June 23, 2026 • 15 mins
On the Jim Colbert Show Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of federal gun laws that bar marijuana users from owning guns.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, welcome back to the Jim cob Show. We're
ALREADYO one of four point one. Well, he's a two
time in US Open Winter. I think he's gonna be fine.
I'm Jim. There's deb Hello. Jack is here as well
you And every Monday around this time we invite this
gentleman to stop by. You know him from TK Law
one firm for Life dot Com office is right there
in Longwood and the Land. He's the man, mister Ray Trendley.
(00:22):
What's going on, big dog? How you doing living the dream?
How was your Father's Day?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
My Father's Day weekend was a very interesting weekend. I'll
just end it with I went to go see the
New Toy Story movie with my kid. That was the
final part of my weekend. Is very nice, sorry, very nice.
There was a lot of chaos on my weekend this weekend.
My poor wife won everything. All right, long story short.
We had an emergency vet last all weekend.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
With the dog that you bought in surprise her.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
No, no, this is the dog I got the last time.
Surprised her. Had my fourteen year old dog who spent
three day in the vet's hospital.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Well they get that away these days, so you're fine.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, it's basically free free.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I gave him a kidney though as a down payment.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
I think it's actually more expensive take your your dog
to the vet than your kid to the hospital.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Percent. It is so crazy, yeah, one hundred percent. So anyway,
it was an interesting weekend. Did you like the Toy
Story Movie?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
The Toy Story Movie was. My kids liked it.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, here's what I'll say. You know, I think about
the original Toy Story movie and I think nothing. None
of the Toy Story movies beat the first one. But
I remember seeing that first Toy Story movie when I
was a kid, and so I don't think it compares.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
But it was. It was pretty good.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And I like the message, which is, even if you're
a little weird, you can find somebody that likes you
and just have to be all tablets.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Yeah, I like the message. Yeah, find your freak, right,
find your freak. That's right, it's funny. We just had
Emily the movie Girl in a little bit earlier and
she said the same thing. It was kind of lackluster
for her, but did not live up to the legacy
of what the Toy Story movies have been.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Yeah, and again I had high hopes. But you know
what it is.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Well, then you know when you text me today about
what we were talking about, I was very excited because
although I did see this story, I did not dive
into it very much because you know, when anytime you
hear the word marijuana and the word law, it always
is so murky. You never know what really is actual
one day at this one day it's that. So as
(02:24):
I read the Supreme Court upheld a gentleman's case out
of Texas?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Is that where it was out of Texas?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Out of Texas and basically said, because he's a marijuana user,
you can't restrict him from owning a gun. And here
in Florida for the longest time, and I don't know
if this is even applicable anymore, you had to take
your pick. You could have a medical marijuana card, but
you couldn't have a concealed carry permit. Right now, I
don't know that that keeps you from carrying it, because
(02:51):
I think in Florida now we've kind of done away
with all that stuff, right.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So that's that's where it's been so murky.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, let's talk about it.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
That's where it's been so murky. So I mean one.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Any time you get an opportunity to talk about how
much the Founding followers were drinking, sounds like a good time.
And uh and and to your point, I mean, we
talked about this stuff so often that you do get
lost in some of the minutia of it. But you know,
as it stands, you know, we have these state laws
that say you can and cannot have medical marijuana or
(03:23):
recreational marijuana, but none of that really impacts the federal
laws that say if you are a user or addicted
to any type of controlled substance, you cannot buy or
carry a firearm.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And so how are they supposed to verify that, that's
a great question. How are they supposed to verify that
you're a working addict? Say, okay, well we can see
you're an addict. I see the marks on your face,
or you have the tattoo of an addict.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Or well it's just a habitual user is a possessor,
right is that? And that's what That's what the form says,
and that's what the statute says.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
So well, what is that really?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
And so and so we saw this case Bruin come out,
second case that basically says that the court is to
view the laws in the context of the Founding Fathers historically,
and you know whether or not they intended these types
of reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment. So they use
(04:20):
that to talk about, you know, restrictions on where you
can keep firearms. And now they've extended They did another
one the domestic violence case, and they just extended it
to now whether or not you can possess marijuana. So
in this case, the individual was arrested. While he was arrested,
he had a glock on him, he had I think
he had meth or coke or said something on him,
(04:42):
and he had some weed on him. And the way
the Texas Statute was written.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Problems.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Yeah, I mean maybe, but that's one of the what's
really focused on in this case, which is, you know,
I think helpful for a lot of people who uh yeah,
because questions.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, because there's not medical mess or a medical heroine.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So yeah, I mean I've been arguing for it for years,
but nine seasons. But so anyway, so this guy gets arrested,
and the way the Texas Statute is written, it says
that if you have drugs on and you cannot poss
a firearm they charged him with the statute, he was
found guilty, he appealed it. They came down and said, well, actually,
you know, you don't have this constitutional rights. Sorry, goes
(05:23):
to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court unanimously, which is not
happening very often these days, unanimously agreed that this was
a violation of his Secondmendment of rights. They viewed this
case if from a historical context that most of the
Founding fathers were drunkards, and so they drank a lot
of whiskey or beer or whatever it was they were drinking.
(05:45):
And had any controlled substance been something that would disqualify
you from possessing a firearm, the Revolutionary War would never
have been fought. We would no longer have President Washington
as our first president of the or States, and so.
And they also talked about it from the context of, like,
as far as oral arguments go, you know, if you
(06:07):
are an ADHD medication, if you're on some other type
of controlled substance that doesn't necessarily make you a threat
or a danger, does that also disqualify you because as
any controlled substance. Yeah, So they looked at it from
that context, and they said that this was an unconstitutional
law infringing on the Second Amendment. They also said numerous
(06:28):
times in lots of the concurrence opinions that this was
a very limited reading of the law and of this issue.
So to your point earlier on, we've gotten rid of
all these restrictions on people having marijuana and also being
able to purchase, in or possess a firearm. I think
that question is still open ended, but I do think
(06:49):
that the Supreme Court is at least directing the conversation
towards we do not intend that people solely lose their
right to the Second Amendment solely because they use or
possess a control subs.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Well, now they have an arguable precedent, that's right. Yeah,
that's that's the most important thing. So now you know
advocacy advocacy groups across the nation will now use that
as a thing to go and go. Wait, hey, you
would think about that in Florida. As crazy as Florida's
laws are, you can walk into a putt well, I
mean you at one point, you can walk into a
grocery store with your weapon on your side. That's perfectly fine.
But they didn't want you to have a medical marijuana
(07:26):
card and have a weapon a clear violation of your
Second Amendment rights. They can't just make that stuff up.
It's in the constitution.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And where I think we will see some case law
that possibly, you know, shrinks this a little bit, is
going to be obviously if you're let's just use alcohol
as an examples, that's not as as uh, what's more
common to Yeah, So like, if you're under the influence
of drugs or alcohol and you get violent and you
have a firearm, the state probably has the ability to
(07:55):
restrict your access to a fireman at that time. Right,
you know that whatever you're on is causing you to
get aggressive or violent, the state probably has the right
to restrict that.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
I mean, theoretically they can also make the penalties, and
I know they do in some cases. The penalties of
using a weapon while under the influence, you know, a
much greater penalty, Right, they could do that because we
know they've done it with the elderly, right, I mean,
if you beat up me, it's way different than beating
somebody up that's twenty years older than me.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Oh how you were on the other end, they stop
it and stop it.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I knew using me was bad right up where like
just use you. Let's use it if they beat you up.
It's way different than being up a seventy five year old, right,
because I mean you can get what's it? How much
more is it?
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So the penalties are increased in hands? Right, that's right
for an elderly person.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So how long do you think it's going to be
for somebody like Morgan or somebody like that. You know,
an advocate of this for a while picks this up
and goes straight to the Supreme Court and goes, well,
we know this is unconstitutional. I mean, how does that
work from states to the federal cases?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
It wouldn't surprise me there's not cases already in the
pipeline on challenging these issues. The first one I remember
was out of Arizona almost that's actually probably about ten
years ago. Now now there's a case out of Arizona
on this question. And the Supreme Court decided that they
were not going to hear the issue at that time,
and so now this case law has come out again.
(09:17):
I haven't thoroughly tracked all the case law on all
the different circuits and how they're ruling on these issues,
but I imagine it's gonna spin somebody up to say, oh,
I have an adverse ruling in my case that is
contradictory to the Supreme Court's ruling. Now we're going to
ask the court to take an associori and revisit this issue.
But you know, I think I wouldn't surprise that there's
(09:38):
some cases already in pipeline. So the next probably two
or three years wow, really interesting. And I don't think
this is a huge surprise to anybody.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Maybe the Texas decision from the Supreme Court isn't a surprise.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
I don't think the Supreme Court decision is surprised because
after Bruin came out and the Supreme Court basically said
we're gonna interpret all of our Second Amendment and all
of our gun law issues through this historical context, everybody,
including myself, I think we talked about the Brewin case,
you know, a couple of years ago when it came out,
was concerned of like, what kind of slippery slope is
this going to be? Because you know, sure we have
(10:13):
if you remember, we talked about like cannons, like you know, right, yeah,
you know, in revolutionary war times people had cannons, And
does that mean I'm entitled to bazooka. And you know,
we talked about some of the funnier examples of how
this would be applied, but we all knew that this
was a dangerous, slippery soap. So I don't think this
one stretches out the Second Amendment to drastic but you know,
(10:34):
I think this was kind of anticipated by a lot
of legal scholars.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Yeah, it's wild because I mean we just still have like,
was it ten states that don't allow it in any way,
shape or form, marijuana, whether it be medical or recreational.
Is it that many?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Twelve? Yeah? Yeah, I get that's something I keep track
of every single day.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's just a lot of states in the South. Yeah,
your Mississippis or Alabama's or Arkansas's states like that. I
believe about South Carolina, I believe is like that. I
mean I wonder if you can't count and they can't
count either. Yeah, But it's just kinda wa So, I
mean this is not a lot of listeners there, huh now,
But this is the Supreme Court cases. I mean, for
a lawyer, this is stuff you really pay attention to, right,
(11:14):
because that's that's really what sets it in stone until
they're until an appeal comes around.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, I mean, so one hundred ten percent. It's something
we all have to pay attention to. But I've got
two summer law clerks that are in law school right now,
and I'm just going through. You know, what my experience
was with constitutional law. I think I had one case
that overturned anything that I learned in constitutional law during
my three years of law school. One case. These law
(11:40):
students that are in my class, are not my class,
that are in class now, that are in my office
have had over a dozen in their two years.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Damn.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I mean, it's it's a major shift in the law,
and and and one that what happened before the law
students started law school. I was like, do you guys
know about this case? And like no, And I'm like, oh,
you guys got to talk about this one because it
was a huge change for administrative side of things.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
But our country kind of goes through that, do we know.
I mean, we went through the civil rights issues, We
went through it with a suffrage. You know, when you
start looking at the Constitution and how it's applied to
different people throughout our country and different cultures and diversities.
I mean, that's kind of what happens in our country.
Right about every forty or fifty years, there's a giant
correction where we look at things in the past and
we go, Okay, well that obviously wasn't interpret correctly, and
(12:25):
we make that big move. But we go through this
as a nation, don't we.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
Yeah, we do.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I think the concern is how active some of the
judges have been on changing the law, or at least
that's how it's interpreted.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Is changing the law.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
You know, this idea of pressing and is supposed to be.
You know, once it's set in stone, it's set in stone.
Almost we get some really good reason why it's not right.
And I'll use the Roe v. Wade because that's an
easy one for a lot of people to identify with right.
You know, when something like that changes and it changes
people's fundamental rights, I think it's hard pill for people
to swallow it. It seems like there's a little bit
the political influence that it's happening there, and I think
(13:03):
that's where people get upset by Sure, these these changes
in a while, But you're not wrong, you know. We
we do see this pendulum that swings back and forth
in the legal system and in laws on how we
want the government to you know, restrict us and rule.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Us as our culture changes, as we look at life
differently as a species, as we you know, move forward
and kind of look at the tap like the uh,
the topography of our culture and you look at that,
you I think, you know, that's kind of normal, right.
You have to kind of learn like norms have changed,
you know, it's it's the normal when norms change that
(13:37):
you know, you have to kind of what does our
society want now and how does that apply to how
people live two hundred years ago? And those are difficult
arguments sometimes because that stuff, like you said, set in Stone.
The Civil rights movement was a major slap to the
South because they had become in doctor, I mean, they
had become indoctrinated with that idea that you know, these
people are for this and for no other thing, you know,
(13:59):
and the idea that they were viewed equal was a
gigantic change to that entire culture. And some would say
it hasn't kind of completely gone through yet.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I mean there's some people that would argue that with
some science, sure yea, yeah, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Yeah, And I would say the same thing, you know,
with women's rights back in the back in the early
nineteen hundreds, going into this, I would say the same thing. Sure,
you know, we they just weren't looked at as equals.
So I think as our culture changed things and the
law will have to change with it.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I just think you know, the way our three branches
of government are set up. You know, the executive branch
is supposed to enforce the laws. You know, that's our
law enforcement, our president and our governors, those type of people.
The legislature is supposed to make laws right, and the
jutia are supposed to interpret the law. Sure, and so you know,
my only point is, and I think overall all the
judges do a pretty good job. But I think my
(14:48):
point is a lot of people get frustrated when it's
seen one way for so long and now we have
this monumental shift which might be seen as going backwards.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah. I would agree with that hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
But yeah, yeah, so you know, we got to inspire
confidence in the legalist stumm and the more consistent the
judiciary can be, I think the more confidence people have
that we're doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Perfectly said, Yeah, that's Ray Tridly. One firm for life
dot Com. That's TK Law offices in Longwood and in
DeLand and in DeLand. Stay right there, buddy, Deb got
some news. Yeah what a.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Ransom note sent to the media claimed about Nancy Guthrie.
Closer to home, a report is released on a deadly
high rise building collapse and how the Grinch stole Christmas again.
We'll talk about that next during You Heard It.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Your First, You got It saglet break. We'll come back
and get Deb's news and get the hell out of here.
On a Monday
All right, welcome back to the Jim cob Show. We're
ALREADYO one of four point one. Well, he's a two
time in US Open Winter. I think he's gonna be fine.
I'm Jim. There's deb Hello. Jack is here as well
you And every Monday around this time we invite this
gentleman to stop by. You know him from TK Law
one firm for Life dot Com office is right there
in Longwood and the Land. He's the man, mister Ray Trendley.
(00:22):
What's going on, big dog? How you doing living the dream?
How was your Father's Day?
Speaker 2 (00:26):
My Father's Day weekend was a very interesting weekend. I'll
just end it with I went to go see the
New Toy Story movie with my kid. That was the
final part of my weekend. Is very nice, sorry, very nice.
There was a lot of chaos on my weekend this weekend.
My poor wife won everything. All right, long story short.
We had an emergency vet last all weekend.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
With the dog that you bought in surprise her.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
No, no, this is the dog I got the last time.
Surprised her. Had my fourteen year old dog who spent
three day in the vet's hospital.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Well they get that away these days, so you're fine.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yeah, it's basically free free.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I gave him a kidney though as a down payment.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
I think it's actually more expensive take your your dog
to the vet than your kid to the hospital.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Percent. It is so crazy, yeah, one hundred percent. So anyway,
it was an interesting weekend. Did you like the Toy
Story Movie?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
The Toy Story Movie was. My kids liked it.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, here's what I'll say. You know, I think about
the original Toy Story movie and I think nothing. None
of the Toy Story movies beat the first one. But
I remember seeing that first Toy Story movie when I
was a kid, and so I don't think it compares.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
But it was. It was pretty good.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And I like the message, which is, even if you're
a little weird, you can find somebody that likes you
and just have to be all tablets.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Yeah, I like the message. Yeah, find your freak, right,
find your freak. That's right, it's funny. We just had
Emily the movie Girl in a little bit earlier and
she said the same thing. It was kind of lackluster
for her, but did not live up to the legacy
of what the Toy Story movies have been.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Yeah, and again I had high hopes. But you know
what it is.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Well, then you know when you text me today about
what we were talking about, I was very excited because
although I did see this story, I did not dive
into it very much because you know, when anytime you
hear the word marijuana and the word law, it always
is so murky. You never know what really is actual
one day at this one day it's that. So as
(02:24):
I read the Supreme Court upheld a gentleman's case out
of Texas?
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Is that where it was out of Texas?
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Out of Texas and basically said, because he's a marijuana user,
you can't restrict him from owning a gun. And here
in Florida for the longest time, and I don't know
if this is even applicable anymore, you had to take
your pick. You could have a medical marijuana card, but
you couldn't have a concealed carry permit. Right now, I
don't know that that keeps you from carrying it, because
(02:51):
I think in Florida now we've kind of done away
with all that stuff, right.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So that's that's where it's been so murky.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, let's talk about it.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
That's where it's been so murky. So I mean one.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Any time you get an opportunity to talk about how
much the Founding followers were drinking, sounds like a good time.
And uh and and to your point, I mean, we
talked about this stuff so often that you do get
lost in some of the minutia of it. But you know,
as it stands, you know, we have these state laws
that say you can and cannot have medical marijuana or
(03:23):
recreational marijuana, but none of that really impacts the federal
laws that say if you are a user or addicted
to any type of controlled substance, you cannot buy or
carry a firearm.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And so how are they supposed to verify that, that's
a great question. How are they supposed to verify that
you're a working addict? Say, okay, well we can see
you're an addict. I see the marks on your face,
or you have the tattoo of an addict.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Or well it's just a habitual user is a possessor,
right is that? And that's what That's what the form says,
and that's what the statute says.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
So well, what is that really?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
And so and so we saw this case Bruin come out,
second case that basically says that the court is to
view the laws in the context of the Founding Fathers historically,
and you know whether or not they intended these types
of reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment. So they use
(04:20):
that to talk about, you know, restrictions on where you
can keep firearms. And now they've extended They did another
one the domestic violence case, and they just extended it
to now whether or not you can possess marijuana. So
in this case, the individual was arrested. While he was arrested,
he had a glock on him, he had I think
he had meth or coke or said something on him,
(04:42):
and he had some weed on him. And the way
the Texas Statute was written.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Problems.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Yeah, I mean maybe, but that's one of the what's
really focused on in this case, which is, you know,
I think helpful for a lot of people who uh yeah,
because questions.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Yeah, because there's not medical mess or a medical heroine.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
So yeah, I mean I've been arguing for it for years,
but nine seasons. But so anyway, so this guy gets arrested,
and the way the Texas Statute is written, it says
that if you have drugs on and you cannot poss
a firearm they charged him with the statute, he was
found guilty, he appealed it. They came down and said, well, actually,
you know, you don't have this constitutional rights. Sorry, goes
(05:23):
to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court unanimously, which is not
happening very often these days, unanimously agreed that this was
a violation of his Secondmendment of rights. They viewed this
case if from a historical context that most of the
Founding fathers were drunkards, and so they drank a lot
of whiskey or beer or whatever it was they were drinking.
(05:45):
And had any controlled substance been something that would disqualify
you from possessing a firearm, the Revolutionary War would never
have been fought. We would no longer have President Washington
as our first president of the or States, and so.
And they also talked about it from the context of, like,
as far as oral arguments go, you know, if you
(06:07):
are an ADHD medication, if you're on some other type
of controlled substance that doesn't necessarily make you a threat
or a danger, does that also disqualify you because as
any controlled substance. Yeah, So they looked at it from
that context, and they said that this was an unconstitutional
law infringing on the Second Amendment. They also said numerous
(06:28):
times in lots of the concurrence opinions that this was
a very limited reading of the law and of this issue.
So to your point earlier on, we've gotten rid of
all these restrictions on people having marijuana and also being
able to purchase, in or possess a firearm. I think
that question is still open ended, but I do think
(06:49):
that the Supreme Court is at least directing the conversation
towards we do not intend that people solely lose their
right to the Second Amendment solely because they use or
possess a control subs.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Well, now they have an arguable precedent, that's right. Yeah,
that's that's the most important thing. So now you know
advocacy advocacy groups across the nation will now use that
as a thing to go and go. Wait, hey, you
would think about that in Florida. As crazy as Florida's
laws are, you can walk into a putt well, I
mean you at one point, you can walk into a
grocery store with your weapon on your side. That's perfectly fine.
But they didn't want you to have a medical marijuana
(07:26):
card and have a weapon a clear violation of your
Second Amendment rights. They can't just make that stuff up.
It's in the constitution.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
And where I think we will see some case law
that possibly, you know, shrinks this a little bit, is
going to be obviously if you're let's just use alcohol
as an examples, that's not as as uh, what's more
common to Yeah, So like, if you're under the influence
of drugs or alcohol and you get violent and you
have a firearm, the state probably has the ability to
(07:55):
restrict your access to a fireman at that time. Right,
you know that whatever you're on is causing you to
get aggressive or violent, the state probably has the right
to restrict that.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
I mean, theoretically they can also make the penalties, and
I know they do in some cases. The penalties of
using a weapon while under the influence, you know, a
much greater penalty, Right, they could do that because we
know they've done it with the elderly, right, I mean,
if you beat up me, it's way different than beating
somebody up that's twenty years older than me.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Oh how you were on the other end, they stop
it and stop it.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I knew using me was bad right up where like
just use you. Let's use it if they beat you up.
It's way different than being up a seventy five year old, right,
because I mean you can get what's it? How much
more is it?
Speaker 2 (08:36):
So the penalties are increased in hands? Right, that's right
for an elderly person.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So how long do you think it's going to be
for somebody like Morgan or somebody like that. You know,
an advocate of this for a while picks this up
and goes straight to the Supreme Court and goes, well,
we know this is unconstitutional. I mean, how does that
work from states to the federal cases?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
It wouldn't surprise me there's not cases already in the
pipeline on challenging these issues. The first one I remember
was out of Arizona almost that's actually probably about ten
years ago. Now now there's a case out of Arizona
on this question. And the Supreme Court decided that they
were not going to hear the issue at that time,
and so now this case law has come out again.
(09:17):
I haven't thoroughly tracked all the case law on all
the different circuits and how they're ruling on these issues,
but I imagine it's gonna spin somebody up to say, oh,
I have an adverse ruling in my case that is
contradictory to the Supreme Court's ruling. Now we're going to
ask the court to take an associori and revisit this issue.
But you know, I think I wouldn't surprise that there's
(09:38):
some cases already in pipeline. So the next probably two
or three years wow, really interesting. And I don't think
this is a huge surprise to anybody.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Maybe the Texas decision from the Supreme Court isn't a surprise.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
I don't think the Supreme Court decision is surprised because
after Bruin came out and the Supreme Court basically said
we're gonna interpret all of our Second Amendment and all
of our gun law issues through this historical context, everybody,
including myself, I think we talked about the Brewin case,
you know, a couple of years ago when it came out,
was concerned of like, what kind of slippery slope is
this going to be? Because you know, sure we have
(10:13):
if you remember, we talked about like cannons, like you know, right, yeah,
you know, in revolutionary war times people had cannons, And
does that mean I'm entitled to bazooka. And you know,
we talked about some of the funnier examples of how
this would be applied, but we all knew that this
was a dangerous, slippery soap. So I don't think this
one stretches out the Second Amendment to drastic but you know,
(10:34):
I think this was kind of anticipated by a lot
of legal scholars.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Yeah, it's wild because I mean we just still have like,
was it ten states that don't allow it in any way,
shape or form, marijuana, whether it be medical or recreational.
Is it that many?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Twelve? Yeah? Yeah, I get that's something I keep track
of every single day.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's just a lot of states in the South. Yeah,
your Mississippis or Alabama's or Arkansas's states like that. I
believe about South Carolina, I believe is like that. I
mean I wonder if you can't count and they can't
count either. Yeah, But it's just kinda wa So, I
mean this is not a lot of listeners there, huh now,
But this is the Supreme Court cases. I mean, for
a lawyer, this is stuff you really pay attention to, right,
(11:14):
because that's that's really what sets it in stone until
they're until an appeal comes around.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, I mean, so one hundred ten percent. It's something
we all have to pay attention to. But I've got
two summer law clerks that are in law school right now,
and I'm just going through. You know, what my experience
was with constitutional law. I think I had one case
that overturned anything that I learned in constitutional law during
my three years of law school. One case. These law
(11:40):
students that are in my class, are not my class,
that are in class now, that are in my office
have had over a dozen in their two years.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Damn.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
I mean, it's it's a major shift in the law,
and and and one that what happened before the law
students started law school. I was like, do you guys
know about this case? And like no, And I'm like, oh,
you guys got to talk about this one because it
was a huge change for administrative side of things.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
But our country kind of goes through that, do we know.
I mean, we went through the civil rights issues, We
went through it with a suffrage. You know, when you
start looking at the Constitution and how it's applied to
different people throughout our country and different cultures and diversities.
I mean, that's kind of what happens in our country.
Right about every forty or fifty years, there's a giant
correction where we look at things in the past and
we go, Okay, well that obviously wasn't interpret correctly, and
(12:25):
we make that big move. But we go through this
as a nation, don't we.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
Yeah, we do.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I think the concern is how active some of the
judges have been on changing the law, or at least
that's how it's interpreted.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Is changing the law.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
You know, this idea of pressing and is supposed to be.
You know, once it's set in stone, it's set in stone.
Almost we get some really good reason why it's not right.
And I'll use the Roe v. Wade because that's an
easy one for a lot of people to identify with right.
You know, when something like that changes and it changes
people's fundamental rights, I think it's hard pill for people
to swallow it. It seems like there's a little bit
the political influence that it's happening there, and I think
(13:03):
that's where people get upset by Sure, these these changes
in a while, But you're not wrong, you know. We
we do see this pendulum that swings back and forth
in the legal system and in laws on how we
want the government to you know, restrict us and rule.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Us as our culture changes, as we look at life
differently as a species, as we you know, move forward
and kind of look at the tap like the uh,
the topography of our culture and you look at that,
you I think, you know, that's kind of normal, right.
You have to kind of learn like norms have changed,
you know, it's it's the normal when norms change that
(13:37):
you know, you have to kind of what does our
society want now and how does that apply to how
people live two hundred years ago? And those are difficult
arguments sometimes because that stuff, like you said, set in Stone.
The Civil rights movement was a major slap to the
South because they had become in doctor, I mean, they
had become indoctrinated with that idea that you know, these
people are for this and for no other thing, you know,
(13:59):
and the idea that they were viewed equal was a
gigantic change to that entire culture. And some would say
it hasn't kind of completely gone through yet.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
I mean there's some people that would argue that with
some science, sure yea, yeah, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Yeah, And I would say the same thing, you know,
with women's rights back in the back in the early
nineteen hundreds, going into this, I would say the same thing. Sure,
you know, we they just weren't looked at as equals.
So I think as our culture changed things and the
law will have to change with it.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I just think you know, the way our three branches
of government are set up. You know, the executive branch
is supposed to enforce the laws. You know, that's our
law enforcement, our president and our governors, those type of people.
The legislature is supposed to make laws right, and the
jutia are supposed to interpret the law. Sure, and so you know,
my only point is, and I think overall all the
judges do a pretty good job. But I think my
(14:48):
point is a lot of people get frustrated when it's
seen one way for so long and now we have
this monumental shift which might be seen as going backwards.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah. I would agree with that hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
But yeah, yeah, so you know, we got to inspire
confidence in the legalist stumm and the more consistent the
judiciary can be, I think the more confidence people have
that we're doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Perfectly said, Yeah, that's Ray Tridly. One firm for life
dot Com. That's TK Law offices in Longwood and in
DeLand and in DeLand. Stay right there, buddy, Deb got
some news. Yeah what a.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Ransom note sent to the media claimed about Nancy Guthrie.
Closer to home, a report is released on a deadly
high rise building collapse and how the Grinch stole Christmas again.
We'll talk about that next during You Heard It.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Your First, You got It saglet break. We'll come back
and get Deb's news and get the hell out of here.
On a Monday
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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