed carry gun and these
types of permit. So that's kind of where this New
York case is lying on. So New York, I mean,
this law has been around for more than a century.
The specific phrase that the law uses is proper cause.
You have to show that you have proper cause in
order to obtain a concealed carry permit in New York.
(10:50):
And that's the permit that allows you to bring a
gun outside the home for a variety of purposes. And
so there's lots of ways you can show proper cause.
I mean, like you that if you're a shop owner,
you can sometimes obtain a gun to protect you in
your shop, although generally that will be a limited permit
saying that you have to keep the gun in the shop.
A lot of guns are issued to bank messengers, people
(11:11):
who like bring money back and forth between banks, and
there's like obvious reasons why those people want to carry
a gun to protect themselves when they're doing their job.
When they're not doing their job, it's often a limited
use permit. It's very hard in New York to get
an unlimited concealed carry permit. I mean, if someone as
a stalker, they probably could because there when the stalker
(11:33):
stalker is going to show up. But you have to
show that you have a very particular need, and that
need has to go beyond the concerns of the general public.
You can't CONSI gain a concealed carry permit in New
York simply by saying, well, I fear that someday I
might be a victim of violence. I'd like to have
a gun when I do. That's not enough. And so
(11:57):
essentially what the plants are asking for in this case
is they are claiming that they have a constitutional right
to just be able to say, well, I think I
might someday want to gone and that should be enough.
The Court's not going to hear this until the next term.
I think that starts in October or something like that,
So this conversation will be talked about for some time
(12:17):
until we start getting that under way, so that you're
gonna hear a lot of conversations about that coming from
the administration. Obviously, as I mentioned, they're trying to reform
gun laws and put restrictions around the country, and then
from the other side, you know, just wanting to expand
those gun rights. So it's gonna be a huge conversation
and something that could be very impactful for many years
to come. Ian mill Heiser, Senior correspondent at Vox, Thank
(12:40):
you very much for joining us. All right, thank you.
Finally for this week, the recall election to remove California
Governor Gavin Newsom is on. Proponents of the recall have
submitted enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot.
No date has been set yet, but the vote may
come by November. Now we have to see how many
(13:01):
people jump in the race to replace him, and how
does the state change over the course of the next
few months. For more on how the recall circuses back
in California. Will speak to Terran Luna, reporter at the
l A Times. We learned from the Secretary of State
that the proponents had met and exceeded the minimum threshold
to qualify. So, as you mentioned, there could be some
(13:22):
wiggle room there in terms of some kind of court
intervention or a mass number of people saying that they
signed unknowingly or that their signature shouldn't be valid. That
would require over a hundred thousand people do that, and
that would just be It seems unfeasible at this point.
So for all intensive purposes, we should expect a recall
election by the end of the year. Newton seemed like
(13:45):
he was prepared for that announcement. Yesterday he put out
a statement talking about how it threatens our values as Californians,
talking about fighting the COVID nineteen pandemic, helping families, protecting
the environment, and that there's just too much stake at
this point to vote against him and to support one
of these others cadidates. Now, we've been on a roller
(14:06):
coaster ride with regards to the pandemic. I know a
lot of this recall effort was fueled by dissatisfaction of
voters with how the governor was handling this. Obviously we
know what happened at the French Laundry, just a big
flood for the governor, all that stuff. There's some other
things obviously, homelessness, taxes, all of this figures into this
overall recall effort. But public polling shows that really a
(14:29):
lot of people don't really want this to happen. Is
that correct? Yeah, So some of the recent polling we
saw over the last month showed that I think it
was as high at fifty six percent of people did
not support the recall. And we're actually opposed to it
a little closer or was under were in favor of it. Um,
So that all speaks well for Newsom. And you know,
(14:51):
I think you're right that the pandemic has fueled some
of this. Prior to this recall effort qualifying, we saw
five or six different efforts to recall the governor. It
really wasn't until the pandemic kicked in and we saw
some of his policies around shutting down businesses and staying
home really take effect, and you got some pushback on that.
(15:13):
And then there was a court case where the proponents
petition for more time to collect signatures because of the
pandemic and inciting the pandemic as an impetus to collecting signature.
So when that was approved, they got more time to
do it, and that was really a big moment in
terms of the ability of this effort to qualify. Yeah, so,
I mean it seems like obviously just getting this to
(15:34):
the ballot is a pretty big thing just in general,
but it seems like it could still be an uphill battle.
And as I mentioned, the pandemic really took center stage
with everybody on this and what's going to happen by
the time this vote actually happens November. By the end
of the year, whenever it is, most kids will be
back in school. It seems like more people will be vaccinated.
(15:55):
Right now, California has the lowest case rate in the country,
so things are getting better or and it's going to
be tough to really keep up this momentum against him
on that front right now. And then the other part
of it is, you know a lot of people call
it the circus right all of these candidates are going
to be coming out of nowhere to try to replace him.
We've seen some former foes of the governor already there,
(16:16):
Caitlin Jenner has thrown her name in the ring, and
you know who else will try to do this right?
And I think those two things you touched on there
are huge factors for Newsom. So the first is that
the conventional wisdom is the longer the pandemic has kind
of been in the rear view mirror by the time
we have this election, that all votes better for Newsom. Right, So,
(16:37):
as you mentioned, if kids are back in school, if
we're largely leading some sort of a normal life again,
voters are going to be less upset about their current
state and their current existence, and they might not want
to take that out on their governor, right, they might
not be as frustrated, So that is good for him.
And then the other factor for all this is unless
(16:57):
another challenger, viable owner comes in with the ability to
pull not only Democratic voters to their side, but also
independence to their side, it becomes a lot easier for Newsom.
And so far we're looking at the former mayor of
San Diego, Faulkner, who's come in. He's a Republican. Caitlyn
Jenner's coming in. She's also a Republican. There's talk about
(17:20):
other candidates and other Democrats maybe being interested. Antonio vier
Gosa as one that there's a lot of talk about
Tom Steyer, a lot of talk about him as well.
But unless you really see a Democrat come in with
a lot of appeal, or a moderate independent voter, or
a Republican with enough cachet to bring independence and Democrats
(17:40):
to their side, it's all looking positive for him at
this point. Again, there's a ton of time between now
and November, right so we don't know what could happen.
You know, we could have another French laundry situation or
something like that that would not be good for him.
So there's there's a lot of time for things to happen,
and that's important to write. The top contenders as it
stands right now are all Republicans. So what will happen
(18:03):
if a Democrat does get in there? And this all
has shades of two thousand three when it happened with
Gray Davis and they recalled him. That's when we got
the governator. That's when Arnold Swashenager want and came in
and there hasn't been a Republican governor since then. So
there's a lot of stuff to kind of analyze and
go through, and the amount of money that's going to
be put into this thing, it's gonna be huge at
a time when there's no other big political races in
(18:25):
the country, so there's gonna be a lot of eyes
on it. I mean, there's a lot of stuff to
kind of to go through between now and whenever this
vote will actually take place. I agree with you, there's
a ton of variables between now and October November when
it happened. So I think one of the key things
to watch, like you mentioned, is just who these other
contenders are and who comes in because let's say we
(18:47):
have some additional wave of the pandemic. Even at that point,
even if voters are frustrated and they look down about
and they see use them as a Democrat and no
other real Democrats that they know on the other side,
are they going to vote for Republican in California. It's
kind of hard to expect, right unless you see a
Schwarzenegger as candidate like you mentioned. Yeah, and the timeline
(19:09):
for the state to open back up is June, so
businesses should be booming by the time this vote happens.
It's gonna be a crazy time in California for sure.
Aryan Luna, reporter at the l A Times covering Governor
Gavin Newsom. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.
That's it for this weekend. Be sure to check out
The Daily Dive every Monday through Friday. Join us on
(19:31):
social media at Daily Dive Pod on Twitter and Daily
Dive Podcast on Facebook. Leave us a comment, give us
a rating, and tell us the stories that you're interested in.
Follow The Daily Dive and I Heard Radio or subscribe
wherever you get your podcast. This episode of The Daily
Dive has been engineered by Tony Sorrentina. I'm Oscar Ramirez
in Los Angeles and this was your Daily Dive weekend
(19:54):
edition
Welcome to the Daily Dive Weekend Edition. I'm Oscar Ramirez,
and every week I explore the top stories making waves
in the news and some that are just playing interesting.
I'll connect you with the journalists and the people who
know the story and bring you news without the noise
so you can make an informed decision. You can catch
a new episode of The Daily Dive every Monday through Friday,
and it's ready when you wake up. On the weekend edition,
(00:27):
I'll be bringing you some of the best stories from
the week. Now that the economy is coming back after
the pandemic, many companies are starting to hire again, and
some have a special requirement before coming on board a
COVID nineteen vaccine. Employers are starting to mandate candidates get
a shot before they get hired, and are also applying
the rule to existing employees. Also, certain exemptions can be made,
(00:50):
but generally it's legal for employers to mandate such vaccinations.
For more on how employers across all industries are beginning
to require these will speak to Chip Cutter, work place
reporter at the Law Street Journal. For months, we've seen
employers tell their staffers that they'd like them to get
the vaccine and we've seen CEOs and others kind of
talk about the importance of the vaccine, why people might
(01:11):
want to consider it. Now with the vaccine being rolled
out to all Americans and with half of US adults
having gotten their first dose, many companies say they want
to move beyond recommendations to mandates. And that's what we're
beginning to see here. And it's an all sorts of
industries from food service. So for example, the Michelin starred
restaurant eleven Madison Park has been advertising some jobs recently
(01:33):
where it says a COVID ight team vaccine is going
to be required to you know, office jobs. We've seen
jobs for accountants in Colorado or people to work in
administrative capacities in Houston. All of those, you know, are
companies are beginning to say that the work here of
vaccine is going to be required. Yeah, and that's the
you know, the interesting part. You know, you mentioned all
the industries hospital networks, meat packing plants also, you noted
(01:56):
in your article. And that's the important thing. When you
start seeing different industry threads that are requiring this, you
know that's something that's going to take off. You know
that more companies are gonna feel comfortable requiring it, and
you as an employee, you're gonna in a lot of cases,
you're gonna have to comply or just go somewhere else.
So one of the big questions on this is is
it legal because the vaccine itself is not mandated by
(02:19):
the government or anything like that, So is it legal?
And for the most part, the answer is yes, that
that that's right. Companies can legally require vaccines as a
condition of employment, though they must accompany religious beliefs or
medical conditions that might prevent workers from getting the shots. Um.
What gets complicated here, though, is that many companies that
(02:39):
have done this that they have received blowback both within
their organizations and outside of it. And I think that
is what has caused many companies to take a pause here.
And so even if executives would like to put these
kind of requirements in place, many say that they worry
that there perhaps could be you know, blowback resistance from staffers.
I talked to some employers that put these requirements in place,
(03:01):
and they've seen employees quit that got an emails to
you know, their staff, to their executive saying they're frustrated
by this. So UM you know, this is not without controversy. Yeah,
tell me a little bit more about some of those conversations,
because one of them, I think you were speaking to
a raw plastics distributor Last Steak International Corps, and they
said that, you know, they had some people leave because
(03:23):
of it. But even when they're going through their interview
process for new employees, they asked them have you gotten
the vaccine? Are you planning to? And if they say
no or something, they're saying, well, you know, the interview
is over. You know, we don't we don't need you
at this point. It's nothing against you, that's just kind
of a requirement. I thought that was a really telling,
interesting anecdote. So this is a company that's kind of
(03:44):
you could say, almost in the manufacturing space, right. I
mean it's it's a place where they're hiring machine operators
for example, and the company so that pays well for
its area. I think you know, starting wages started around
fifteen dollars an hour. The HR director there though. You know,
it's kind of implementing the policy that the owner wanted
to put in place, which was to say that everyone,
both existing employees and new hires, will need the vaccine.
(04:05):
And so she says, when she starts interviewing candidates, she
doesn't want to get down a path where she has
a great conversation with them, but then at the end
they say they're not willing to get a COVID vaccine.
She said that would waste everyone's time. And so that's
why she and her colleagues now start conversation by asking
that right up front, will you get the vaccine? Have
you already had it or are you willing to do so? Um.
And she says most people are agreeable and willing to
(04:26):
do it, but she's had a couple to say that
it's just not for them, and then the conversation ends.
And and I think that that's just an approach that
that perhaps, you know, others may follow. Um. And I think,
you know, trying to kind of set those expectations up front.
It's one reason why I've seen these kind of mandates
spelled out in job posting. Uh. You know, in the
story we note that you know, some companies and some
organizations are spelling this out in big bold lettering. You know,
(04:48):
COVID night Team vaccine required. Uh. You know, these organizations
don't want any ambiguous you know, kind of antiguity here
on one front, I think it's pretty important, right. I mean,
in most workplaces right now, everybody still has to wear
a mask, right, So you talk about let's get back
to normal things like that. I know they can be
cumbersome sometimes, but if not everybody in the workplace is vaccinated,
(05:09):
that might be a rule or restriction that needs to
stick around for a longer period of time. You can't
get back to that normalcy. So in a sense, you've
got to do one or the other kind of thing,
and you're still going to be restricted in some form
or another. So I mean, these are difficult questions that
the managers employers have to walk through, and some of
them are you know, going that extra step bringing vaccination
(05:30):
drives to them, you know, organizing it so that the
access to the vaccine is easier for their employees or
future employees. Even that's exactly it. And and we've seen
a number of companies kind of given sentences to employees
say we'll give you a couple of hundred dollars for example,
if you get the vaccine, or we'll give you time
off to get the vaccine or recover from any possible
side effects. But some companies are going farther and just
(05:50):
bringing those vaccines on site. We site in the story
example of this, you know, kind of beloved Texas restaurant
and uh and this this restaurant in Houston called Fuzz,
and there's a couple of others where they just had
all their staff, you know, they brought They say vaccines
are gonna be required, but we're gonna have a vaccine
drive so everybody can kind of get vaccinated at once, um.
And I think that that was seen as kind of
a way to kind of ease this process, to make
(06:11):
it as simple as possible for everyone. But you rightly
point out that, you know, obviously the vaccine is the
big help and keeping everybody safe, but there are of
course still risks, and I think that's why, you know,
many organizations continue to kind of have other safeguards in
place too. Yeah, if your employer meets you halfway and
tries to do these vaccination drives, I'm sure a lot
are willing to do. And that was an early discussion
in my workplace, and everybody right away was saying, yeah,
(06:34):
I'll get it right away if you can help us
do it. Because the early parts of the vaccine roll out.
We're tough with the getting your appointments and all that stuff,
but we're gonna start seeing this a lot more. You're
gonna hear about this a lot more. Ash people do
start getting back to work more regularly, so we'll keep
an eye out on all of that. Chip Cutter, workplace
reporter at the Wall Street Journal, thank you very much
(06:54):
for joining us. Thanks for having me this week. We
also heard that the Supreme Court will be hearing a
major Second Amendment case that could impact gun laws for
years to come. They will be hearing a case out
of New York in the next term that has to
do with the law restricting the ability to carry concealed
handguns in public. For more and what to know about
(07:16):
this case and how the conservative majority in the Court
may impact this decision, will speak to Ian Millheiser, senior
correspondent at Vox. This is a big, big case. I mean,
this is the biggest guns case probably to hit the
Supreme Court since two thousand and eight, and potentially be
the second biggest guns case in the Court's history. So
to lay out some of that history real quick before
(07:37):
I get into this specific case, the Second Amendment, as
many of your listeners probably know. Starts with the phrase
a well regulated militia. It as a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state. The
right of the people to keep in bear arms should
not be infringed. And the way that the Supreme Court
interpreted that amendment literally up until two thousand eight is
(07:59):
they really took that first passage about a well regulated
malicious seriously. They said, the purpose of this amendment is
to protect people's ability to join militias. It's not really
about the individual right to bear arms. And then in
two thousand and eight, the Supreme Court handed down this
case called d C v. Heller, and Heller was the
first time in American history that the Supreme Court said, no,
(08:21):
this is about an individual right to bear arms, and
it's specifically about the right of individuals to still But
Heller was riddled with caveats. It said that dangerous and
unusual weapons can still be banned. It said that there
could be bands on the use on felons and people
with mental illnesses carrying firearms, and so there could be
(08:43):
bands on guns and what it called sensitive places and
so like. It said, there's an individual right to bear arms,
but it didn't tell you that much about what the
scope of the Second Amendment was, and it did say
that there were some pretty hefty limits on it. Flash
forwards now and the Supreme Court is just much much,
(09:04):
much more conservatives. The lower courts have figured out a framework,
but fairly moderate framework to deal with Heller is that
strikes down walls like you try to ban guns in
the home, those sorts of walls will struck down, but
it actually tends to uphold most state gun laws. And
there has been a dissenting faction amongst the lower court
(09:25):
judges that want to move gun on the interpretation of
the Second Amendment much further to the right. One member
that dissenting faction was Brett Kavanaugh. Another member of that
dissenting faction was Amy Coney Parrott. And so what is
likely to happen here is that a lot of the
caveats from the Heller decision are going to probably going
(09:48):
to be wiped out, and you could potentially have more
than a decade of lower court decision saying that most
gun laws will be upheld, also struck down, and we
could have a whole new world where there's much more
access to fire. Are so what are we seeing in
the New York case? Specifically, it seems something similar to
what we have here in California where I'm at. And
(10:09):
this is all having to do with obtaining your license
to have a concealed firearm basically a handgun. Basically, you
have to prove that you actually needed, as you mentioned earlier,
kind of the thing. Let's say you're a store, a
liquor store owner, or something you needed for protection. That
might be a case for it, or you have a
known stalker, you might need that for protection. But just
(10:29):
blanket everybody can't have a concealed carry gun and these
types of permit. So that's kind of where this New
York case is lying on. So New York, I mean,
this law has been around for more than a century.
The specific phrase that the law uses is proper cause.
You have to show that you have proper cause in
order to obtain a concealed carry permit in New York.
(10:50):
And that's the permit that allows you to bring a
gun outside the home for a variety of purposes. And
so there's lots of ways you can show proper cause.
I mean, like you that if you're a shop owner,
you can sometimes obtain a gun to protect you in
your shop, although generally that will be a limited permit
saying that you have to keep the gun in the shop.
A lot of guns are issued to bank messengers, people
(11:11):
who like bring money back and forth between banks, and
there's like obvious reasons why those people want to carry
a gun to protect themselves when they're doing their job.
When they're not doing their job, it's often a limited
use permit. It's very hard in New York to get
an unlimited concealed carry permit. I mean, if someone as
a stalker, they probably could because there when the stalker
(11:33):
stalker is going to show up. But you have to
show that you have a very particular need, and that
need has to go beyond the concerns of the general public.
You can't CONSI gain a concealed carry permit in New
York simply by saying, well, I fear that someday I
might be a victim of violence. I'd like to have
a gun when I do. That's not enough. And so
(11:57):
essentially what the plants are asking for in this case
is they are claiming that they have a constitutional right
to just be able to say, well, I think I
might someday want to gone and that should be enough.
The Court's not going to hear this until the next term.
I think that starts in October or something like that,
So this conversation will be talked about for some time
(12:17):
until we start getting that under way, so that you're
gonna hear a lot of conversations about that coming from
the administration. Obviously, as I mentioned, they're trying to reform
gun laws and put restrictions around the country, and then
from the other side, you know, just wanting to expand
those gun rights. So it's gonna be a huge conversation
and something that could be very impactful for many years
to come. Ian mill Heiser, Senior correspondent at Vox, Thank
(12:40):
you very much for joining us. All right, thank you.
Finally for this week, the recall election to remove California
Governor Gavin Newsom is on. Proponents of the recall have
submitted enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot.
No date has been set yet, but the vote may
come by November. Now we have to see how many
(13:01):
people jump in the race to replace him, and how
does the state change over the course of the next
few months. For more on how the recall circuses back
in California. Will speak to Terran Luna, reporter at the
l A Times. We learned from the Secretary of State
that the proponents had met and exceeded the minimum threshold
to qualify. So, as you mentioned, there could be some
(13:22):
wiggle room there in terms of some kind of court
intervention or a mass number of people saying that they
signed unknowingly or that their signature shouldn't be valid. That
would require over a hundred thousand people do that, and
that would just be It seems unfeasible at this point.
So for all intensive purposes, we should expect a recall
election by the end of the year. Newton seemed like
(13:45):
he was prepared for that announcement. Yesterday he put out
a statement talking about how it threatens our values as Californians,
talking about fighting the COVID nineteen pandemic, helping families, protecting
the environment, and that there's just too much stake at
this point to vote against him and to support one
of these others cadidates. Now, we've been on a roller
(14:06):
coaster ride with regards to the pandemic. I know a
lot of this recall effort was fueled by dissatisfaction of
voters with how the governor was handling this. Obviously we
know what happened at the French Laundry, just a big
flood for the governor, all that stuff. There's some other
things obviously, homelessness, taxes, all of this figures into this
overall recall effort. But public polling shows that really a
(14:29):
lot of people don't really want this to happen. Is
that correct? Yeah, So some of the recent polling we
saw over the last month showed that I think it
was as high at fifty six percent of people did
not support the recall. And we're actually opposed to it
a little closer or was under were in favor of it. Um,
So that all speaks well for Newsom. And you know,
(14:51):
I think you're right that the pandemic has fueled some
of this. Prior to this recall effort qualifying, we saw
five or six different efforts to recall the governor. It
really wasn't until the pandemic kicked in and we saw
some of his policies around shutting down businesses and staying
home really take effect, and you got some pushback on that.
(15:13):
And then there was a court case where the proponents
petition for more time to collect signatures because of the
pandemic and inciting the pandemic as an impetus to collecting signature.
So when that was approved, they got more time to
do it, and that was really a big moment in
terms of the ability of this effort to qualify. Yeah, so,
I mean it seems like obviously just getting this to
(15:34):
the ballot is a pretty big thing just in general,
but it seems like it could still be an uphill battle.
And as I mentioned, the pandemic really took center stage
with everybody on this and what's going to happen by
the time this vote actually happens November. By the end
of the year, whenever it is, most kids will be
back in school. It seems like more people will be vaccinated.
(15:55):
Right now, California has the lowest case rate in the country,
so things are getting better or and it's going to
be tough to really keep up this momentum against him
on that front right now. And then the other part
of it is, you know a lot of people call
it the circus right all of these candidates are going
to be coming out of nowhere to try to replace him.
We've seen some former foes of the governor already there,
(16:16):
Caitlin Jenner has thrown her name in the ring, and
you know who else will try to do this right?
And I think those two things you touched on there
are huge factors for Newsom. So the first is that
the conventional wisdom is the longer the pandemic has kind
of been in the rear view mirror by the time
we have this election, that all votes better for Newsom. Right, So,
(16:37):
as you mentioned, if kids are back in school, if
we're largely leading some sort of a normal life again,
voters are going to be less upset about their current
state and their current existence, and they might not want
to take that out on their governor, right, they might
not be as frustrated, So that is good for him.
And then the other factor for all this is unless
(16:57):
another challenger, viable owner comes in with the ability to
pull not only Democratic voters to their side, but also
independence to their side, it becomes a lot easier for Newsom.
And so far we're looking at the former mayor of
San Diego, Faulkner, who's come in. He's a Republican. Caitlyn
Jenner's coming in. She's also a Republican. There's talk about
(17:20):
other candidates and other Democrats maybe being interested. Antonio vier
Gosa as one that there's a lot of talk about
Tom Steyer, a lot of talk about him as well.
But unless you really see a Democrat come in with
a lot of appeal, or a moderate independent voter, or
a Republican with enough cachet to bring independence and Democrats
(17:40):
to their side, it's all looking positive for him at
this point. Again, there's a ton of time between now
and November, right so we don't know what could happen.
You know, we could have another French laundry situation or
something like that that would not be good for him.
So there's there's a lot of time for things to happen,
and that's important to write. The top contenders as it
stands right now are all Republicans. So what will happen
(18:03):
if a Democrat does get in there? And this all
has shades of two thousand three when it happened with
Gray Davis and they recalled him. That's when we got
the governator. That's when Arnold Swashenager want and came in
and there hasn't been a Republican governor since then. So
there's a lot of stuff to kind of analyze and
go through, and the amount of money that's going to
be put into this thing, it's gonna be huge at
a time when there's no other big political races in
(18:25):
the country, so there's gonna be a lot of eyes
on it. I mean, there's a lot of stuff to
kind of to go through between now and whenever this
vote will actually take place. I agree with you, there's
a ton of variables between now and October November when
it happened. So I think one of the key things
to watch, like you mentioned, is just who these other
contenders are and who comes in because let's say we
(18:47):
have some additional wave of the pandemic. Even at that point,
even if voters are frustrated and they look down about
and they see use them as a Democrat and no
other real Democrats that they know on the other side,
are they going to vote for Republican in California. It's
kind of hard to expect, right unless you see a
Schwarzenegger as candidate like you mentioned. Yeah, and the timeline
(19:09):
for the state to open back up is June, so
businesses should be booming by the time this vote happens.
It's gonna be a crazy time in California for sure.
Aryan Luna, reporter at the l A Times covering Governor
Gavin Newsom. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.
That's it for this weekend. Be sure to check out
The Daily Dive every Monday through Friday. Join us on
(19:31):
social media at Daily Dive Pod on Twitter and Daily
Dive Podcast on Facebook. Leave us a comment, give us
a rating, and tell us the stories that you're interested in.
Follow The Daily Dive and I Heard Radio or subscribe
wherever you get your podcast. This episode of The Daily
Dive has been engineered by Tony Sorrentina. I'm Oscar Ramirez
in Los Angeles and this was your Daily Dive weekend
(19:54):
edition
The Daily Dive News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com