6-3-25 - 7am - Defensive Display of a Firearm and Snope v Brown

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mike. Every time I see Governor paulis I see it
in my mind Elmer Fudd cross with Doctor Evil.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Is it just be nuts?

Speaker 3 (00:16):
I can't get that picture out of my head. That's
pretty good Elmer Fudd and Doctor Evil all combined, and
pretty much the DNA of both of them too when
you think about it, Doctor Evil and I hadn't intended
to do this because I want to move on to
talk a little bit about DOGE and UH an appearance

(00:37):
that the Director of Office Management Budget made on CNN yesterday.
But as I was pulling up that SoundBite, I see
that our Congressman Jason Crowe was on CNN this morning
and had this to say.

Speaker 4 (00:57):
As a Democratic congressman from Colorado, chasing Congressman, thanks for
coming in. I mean, it's already horrible enough, and the
fact that we're now learning it could have been worse
with sixteen more Molotov cocktails that were recovered. He tried
and failed to purchase a gun, and according police, said
he'd do it again if he could. Meaning the attack,
I mean, there's no sense to make of it, But

(01:17):
the question does why Colorado, A why Boulder? What does
this represent? When you see such an anti Semitic attack.

Speaker 5 (01:27):
Well, we all need to stand up and loudly and
strongly condemn this surge of anti semitism. The anti defamation
leg is reporting, So why.

Speaker 3 (01:36):
Aren't they, Why aren't they calling for college campuses to
you know, stop now. Don't get me wrong. If you
want to go out and shout anti Semitic comments, remarks, tropes,
whatever you want to do, I support your right to
do so. I think you're a dirt bag bigot for

(01:57):
doing it, but I support your First Amendment right to
say anti Semitic things. But when you take your words
and convert those into actions, whether that be bombing molotov cocktails? Uh,
By the way, can we quit referring to it as

(02:18):
a flamethrower now that I've seen all the different videos
of it, a spray, bottle of gasoline and a lighter,
so you can, I mean, just get you some hairspray
and you know, do the do the little torts thing
quick calling it a flamethrower. Every time I hear the
word homemade flamethrower, I'm like, ooh, send me the blueprints.

(02:39):
I want one of those. But when you're when your
words suddenly become actions, and it doesn't have to be
actions as dire as what we saw in Boulder. It
can just simply be you know, preventing students from going
to class, blocking classrooms, locking teachers in, or you know, overtaking,

(03:03):
you know, administrative offices, whatever it might be. When it
turns into those kinds of actions, it's no longer protected
by the First Amendment. Yeah, you want to get you
want to do a sit in, you want to go
on public property and sit down, Well, okay, that's protected
by the First Amendment. But when you cross over into criminality,
it's not. And it drives me nuts that, oh, well,

(03:29):
Trump's just attacking Harvard, Trump's just attacking Columbia. Trump's just no, no,
and it's not a First Amendment issue. The actions that
are taking place on those campuses are unlawful activities that
are not protected by the First Amendment. And you know
what a First Amendment you know advocate that I am all.

Speaker 5 (03:49):
Need to stand up and loudly and strongly condemn this
surge of anti semitism. The Anti Defamation leg is reporting
close to a fourfold increase in anti Semitica tacks and
incidents around the country. This is real it's growing. It's
deeply disturbing.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
And it's the result of the progressive Marxist policies of
the Democrat Party that have coddled, cowtowed and allowed this
to progress to the point that it is. And now
that it's now that this so called revolution is actually occurring,
Oh now they're scared. Now they're really upset about it,
or at least they have to pretend they're upset and

(04:27):
scared about it.

Speaker 5 (04:28):
And it's fine that America. Everybody stand up across America
and condemn it and to say it's intolerable.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
That number one.

Speaker 3 (04:35):
Number two was clear.

Speaker 5 (04:37):
Here is that this gentleman tried to this attacker tried
to purchase a firearm and he was denied. So background
checks do actually work?

Speaker 3 (04:48):
Huh Wow? What background checks actually worked? I think we
already know that. Uh, because there was a guy he
was the son I think of a president and he

(05:10):
what what are you laughing about? I can't remember the
guy he was. He I think he lied about something
on his application to buy a gun. What you get
a call back there? What are you snorting? I mean,
I'm sniffing. I mean we've known that background checks work,

(05:33):
We've known it for a long time, mister obvious, Congressman.

Speaker 5 (05:37):
And we're glad that in Colorado we have background check systems.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
And wait a minute, we're glad in Colorado we got
background checks. Guess who else has background checks? Guess who
else has background checks. Every jurisdiction in this country's got
a background check. The only place you don't have background
checks Federal Boulevard. If you're buying if if you're buying

(06:00):
from you know, a myth, or your a methad, or
you're buying from a methad, or you're a cartel member
or whatever. The people who unlawfully purchased guns from unlicensed dealers,
those are your problems, Congressman. It's not us, law abiding.

Speaker 5 (06:18):
Citizens place that actually prevent incidents like this. And then,
you know, our heart goes out to the victims. You know,
Colorado has borne a disproportionate burden of shootings and attacks
and incidents like this. And we're all going to come
around the Boulder community and the Jewish community in Colorado
and provide whatever support is necessary at this time.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
Uh, when you actually do that, let me know, because
I'd like to see what it is. So let's go
now to two guns for a moment because I'm oh,
where is it? I got a pull up my email
hanging home one second, I sent myself an email, so

(07:02):
I had to have this story. Where did it go?
What's my name? Uh? Where did I send the story?
Bumpla bump, bump bump. See, this is what happens dragon.
When we don't have our pre production meetings, then I
don't I don't have the email in front of me

(07:24):
where I can pull it right up, and I sent
it to myself yesterday. Yeah, but this is great radio.
Everybody's uh riveted? Are they? Is that what you're trying
to say? They're riveted? Yep? Okay, Uh here it is.
Oklahoma did something that I find utterly fascinating and I

(07:54):
can only dream of something like this ever happening, not
just in Colorado but anywhere in the country. They passed
what's called House Built twenty eight eighteen. It was signed
by the Oklahoma Governor, Kevin Stitt on just this past
May sixteen. Was this bill due. It expands protections for

(08:19):
individuals that use a gun, or for that matter, any
deadly weapon in self defense or to protect property. Now
you may say, well, Michael, if you use a gun
in self defense, and you're using it to protect yourself
or your property. You know, the castle doctrine, whatever it

(08:40):
may be called in your particular state. You think, well
about that already exists. Have you ever thought about this
you're walking. I can remember one particular incident where four
of us, this is many years ago, we had eaten
at a restaurant on Broadway in Denver. We had left

(09:04):
the restaurant, we get accosted by a couple of homeless people. Well,
I don't think they were homeless. I think they were
just druggies. They may have been homeless too my home,
but homeless is not the point. They looked really sketchy.
They looked dangerous in my opinion, both myself and one

(09:25):
of the other people that are in the group with us.
We're both carried. We don't want to shoot these people,
but they will not leave us alone, and we're trying
to not We're not trying to de escalate at all.
We're trying to get away from them. We don't want
to have the encounter. But I've always thought in that moment,

(09:52):
because I had, I truly had, not for myself, but
for the two spouses that were with us. I actually
I had a fear for their safety and for their lives,
and all I wanted to do was to pull my weapon.
I wouldn't have the finger on the trigger, pull my weapon,

(10:14):
point it to them and tell them to back off,
get away, leave us alone. And then when they see
the gun they turn around run away because they're scared
that they had guns, or if they started to pull
a gun, then I would have fired my gun. But
I didn't want to do that. I simply wanted to

(10:38):
and I'm going to use a legal term here, I
wanted to brandish my weapon in order to but brandish
not in the sense of just wildly waving it, just
pull it from its holster and display it. To an essence,
say don't mess with us. We're willing to blow you

(10:59):
away if if you refuse, if you keep coming toward us,
and you keep acting aggressive toward us, stop it. Well,
you can't do that. You can't do that, and of
course I think you should be able to. That's the
purpose of House Bill twenty eight to eighteen. It's called

(11:23):
the Private Property Protection Act. Now it clarifies that simply
pointing or displaying a gun in order to defend yourself,
your home, private property, your business is considered a justified
quote defensive display. Got that a defensive display of your firearm,

(11:50):
and it does not constitute unlawful brandishing, provided that you
do so in response to a reasonable fear of imminent
arm to prevent a forcible felony like a robbery, a burglary, or,
as we were experiencing in Broadway in Denver, a potential

(12:12):
assault and battery. Now this law is, in my opinion,
so well drafted that it could be a model for now. Obviously,
the Free State of Colorado's police likes to call it.
The Common State of Colorado would never do anything like this.
But I want to make four points about the law. First,

(12:37):
there's a presumption of reasonable fear, meaning that every individual
is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril
when using force, including just the pointing of a firearm
against anyone who is unlawfully entering their dwelling, their vehicle,
or their place of business. So if someone breaks into

(12:58):
your business, or if someone come you know, threatening in
a threatening manner, comes, you know, forcing their way into
your business, pushing customers aside, whatever exhibiting exhibiting aggression, you
can pull your weapon in a defensive posture to de
escalate and to stop any further action. The second point

(13:21):
I would make you don't have to have any licensing
or training for this. In fact, the law actually removes
the need for a handgun license under the Oklahoma Self
Defense Act when you're displaying the gun in self defense
or property defense scenarios. This is an amazing piece of

(13:42):
legislation in my view. There's an elimination of penalties. So
all the penalties that currently exist in Colorado, many other
states and used to exist in Oklahoma for the quote
unlawful pointing of a firearm, those are gone. Those are
gone so long as the action that you're taking in

(14:04):
pointing of a firearm is taking in self defense of
yourself or others or to protect property, and ensuring that
those actions are not prosecuted as brandishing. In other words,
the law affirmatively states that if you are doing so,
if you're appointing your weapon in a manner or in

(14:27):
a action that is self defense for yourself your property,
you cannot be prosecuted for brandishing. So what it does,
the fourth point I would make, is it really extends
the existing stand your ground in castle doctrine protections and

(14:48):
takes one step further. It allows defensive display not only
for your personal safety, but also for property. And it
does not have a do to retreat. Now, go back
to the example I gave about Broadway. Now, rationally and
reasonably I wanted to retreat, but even though we were

(15:14):
attempting to as we were walking on this we were
walking northbound on the east side of Broadway that these
two or three people I think there were three of them,
approaches in a really threatening manner. We tried to step
to the side, not into the street there weren't mike

(15:36):
paths at the time, but step over into a parking
lot to move away from them, to move away, but
they kept. As we would turn, they would turn. So
despite my attempt to de escalate and get out of
that situation, they continue to do so.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Well.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
This takes away that duty to retreat. Now, I would
probably still try to retreat, but I would retreat with
my weapon drawn in order to point out to these
thugs that I'm willing, I'm willing to blow you away,
So back off, buddy, Back off. Now, the oaklah on

(16:18):
the wall still penalizes pointing, pointing a gun if you
do it for a non defensive purpose, and they actually
describe it if you do it in a whimsy humor
prank or an anger. So the law stipulates that if

(16:39):
you do it in terms of self defense, you cannot
be charged with brandishing. But if you if you do
so just out a whimsy humor prank or you're just
mad about something, that still considered brandishing. Of course, the
Democrats in Oklahoma, we're all upset about this. Oh, it's
gonna be you know, potential misinterpretations of space among you know,

(17:01):
young kids. What what's someone under the age of eighteen
doing the gun in the first place. Joe Stiegel was
the sponsor. He emphasized that it still has in the end.
He's right, because I've read the legislation. It still maintained
strict penalties for irresponsible actions. So, yes, there will still
be some five questions for a jury if a prosecutor

(17:22):
decides to prosecute you. But at least you now have
an affirmative defense, and that affirmative defense cannot be overtaken
by a charge of brandishing. Now, prior to the law
being signed by the governor a few weeks ago, pointing
a gun at somebody was generally a fellon the under
Oklahoma statutes, unless it was a clear act of self defense.

(17:45):
So what does the law due? Just in general terms,
it broadens the legal scope for defensive actions. Oklahoma on
the right track, Tolado, We're on the wrong track. Who'd
you like to have something like that here? Or I
know it comes with consequences. I totally understand that, But

(18:06):
it's time. It's time that we quit. We stop the
coddling of all of these dirt bags and thugs that
are making life in this society untenable.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
The Congressman just proved guns are not the problem, it's
the person.

Speaker 4 (18:24):
So all the background checks are not going to cover
a flamethrower.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
Or a rock, or a baseball bat or anything else,
or a malotov cocktail. We need, we need common sense
molotov cocktail rules, good Greek. You know, I think molotov
cocktails actually are regulated by or banned or something by
the ATF. I'm not sure. So. The Fourth Circuit Court

(18:54):
of Appeals, in a really bizarre opinion written by Judge
Harvey Wilkinson, basically says that the AR fifteen one of
the if not the most commonly used guns in America,
twenty or thirty million of them probably is not protected

(19:16):
by the Second Amendment. Now here's what's weird about this ruling.
It obviously is taken up to the US Supreme Court.
Arit assert is taken to the Supreme Court an application
for the Court here the case. It takes four justices

(19:38):
to accept the case. Four justices went on record to
take the case. All right, take that, No, it's not correct.
Four justices went on record. Justices Alito and Gorsuch said
that they would have heard the appeal from the Fourth Circuit.

(20:01):
If you want to look up the decision from the
Fourth Circuit, it's Snope, not Snopes. Snope Snope versus Brown,
And no, it's not me. Justice Thomas wrote a longer descent.
And I'll get to that in a minute. Well that's three.
You've got Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. The fourth Justice was

(20:29):
Brett Cavanaugh. Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, I'll
just quote the Wall Street Journal here. The fourth Justice
is Brett Cavanaugh, who issued a statement tipping his hand
ar fifteens are legal in forty one states, he says,
and Americans own twenty to thirty million of them. The
Snope petitioners, therefore, quote, have a strong argument that AR

(20:54):
fifteens are in common use by law abiding citizens and
therefore are protected by the Second Amendment. He calls the
Fourth Circuits ruling that says, no, they're not questionable. Then
why not? Then why don't you provide the needed fourth
vote and take the case If that's what you believe?

(21:18):
Why not? He goes on to say this the AR
fifteen issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and
is currently being considered by several other courts of appeals.
Those opinions might, he says, assist this court's ultimate decision. Making. Wow,

(21:48):
I I'm really beginning to have a love hate relationship
with generically the entire US Supreme Court. I struggle because
the lawyer brain in me understands the rationale that Kavanaugh

(22:12):
is using here. Okay, Well, there are a bunch of
cases about the Second Amendment that are percolating up to us,
and there are two or three others that we ought
to let go ahead, and let those courts of appeals
in the other circuits go ahead and make their decision,
and then we can take all of these cases at

(22:34):
once and we can make a decision. I get that,
but I have a counter argument to it. And my
counter argument is, you already have one case in which
you could go ahead and make a decision that would
apply to the entire country, and you already recognize that

(22:55):
this is a common use weapon and say there are
probably twenty to thirty million of them out there, So
why not go ahead and be the fourth justice to
take this case. The First Circuit upheld a Massachusetts ban
on the AR fifteen, and then Kavanaugh concludes by saying,

(23:20):
the court quote should and presumably will address the AR
fifteen issues soon in the next term or two will
screw you. Now, I say that with all true because
I know Brett Kavanaugh. Well, I know actually his wife better,
but I do know him. But at this point I'm

(23:46):
fed up because you think about the gun owners in
the Fourth Circuit, which covers five states from Maryland South Carolina.
They're left in limbo. Actually they're not left in limbo
because the Fourth Circuit decision by this supposedly conservative judge

(24:08):
that upheld a ban restrictions on the on the AR fifteen. Now,
all the people in those states that are covered by
the Fourth Circuit are now just left in limbo until
they finally decide. Well, the other circuits are going to decide. Now,
why in the hell is the Supreme Court doing that
when we also have all these nationwide injunctions being issued

(24:32):
against Trump by these federal district court The trial judges
are taking a case of two parties right in front
of them and saying, oh, well, I think I should
issue an injunction. But rather than just issue the injunction
for the people that I have jurisdiction over. Because if

(24:54):
you're a federal district judge sitting down here in Colorado,
in Denver, in the Denver Federal District Court, your jurisdiction
is over those people that are the parties to a
case in front of you. The people that live in
California or Oklahoma or out in Louisiana or Massachusetts. You

(25:18):
don't have jurisdiction over them. Yet you're issuing an injunction
that applies to everybody in the country, and the Supreme
Court is sitting there waiting for well, we just got
to find the right case. I think that's a dereliction
of duty. Now, at least the four I mean, including Kavanaugh,

(25:39):
at least they're signaling that this purgatory is not going
to exist forever. But meanwhile, we already have precedent. So
the denial of sert in Snope v. Brown, this case

(26:01):
that I'm talking about, this reveals a fractured bench with
three justices openly dissenting and a fourth Kavanaugh, signaling openness
to future review sometime down the line. Snope v. Brown
challenges Maryland's ban on AR fifteen rifles under the Second Amendment.

(26:26):
It follows the Fourth Circuit's ruling that these weapons fall
outside constitutional protection. I just want you to think for
a moment, what would make an AR fifteen, which I
know is scary It's a scary looking gun, is scary
now a constitutional standard? Oh, if it's a scary looking gun,

(26:49):
then it's not protected by there's like an amendment. What
in the hell is going on here? This is another
example if he remember, yes, I spent so much time
about how Western civilization is falling apart. Well, in my opinion,
the Court's failure to address this issue head on, and

(27:11):
to address it now, as opposed to waiting for other
cases to circulate and or to percolate up to them,
is another sign of the unwillingness of our institutions to
deal with the problems that Americans are facing every single day.
You talk about violence, Well, Oklahoma at least stood up

(27:32):
and said, you know what, we're going to change our
laws and we're going to allow you to point a
weapon in self defense if you have a reasonable fear,
and we're not going to allow you to be charged
with brandishing for simply pointing a gun in self protection
in self defense? Well, how old are you for, Oklahoma?
So where's the US Supreme Court? It's an example of how,

(27:52):
you know, take Congress. One of the things I have
on the pos today is to talk about, how you
know the big beautiful Bill. Well, the Big beautiful Bill
didn't do everything that we were promised, and it's going
to add more to the debt, to the deficit, and
to the debt. We're just falling apart. You'll really understand

(28:20):
why I think we're falling apart when I walk through
some of the descents. Now, technically the descent means that
the justices that I'm going to cite, Thomas, Alito and
Gore such, they wanted to hear the case, so they're
dissenting from those others. That did not want to hear

(28:43):
the case, just so you understand the context in which
I want to describe what their descent is. Coming up next,
pert usual.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
Instead of going after Colorado Governor's Jared Poles for sanctuary
state laws, Kyle Clark, of course played his normal scapegoat yep,
Republican women.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
Hmm, but everybody said, I like know what he said?
Goo number zero four to three three. Michael. I live
in Greeley. Just last night, my wife was at a
shopping plaza. My daughter was in the store. My wife
was sitting in her car with the window up. A
thug with a tattooed face and the head came up
to her car and was asking for money. My wife

(29:28):
shook her head no. Then the thug put his face
on the window, looking in the car. He was wearing
a jacket. He raised his jacket, exposing a gun and
actually tapped his gun in a threatening manner. This was
in broad daylight. She did get away unharmed, but it

(29:52):
shook her up really bad. A moment like that, I
wish she was armed and we could have had a
taxpayer relief shot. I honestly believe she didn't have her
window up she would have been robbed or worse. I'm
just did she did she start the car and drive away?

(30:13):
Did she? I mean, what did she pick her phone
up like she was dialing nine one one? I need
more details? Well, I want more details. Every thing about
that kind of situation is he's already exposed his weapon
and has it just seconds way now depending on where

(30:35):
you know, whether you keep a gun in the car
or whether she's keeping one in her purse or whatever.
When she starts to reach, you don't know what his
action's going to be, and so you're gonna have to
be very quick. And that's a oh, I guess that's
a millisecond. That's a nanosecond decision about what you do.

(30:58):
But again, and it also raises a you know, the
whole trial is going through my head. Uh on a
fast pace? Was the car running because she had put
it in gear and driven off? These are all questions

(31:20):
that a jury is going to be thinking about, or
a district attorney's going to a prosecutor is going to
be thinking about, Uh, you know, what what could she
have done to de escalate or taken herself, you know,
exercise her duty to retreat, which is such bull crap.
Why is it? See this, this gets back to the coddle,

(31:45):
the coddling of those that are the perpetrators, the lawbreakers.
It's always incumbent upon us. I'm not asking that we've
become or allowed to be law breakers. I'm just simply saying,
why is the burden always on us? Why is the
burden always on the law abiding citizen that simply wants

(32:09):
to go about their life, unscathed, unharmed, unharrassed, left alone.
Let me just go to the grocery store, let me
stop at Walgreens, let me do whatever I'm going to do,
and just evan leave me alone. You can't. I went
to and I'm because I don't care. I go to

(32:33):
Castle Rock yesterday. I had to go to uh not
the Douglas County Courthouse, but the old courthouse and downtown
Castle Rock. I had to get a haircut too, but
I had I had to file some paper paperwork, and
there was a rally going on, and of course, you

(32:54):
know me, I can't resist. I want to know you
what are you protesting? Because I either want to cause
problems or I want to get away from it. In
this case, I wanted to get away from it because
it's an issue that I don't care about. Maybe I should,
but I don't right now. But I found it interesting
that while I absolutely support their right to rally, and

(33:16):
I'm not complaining about that rally, I'm just pointing out
that here's another example of I had to walk around
to the other side of the building. I didn't have to,
but I chose to. It is a better way to
describe it. Why because I didn't want to encounter them.
I just didn't want to deal with it, and quite honestly,
because of the issue that was involved, I thought, I

(33:38):
know some people involved in that issue. They might recognize me,
and I'm going to get dragged into that and I
don't want to. I just want to be left alone.
Just leave me alone. So I'm curious what your wife did,
because a DA is going to ask the same kind
of question.