Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
That.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Welcome to Gun Radio, Utah and apologies. We are very
happy we have this exciting show. It's always an exciting show,
really exciting show. Today we're gonna be talking, well, some
obvious stuff and uh, Bill sitting right across virtually.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
In space, just tell the audience we got obvious stuff
and then switch.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, no, it's the obvious. I mean, what's the obvious?
What's the obvious? Texas the Texas State Fair? Man.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Okay, Okay, okay, Texas State, Texas State Fair.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
That's a good one. Okay. Welcome every Canada Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
That's Bill Patterson East, director of Utah Shooting Sports Council,
and uh and i'm your host. Also Clark opotion with
uh with the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
It could be Canada.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
You know, Trudeau is doing stuff in Canada, trying to
buy back people's guns that he never sold them in
the first place. So we'll talk about that. But what
did you have something else in mind?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Know, and there's just a lot of things. It's just
I don't know. I just thought that was funny how
you came off with that first price segment. Yeah, but
I do. It's you know, it's the opening day of
the hunting season. If that counts, I'll give you that.
Hunting seasons starting today in Utah. It's archery. It's primitive hunting.
Yet deeron l cunt archery hunting started today. So that's
(01:24):
kind of the the small little snowball and it gets
bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Archery.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Basically, if you if you if you have to cross
a river, do you have to do a canoe of
your own making and wear moccasins and everything like that?
I mean, is that that's basically archery hunting, right, That
is archery hunting.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
But boy, I'll tell you, I don't know if it's
happening in your neck of the woods, Clark, but it
is pouring here at the studio.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh my gosh.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
That's what Casey Jane said out there and went to county.
Casey Jane has been dealing with so you know, she's
a doctor now and so she graduates.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
People high college and all that. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, And so I've been here in you into county
alone with the dogs for for the last few days.
They have basically they have basically gone feral, and so
have I it. Uh, you know, uh, and when she
gets back, she'll have a lot of well, she'll call
the cleaners. She'll call the cleaners and she'll take care
(02:34):
of stuff. She'll take us outside and hoes us off. Anyway,
So I'll shout out to Casey Jane. She's enjoying. It's
her vacation. Anytime she gets she doesn't have to to
deal with the dogs or me. It's a vacation for
her no matter where she goes. So I hear it
is raining. I think there's some I think there's some
starminess headed this way. Uh, let me tell you what.
(02:55):
What do we got We just talked about. We just
talked about the Texas state, the hunting. So have you
got anything else? Or should I go on my stuff?
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
You're good? Now go ahead? Oh really? Oh good? Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
The National Shooting Sports Foundation just gave me a call
the other day and they have hired me again for
this year. Oddly enough, I didn't scare them off last year,
and as their lobbyist here and we've already got a
good bill for him. We've got the gun Bill of
you know, gun bills, the gun bill of gun bills.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
But we just added basically to that.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
You ever bought a suppressor bill and had to go
through all the background checks, or a machine gun or
short brailed rifle or something like that, an NFA item
and you go through the background checks with your fingerprints
and your photographs and your responsible person and all that,
and then when you go to pick it up, finally
you have to go through another background check. Even the
(03:53):
ATF on the forum forty four to seventy three says
you can just check this box and the the FFL
doesn't have to do the background check because it's already
been done on an NFA item. Well, Utah has been
requiring that second background check again, and so we're doing
away with that. So the hell you say we got that?
(04:15):
The hell I do say? That's what you say? The
hell you say for that's that's what you did. Well,
I'd like to, if we have time, talk about Uvaldi families.
What were you talking about? Some spam email or something
like that you were getting.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
I have gotten more gun related spam email this week. Interesting, Yeah,
very interesting.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Any any common theme or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yeah, your name was written all over it, and so yeah,
I'm like, really, we've known this for a while, but
I guess this is The interesting part, though, Clark, is
there's all these news outlets that are like, you know,
they they're coming up with these articles like they've never
heard of it before.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
It's like, I know, it's like.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Come on, it's the bump stock, it's the bumps, it's
bump stockery, It's bump stock. Mcgeddon and yeah, Washington Times, CNN,
the local people, Yeah, am Leah. And as a matter
of fact, we are going to have Shang Lee, who
is one of my attorneys, the attorneys that's basically handling
(05:25):
the case with the new Several Liberties Alliance for me
and for Cargill, who the the case actually got decided on.
It was between my case and Cargill case Cargil or
Garland by Cargill that made it to the United States
Supreme Court. And we're gonna, we're gonna, we got we
got some questions for for mister Lee and it'll be
(05:46):
it'll be great. And so he's with the new Civil
Liberties Alliance. You definitely want to stay tuned for that
for the second segment on that one, and if we
have time, I do want to get into Texas.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Uh, what the heck they're doing? It?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Could it happen here in I think it has bigger
implications for here in Utah. Essentially, they're they're banning guns
at the state fair and this is the time of
year when state fairs are big.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
There you went to County fair. Is going on?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
The State Fair in Utah happens in September, I think,
just after Labor Day. I want to say something along
those lines. Yeah, anyway, can you ban guns? And how
is it that Texas? I mean, by god, Texas is
banning guns. Yeah, we're going to look into that. And
if we have time, I want to get into the
(06:35):
Uvaldes family lawsuit against an AR fifteen, big AR fifteen
manufacturer Daniel Defense, and maybe Canada. Maybe maybe we could
talk about Canada a little bit. I don't know, so
that'd be good.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I was at Sportsman's Warehouse actually yesterday, and I was
there today. I just finished teaching in class, and I
noticed that they have Tapco. You remember Tapco from you know,
your ten twenty two accessories and different chocoun accessories, just
all sorts of add ons and that Tapco and well
(07:16):
they're back. They were sold way back when to Remington
and we know. Oh, speaking of Uvaldi and the kind
of stuff. We know what happened to Remington. They got
a lawsuit against him for seventy three million dollars. They
lost and because anyway, and then in the fire sale
(07:37):
that came after the bankruptcy of Remington, Sportsman's Warehouse, I
can finally say it Sportsman's Warehouse bought Tapco the name
and that kind of stuff and compotely.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Redesigned this thing.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
They have got, oh you know that Ruger Ruger, the
Henry X Model three fifty seven mag lever action, the
tactical one. They've even got some really cool even better
tactical stocks and forearms and accessories in that for the
X model.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
And they've got.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I mean they've got They're getting into a whole bunch
of stuff glock add ons and accessories. And they have
a Barretta ninety two threaded barrel for like one hundred
and sixty nine bucks or something. This is not a
commercial for them, but it's like really good. And I
looked at this thing and it's well done. I mean,
you can do a lot with metallurgy today, but a
nice little threaded and I don't have a thread a
(08:31):
barrel for my Bretta.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
So now I'm going to but yeah, if.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
You check it out, if you go to Sportsmen's dot com.
I think it's Sportsman's Let me just look here, is it? Yeah,
Sportsmen's dot Com and just do a search for Tacco.
Look at all the stuff. I'll bet you've got a
gun that they make stuff for.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
I'm looking at a ten twenty two carbon fiber drop
in barrel. This looks pretty awesome. Oh the hell you say, Yeah,
this looks kind of cool. Yeah, as soon as you
brought that up, I went right to the website and
just start bouncing around and yeah, they got some cool
things here.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
We'll check this out anyway.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Stuff all right, when we come back, we got lots
more to talk about, So stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Rainy, rainy day out there, and I'm sure a lot
of the archery hunters are hiding for cover at this moment.
But yeah, this is kind of the official time to
start the hunting season all the way through January now
for big game hunts. And hopefully you've got a good tag.
If not, I heard rumor that next month there's going
(09:35):
to be an exciting event over at Shields, so we'll
keep you posted on that. As that comes closer in that.
But I want to throw this over to Clark. Clark,
you've got a great guest here. You're going to be
talking about this whole bump stock thing and maybe we
get some clarification stockery, yeah, what this bump stock is
all about.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So I want to introduce the Gun Radio Utah audience
to shen Lee Esquire. He's Litigation Council, he's the attorney
for New Civil Liberties Alliance NCLA.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Shehan.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Welcome to Gun Radio Utah.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Hiy Clark, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Hey, no problem.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
You guys did some fantastic work in both my case.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
As well as Garland v.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Cargil, which was the actual deciding case on the bump stock.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Can you tell us tell us about.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That case, tell us what that case started from, why
NCLA took it, and also if you could answer the question,
it's a bump stock a machine gun.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
So there I can answer that first question, maybe sorry,
that last question first, and the.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Answer is no, and the Supreme Court agreed with us.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
But the case here really started in twenty nineteen when
ATF published a new regulation that set the opposite that
at bump stock, it's not only a machine gun, but
has always.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Been a machine gun under the Federal.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Machine Gun Statute, which defines a machine gun as a
device that's capable firing multiple bullets with a single function
of the trigger or automatic automatically fires multiple bullets with
a single function of the trigger. And that's how you
know how the blog defined a machine gun. When ATF
first considered the question of whether a non mechanical bump
(11:21):
stock was a machine gun, it said no, because for
every function of the trigger, only one bullet is discharged.
And it made that decision over and over again over
a period of ten to twelve years until twenty nineteen,
when it suddenly reversed course and said, actually, we changed
our mind. This has always been a machine gun and
if you possess it, you've been a fell in this
(11:43):
entire time.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Can I break in there for a second. How is
it that the LPF was able to change their mind?
What kind of procedure, what kind of ability did they
have to just do this without going to Congress?
Speaker 5 (11:59):
Well, they that they are able to interpret the meaning
of the machine Gun Statute, which said, again, the machine
gun is something that discharges automatically multiple bullets for a
single function of the trigger, and they interpret that.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
In interpreting that language.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
They said, well, if you look at a bump stock,
it fires very fast. It's kind of like a machine gun.
And when you press the trigger when each when the person,
the word function really refers to the person and the
person is functioning the trigger just once for multiple discharges,
which I don't think that really makes any sense for
(12:38):
anyone knows how these devices work. But that was ATF's
interpretation at that time. In I think it was January
twenty nineteen and c my firm, we filed two lawsuits,
one in Utah, Clark you were the client there, and
we filed a second lawsuit in Texas representing Michael Argill,
(13:00):
a gunshop owner down in Austin, challenging the UH this
bump stock rule.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Well, how how is it that, I mean, what tell
us the concept the deference if you will, that allowed
ATF and other agencies to make this decision on their
own And what changed now after Cargill with that? Well?
Speaker 5 (13:26):
So yeah, so in the lawsuits, actually ATF didn't actually
ask for any deference because there was a there was
this doctrine of deference dating from the nineteen eighties which
said in litigation, if there's a statute, and the statute
could be interpreted, if there's any vagueness in the statute,
if it could be interpreted multiple ways, all the agency
(13:48):
has to do is choose one of the permissible or
reasonable interpretations, and then the agency automatically wins, even if
the court, you know, determines that that that the agent's
leading is not the best interpretation. Uh So, ATF actually
didn't seek difference under this theory, but they got it nonetheless,
(14:09):
which which was kind of interesting in in in the
your case, in the epotionent case, the court gave it
difference anyway and said, well, under this difference is called
Chevron deference, under a case named after Chevron the eighties,
the agency just, you know, the court look at the
statues as well, what does automatically mean what a single
(14:30):
function of the trigger really mean? We can't figure it out.
We will just defer to the agency's interpretation. If they
say it's a machine gun, it's a machine gun. Uh
And that's how the agency won at sort of the
lower court level. When we got out to the Supreme
Court this term in the Cargo case, the Supreme Court
did two things first, they said, not so fast. You
(14:52):
don't get We're not even going to consider the difference
question because we read this statue to be very unambiguous.
A single function of the trigger. It has a very
clear mechanical meaning, and it means, you know, if the trigger,
you know, there's a mechanism at the functions once and
only one bullet comes out, that's that's you know, that's
a semi automatic rifle.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
We're done here. That's not a machine gune.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
And a few weeks later, the Supreme Court also overruled
the difference doctrine in actually a separate case that in
CLI brought on behalf of the number of fishermen challenging
a different statute.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
So the n c l A really, I mean, oh,
by the way, how can people find out more about
n c l A and if they like what they've
been hearing? How if they like what they've been hearing,
do you folks accept donations, because yeah, anyway.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
We do, We certainly do, and we also accept if
you you know. So, n CLI is a little background.
We can be found at n c l A Legal
dot org on the internet and uh as a background
where we're a nonpartisan, nonprofit law firm, and we represent
small business and individuals whose civil liberties have been infringed
(16:02):
by administrative agencies, such as in this case, the.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
API. So so you know.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
We're certainly accept donations. And also if your civil liberties
have been infringed by an administrative agency, whether it's federal, state,
we'd be interested in learning about it and may be
able to help.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Is the bump stock case with Cargill and and the
potion case?
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Is it bigger than bump stocks?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Oh, very much. So.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
It's it's about how laws are made. I mean, this
is I mean this this happens to be you know,
a sort of a culturally or politically divisive issues, sometimes
because because of guns. But it's really not about guns.
It's about whether unelected bureaucrats at ATF have the power
to change criminal law.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That Congress enacted.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And when you know, Congress enacts a criminal law that
tells the public what the law is, how you stay
on one side of it, how you stay on the
other side of it, how you obey it. But if
you allow unelected bureaucrats to change what a criminal law is, it,
it means you know, under this case, you know they
told everybody for a decade or more that these devices
(17:13):
were legal, and everyone went out and boss hundreds of thousand.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Of these were sold, and then.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
As they suddenly turned around and said that they've actually
illegal along and by the way that that affects it.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
It's retroactive.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
If you bought it in twenty ten thinking it was legal,
you know, you're now a felat because you possess this
thing that's a machine gun, and it's it's quite a
an awesome power to just delegate to bureaucrats. And the
point of this case is to to say bureaucrats don't
have that power. It doesn't matter whether it's a you know,
a machine gun as in this case the machine gun statute,
(17:46):
or any other device or any other thing. You know,
you can't Congress can't you know, you can't have a
situation where Congress passed the law that says, you know,
if you if you pay your taxes in this particular way,
or if you drive this particular car or have this
particular device and you know, appliance in your home, and
that's all fine. And then ten or twenty years later
(18:07):
the agency comes in and says, I, actually we changed
our mind.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Forget what Congress passed.
Speaker 5 (18:11):
We've decided this activity or this device it's suddenly illegal
and you have to turn it over or you know,
be a Felon's that's not how.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
You literally democracy works.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, you literally you know if I hadn't turned it in,
I could have been in federal prison. Well, and for
some time that was perfectly legal.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Here's a question I have for you, Shying what happens
because we're going to talk about this later on the
show about Canadia.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
But Canadian what about all the.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Other law abiding citizens that turned their bump stocks in
or destroyed them? I mean, what's in it for them?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Now?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
I mean there's a number out there. We're talking there's
over a million of these things that are possibly out there.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
If you if you turned yours in or or destroyed
the word give it to the government.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
You know. It's difficult to say.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Depends on the exact circums situation.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
My understanding.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
There was a another lawsuit filed in the Court of.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Federal Claims a few years back, seeking.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Seeking like a federal takings claim against the government for
basically taking people's property. That lawsuit was dismissed for same
for the same reason. Clark, your lawsuit was dismissed at
the lower courts that under the Chevron deference. Of course,
the Supreme Court overturned that difference. It also in the
(19:40):
Cargo case made clear that the ATF regulation is unlawful.
So so I don't know, maybe those folks can restart
that lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims or some
other people could.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
It's possible to me. I actually don't know when that
was filed, so the statute of limitations may have run.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
But that's that's certainly one thing that could do. In
other respects, it's you know a lot of times there's
not really there's not really a good way when the
government gets in to violate your civil rights.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
There's not really a.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
Way to fully compensate the person because there's you know,
when a company does it, you can see them for
damage or something like that. Particularly, you have a lot
fewer ways to do that for the federal government or
any kind of government. Well, I think, which is why
I think it's more important to stop it in the
first place.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Yeah, And I think one thing that we can learn
from this, and I think a lot of people caught
onto this and just put the bump stock the bump
stock thing aside to But it's the way the principle
they went around this to make this illegal to be
in possession of it. I mean, look what happened to
the sig brace. Okay, now what did a lot of people?
(20:53):
Do you know they weren't turning those braces in. I
mean think they're kind of holding onto these things. Let's
wait till the last Let's see what's actually.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Going to happen now.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
And you know, hopefully the ATF, you know, has learned
a lesson from this.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Yeah, you know, I'm not I'm not so sure because
they have issued a few other kind of flip flopping
regulations since then. But but I think it'll be easier
to challenge those regulations in court because of yours and
uh and Michael Cargill's case. The the you know, to
be clear, our point has never been you can never
(21:31):
ban these devices. In fact, in the Cargo Supreme Court decision,
the Supreme Court said, look, if Congress wants to come
and rewrite the Machine Gun Statute to encompass bumpstocks or
any other device they want, Congress is welcome to do that.
But of course, if Congress does do that, they are
accountable to their voters, people, right, the people. So so
you might think Congress will think long and hard about
(21:54):
writing about banning those devices, and if they do ban
them or or restrict them in some way, those restrictions
will be reasonable and it wouldn't effect Maybe it would
have some grandfather clause for people who purchased them in
the past and that sort of thing, But would have
did that that didn't happen. You know, you had unelected
bureaucrats go around Congress and supersedual Congress was trying to do.
(22:17):
And in fact, I think at the time the ATF
was developing the bump stock will, Congress was actually debating a.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Bill to restrict bumb socks.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
It probably would not have been you know, I don't
know if that would have passed, but if it did pass,
it probably would not have been wide ranging. It probably
would have had the same retroactive effects as the regulation
that ATF ultimately enacted and was overturned.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Very good, Okay, last thing before we go is we've
got to go to a break. I contacted at your recommendation,
I contacted the Salt Lake office at the ATF where
Bill and I had dropped off my bump stock back
in March of twenty nineteen and told them that I'd
like to arrange to pick it up. They have yet
to return my call, so I may be calling you
(23:02):
again on Monday to figure out what to do.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Okay, we'll figure that out. As federal judge did order
them to return it to you, so they are you know,
under under under.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
There's mandated to.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
Give it back to you. They can't withhold it from me.
Now if say, you know, if they lost it or
something like that, we'll have other.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
Things we can do.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
But they are they cannot you know, they cannot legally
hold that from you.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Yeah, they lost it in Upouting.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
All right, Shenley Lee, New Civil Liberties Alliance, thank you
so much. And I appreciate your hard work on this
case and the all the others.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
All right, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
To take care, all right, And when we come back
on Gun Radio, Utah, we've got lots more to cover,
so stay tuned.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
I wonder I don't know if that might have been
billable time.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So anyway, welcome back to Gun Radio, Utah.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
There are no apologies.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
And before I get into you know, Bill, I was
out actually with just last week shooting my Bran new
glock Model twenty one, which is the forty five. And
you know the twenty one refers to forty five because
it's almost double and the number and anyway.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
It's a mathematic there's no white. Yeah, it's a mathematical thing.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah, like the Glock nineteen is a nine milimeter because
there's a nine and a one and it's the mids anyone.
Just it's the order in which block came out with
those models.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
So and because I had I wanted to try it
out because Glockhead completely overhauled my Gen two glock Model
twenty one forty five and it functioned absolutely perfectly.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
It's so cool.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Sarah co did and trigger job and and you know
forward serration cuts.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
It's just cool anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
So let me tell you if you want that done
to your gun, doesn't matter if it's a glock, a
Smith and Wesson, a rifle, of shotgun, a pistol, doesn't matter.
Get it over to the gunsmith of Sportsman's Warehouse. The
Gunsmith of Sportsman's Warehouse, you get them at sixteen thirty
South fifty seventy West in Salt Lake City, or give
McCall it eight to one, three zero, four eighty seventy
and whatever you need done. If you want finished work,
(25:09):
if you want it repaired, if you want it figured
out why it's malfunctioning, you can get it done. Custom engraving,
Sarah Coting, refinishing, stock work, you name it, get it
over to the gunsmith at Sportsman's Warehouse. And if you
can't get it to them, you can take it into
any of the over one hundred and forty five Sportsman's
(25:29):
Warehouse locations. There's got to be one near you, all right, Bill.
So we don't have a lot of time in this segment,
but I don't want to talk about Canadia. Canadia or
what is that our fifty first state up north something
like that. Anyway, they don't have the Second Amendment. And
one of the things in an article I was reading
(25:52):
was justin Trudeau about four years ago and his the
Canadian federal government system institute a program where they said,
all these guns right here, these scary looking guns, especially
if they're black, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
They're now banned.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
And even though we didn't necessarily sell them to you,
we're going to buy them back for whatever price we say.
So that's just whenever you hear that kind of thing,
just think gun confiscation, because it's if you have an
option to sell it or not, that's a true buyback
or sale. But if they require you to do it
and give give you what they say, then it's confiscation.
(26:32):
So they've been hearing they've been trying to implement this
thing for four years now, and they've run up to
some problem because there's several provincial governments that you know,
kind of like the individual states, that.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Have already said forget it.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
We are ruling out entirely any possibility that their law
enforcement are going to be used in any way to
implement the confiscation of these banned firearms and devices along
with it and that kind of stuff that includes magazines
and so on and so forth. And I mean, that's fantastic.
(27:08):
The the the amount of non compliance is huge. Now
keep this in mind when you hear blah blah kamala
uh talk about buybacks, which are mandatory buybacks. She's backed
off on that, by the way, because I guess it
(27:29):
wasn't it wasn't polling very well, but she hasn't forgotten it.
She'll do it. You're just not promoting it. Uh they
so they said, well, if the provinces aren't going to
do it, they're going to hire a private company. They're
going to hire a private company to come out and
(27:51):
and and take the guns, I guess, or maybe a
distribution point where you could bring your gun in, and
then they would promise, because it's a different company, the
government's going to send you a check, so that would
be a separate thing. And then they've actually gotten so
much grief from that they've said, well, we're not going
to tell you who the private contractors are going to be.
(28:13):
They're going to collect these guns because they're going to
come under so much fire, so much grief.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
You're doing that?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
No, no, no, no, they said, if the government wants
to collect them. If the government wants to collect them,
they need to get their butts at the front door
and see.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
See why.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, I mean, don't put a contractor out there to
do that job.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Yeah. Okay. So then they thought of another idea.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
They said, Okay, we're going to supply all the people
that have these guns with these government issued cardboard boxes,
and you put your gun in there, unloaded of course,
and mail it.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Okay, So the Amazon return center.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
The Canada Post Canada Post which is a Crown I
mean it's a federal post office.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
They said, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Like a lot of our we have zero security here
at our post offices.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
We don't want these things.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
There's no Also, they said, by the way, it's against
federal law in Canada to mail these guns, these specifically
the guns that you're taking.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
It's against the law.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
You can't do that. You're encouraging people to break the law.
So then they said, uh, what was the last Oh yeah,
they were going to have retired RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted
Police go to order door and collect these guns, and
the kind of the union or whatever that that effects
these they said, we don't want to do that. So
(29:41):
Justin Trudeau is trying to figure out. They've already got
the law passed. Now they're trying to figure out, how
do we implement this, How do we implement it. I'd
really like to when we come back off the break,
I want to talk about Texas and it's implications for
Utah and but uh, but if we've got something better,
then we'll figure it out when we come back after
(30:01):
this break. So stay tuned and welcome back to gun
Radio YouTube. Bill Patterson, you want me to bring this in,
but I'm I'm bringing it in, but I'm gonna throw
it to you to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
You're not gonna believe this.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
I just got another spam notification literally while we're doing
this show ATF for the title is ATF Returns bump
Stock after five years And it's a YouTube video. Yeah,
it's a YouTube video, so I can't wait to see. Really,
it's by Liberty Doll and so that's going to be
(30:33):
an interesting one.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
Uh see what she says. She does some pretty good things.
I like. I like the Liberty Doll tell us about
Utah Shooting Sports Council. Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
We are a grassroots organization that I know every one
of our listeners wants to get actively involved in doing
something to protect their Second Amendment rights. You might not
want to be able to, you know, might not have
the time at the moment, but you're gonna want to
do something where you can contribute some talent, some skill.
You can go check us out over at Utah Shooting
(31:02):
Sportscounsel dot org. Get signed up for our email alerts,
send us emails, send us notifications. We have received some emails.
Now I'm going to tell our listeners. We will get
back to your emails. Sometimes we don't do it immediately,
but we put them all together and we filter them
out and send them over to the right and appropriate
(31:23):
board members to take care of that. But yeah, I mean,
we're always looking for help. Things are going to think.
I think this legislation session is going to be.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
A big scale or something. There's one kid.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
There's one kid I shouldn't call him kid, a young
man that is going through law school that I brought
up to the board that I want them to utilize
him because he is he's asking.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
So we will get back with you.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Yeah, we're always looking for talent. So shoot over to
Utah Shooting Sports Council dot org. Get signed up. You
can send us an email if you like Utah Shooting
Sports counseled. What is our email.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Board dot org? It's dot org or.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
At Utah Shooting Sports Council dot org. That's an email.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Address you can use at Utah Shooting Sports.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
But don't be saying sending a stupid emails and asking
for money for you know, people in Nigeria or something
like that.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
We don't like that, so really I'm not doing that
again any likely. Uh Bill have you? Do you go
to the Utah State Fair. I do. I haven't been
in a while, but every year.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yeah, it's it's Hansen family. The Hansen family has a
big outing there Utah State Fair. We have we eat
dinner there and we bart our own dinner and that
kind of stuff. But I mean, isn't it it's it's
basically just kind of like a giant outdoor Walmart with
carnival rides with cows and poutine poutine anyway, that's the
(32:52):
only place I ever see poutine, by the way.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
It's it's French fries.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
And something else anyway, And they always ask if I
want someone. I said, I'm not pooting that in my mouth.
So anyway, it so Dallas. So Texas has their state Fair.
It's held in Dallas every year. It's a big I mean,
you can imagine the Texas State Fair has gotta be huge.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Well, the attorney.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Is threatening to stew sue the State Fair of Texas
because you'd think the State Fair of Texas is going
to be just reminiscent of Texas by God, we have
guns and.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Anyway crazy all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, yeah, just big stuff. And if it's I mean, hey,
it's if it's guns. You know, Texas is going to
be leading in that. But apparently the city of Dallas
is the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxon is threatening to
sue Dallas, the City of Dallas, which apparently is over
(33:51):
the state Fair because they have said there's no guns
allowed unless it's carried by active law enforcement or retired
law enforcement too. We're gonna throw those into the to
the mix. And would have loved to have been there
at that meeting when they decided on that. But so
they say no, you can't can't bring any guns into
Texas State Fair. I mean, that's that's like saying there's
(34:14):
gonna be no carnival rights for goingness sakes. So Texas
has what about the shooting Galexas law good point, And
Texas law clearly states that licensed to carry holders concealed
carry permit holders may not be prevented from carrying a
firearm on property owned or leased by the government unless
(34:37):
otherwise prevented by state statute. And there is no state statute. Well,
the State Fair of Texas come to find out it's
a it's a private, not for profit organization. It isn't
the state, but it has something to do with the city.
So anyways, Ken Paxton, the Attorney General, wrote them a
note and said, you know what, you're in violation and
(35:00):
you have fifteen days to fix the issue otherwise I'll
see you in court.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
And we know about that.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
So because as with any big city, you're gonna get
your woke anti gun hand ringing bedwetters in there. And
this will be interesting because we have similar stuff here
in Utah.
Speaker 6 (35:19):
Yeah, and boy, I dread the day that they say
you can't bring guns. But you know, in the same article,
when I was researching it, I came across an article
that last year Texas State Fair in Dallas evacuated over
a shooting in which three people were injured. Obviously those
people probably didn't legally possess those guns illegally shot people.
(35:43):
But I guess the state fair management would say, the
public does not need to worry now that we got
these people under control.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Isn't that what they always say? Nothing to see here,
nothing to see here? Yeah, nothing to see here? Bill,
realize it is we've got up out a little about
a minute or so left. And uh, you know today,
even though it's raining and rather humid out, you could
take your stainless steel gun. So I encourage people with
(36:12):
palmer stocks, stainless steel guns, get them out there, get
them out in the rain, get out shooting, clean up
after yourself. And I don't do you have any thoughts,
parting thoughts before the music starts playing.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
No, you definitely take someone out shooting.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Find out.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I mean, if there's family members, friends, you know that
have always expressed interest into shooting, take them out shooting.
Even if you go to a range. There's great instructors
out there. You can learn quite a bit. But yeah,
take them out shooting. Let them have the experience.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Hey, we'll talk about Uvaldi and dangle defense.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Next week and we'll definitely do that, and I'll have
some more news for you.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Did the ATF lose Clark's gun?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
No, No, my bump stocks not a gu bumstock.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
The ADF lose it in a bating accident. We'll find out,
hopefully by next week.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
I know I know where my twenty dollars is. Have
a good one a rounder bell.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Take care
That.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Welcome to Gun Radio, Utah and apologies. We are very
happy we have this exciting show. It's always an exciting show,
really exciting show. Today we're gonna be talking, well, some
obvious stuff and uh, Bill sitting right across virtually.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
In space, just tell the audience we got obvious stuff
and then switch.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Well, no, it's the obvious. I mean, what's the obvious?
What's the obvious? Texas the Texas State Fair? Man.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Okay, Okay, okay, Texas State, Texas State Fair.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
That's a good one. Okay. Welcome every Canada Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
That's Bill Patterson East, director of Utah Shooting Sports Council,
and uh and i'm your host. Also Clark opotion with
uh with the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
It could be Canada.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
You know, Trudeau is doing stuff in Canada, trying to
buy back people's guns that he never sold them in
the first place. So we'll talk about that. But what
did you have something else in mind?
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Know, and there's just a lot of things. It's just
I don't know. I just thought that was funny how
you came off with that first price segment. Yeah, but
I do. It's you know, it's the opening day of
the hunting season. If that counts, I'll give you that.
Hunting seasons starting today in Utah. It's archery. It's primitive hunting.
Yet deeron l cunt archery hunting started today. So that's
(01:24):
kind of the the small little snowball and it gets
bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Archery.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Basically, if you if you if you have to cross
a river, do you have to do a canoe of
your own making and wear moccasins and everything like that?
I mean, is that that's basically archery hunting, right, That
is archery hunting.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
But boy, I'll tell you, I don't know if it's
happening in your neck of the woods, Clark, but it
is pouring here at the studio.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Oh my gosh.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
That's what Casey Jane said out there and went to county.
Casey Jane has been dealing with so you know, she's
a doctor now and so she graduates.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
People high college and all that. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yeah, And so I've been here in you into county
alone with the dogs for for the last few days.
They have basically they have basically gone feral, and so
have I it. Uh, you know, uh, and when she
gets back, she'll have a lot of well, she'll call
the cleaners. She'll call the cleaners and she'll take care
(02:34):
of stuff. She'll take us outside and hoes us off. Anyway,
So I'll shout out to Casey Jane. She's enjoying. It's
her vacation. Anytime she gets she doesn't have to to
deal with the dogs or me. It's a vacation for
her no matter where she goes. So I hear it
is raining. I think there's some I think there's some
starminess headed this way. Uh, let me tell you what.
(02:55):
What do we got We just talked about. We just
talked about the Texas state, the hunting. So have you
got anything else? Or should I go on my stuff?
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:05):
You're good? Now go ahead? Oh really? Oh good? Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
The National Shooting Sports Foundation just gave me a call
the other day and they have hired me again for
this year. Oddly enough, I didn't scare them off last year,
and as their lobbyist here and we've already got a
good bill for him. We've got the gun Bill of
you know, gun bills, the gun bill of gun bills.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
But we just added basically to that.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
You ever bought a suppressor bill and had to go
through all the background checks, or a machine gun or
short brailed rifle or something like that, an NFA item
and you go through the background checks with your fingerprints
and your photographs and your responsible person and all that,
and then when you go to pick it up, finally
you have to go through another background check. Even the
(03:53):
ATF on the forum forty four to seventy three says
you can just check this box and the the FFL
doesn't have to do the background check because it's already
been done on an NFA item. Well, Utah has been
requiring that second background check again, and so we're doing
away with that. So the hell you say we got that?
(04:15):
The hell I do say? That's what you say? The
hell you say for that's that's what you did. Well,
I'd like to, if we have time, talk about Uvaldi families.
What were you talking about? Some spam email or something
like that you were getting.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
I have gotten more gun related spam email this week. Interesting, Yeah,
very interesting.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
Any any common theme or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yeah, your name was written all over it, and so yeah,
I'm like, really, we've known this for a while, but
I guess this is The interesting part, though, Clark, is
there's all these news outlets that are like, you know,
they they're coming up with these articles like they've never
heard of it before.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
It's like, I know, it's like.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Come on, it's the bump stock, it's the bumps, it's
bump stockery, It's bump stock. Mcgeddon and yeah, Washington Times, CNN,
the local people, Yeah, am Leah. And as a matter
of fact, we are going to have Shang Lee, who
is one of my attorneys, the attorneys that's basically handling
(05:25):
the case with the new Several Liberties Alliance for me
and for Cargill, who the the case actually got decided on.
It was between my case and Cargill case Cargil or
Garland by Cargill that made it to the United States
Supreme Court. And we're gonna, we're gonna, we got we
got some questions for for mister Lee and it'll be
(05:46):
it'll be great. And so he's with the new Civil
Liberties Alliance. You definitely want to stay tuned for that
for the second segment on that one, and if we
have time, I do want to get into Texas.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Uh, what the heck they're doing? It?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Could it happen here in I think it has bigger
implications for here in Utah. Essentially, they're they're banning guns
at the state fair and this is the time of
year when state fairs are big.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
There you went to County fair. Is going on?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
The State Fair in Utah happens in September, I think,
just after Labor Day. I want to say something along
those lines. Yeah, anyway, can you ban guns? And how
is it that Texas? I mean, by god, Texas is
banning guns. Yeah, we're going to look into that. And
if we have time, I want to get into the
(06:35):
Uvaldes family lawsuit against an AR fifteen, big AR fifteen
manufacturer Daniel Defense, and maybe Canada. Maybe maybe we could
talk about Canada a little bit. I don't know, so
that'd be good.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Hey.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
I was at Sportsman's Warehouse actually yesterday, and I was
there today. I just finished teaching in class, and I
noticed that they have Tapco. You remember Tapco from you know,
your ten twenty two accessories and different chocoun accessories, just
all sorts of add ons and that Tapco and well
(07:16):
they're back. They were sold way back when to Remington
and we know. Oh, speaking of Uvaldi and the kind
of stuff. We know what happened to Remington. They got
a lawsuit against him for seventy three million dollars. They
lost and because anyway, and then in the fire sale
(07:37):
that came after the bankruptcy of Remington, Sportsman's Warehouse, I
can finally say it Sportsman's Warehouse bought Tapco the name
and that kind of stuff and compotely.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
Redesigned this thing.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
They have got, oh you know that Ruger Ruger, the
Henry X Model three fifty seven mag lever action, the
tactical one. They've even got some really cool even better
tactical stocks and forearms and accessories in that for the
X model.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
And they've got.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I mean they've got They're getting into a whole bunch
of stuff glock add ons and accessories. And they have
a Barretta ninety two threaded barrel for like one hundred
and sixty nine bucks or something. This is not a
commercial for them, but it's like really good. And I
looked at this thing and it's well done. I mean,
you can do a lot with metallurgy today, but a
nice little threaded and I don't have a thread a
(08:31):
barrel for my Bretta.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
So now I'm going to but yeah, if.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
You check it out, if you go to Sportsmen's dot com.
I think it's Sportsman's Let me just look here, is it? Yeah,
Sportsmen's dot Com and just do a search for Tacco.
Look at all the stuff. I'll bet you've got a
gun that they make stuff for.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
I'm looking at a ten twenty two carbon fiber drop
in barrel. This looks pretty awesome. Oh the hell you say, Yeah,
this looks kind of cool. Yeah, as soon as you
brought that up, I went right to the website and
just start bouncing around and yeah, they got some cool
things here.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
We'll check this out anyway.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Stuff all right, when we come back, we got lots
more to talk about, So stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Rainy, rainy day out there, and I'm sure a lot
of the archery hunters are hiding for cover at this moment.
But yeah, this is kind of the official time to
start the hunting season all the way through January now
for big game hunts. And hopefully you've got a good tag.
If not, I heard rumor that next month there's going
(09:35):
to be an exciting event over at Shields, so we'll
keep you posted on that. As that comes closer in that.
But I want to throw this over to Clark. Clark,
you've got a great guest here. You're going to be
talking about this whole bump stock thing and maybe we
get some clarification stockery, yeah, what this bump stock is
all about.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
So I want to introduce the Gun Radio Utah audience
to shen Lee Esquire. He's Litigation Council, he's the attorney
for New Civil Liberties Alliance NCLA.
Speaker 4 (10:06):
Shehan.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Welcome to Gun Radio Utah.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
Hiy Clark, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Hey, no problem.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
You guys did some fantastic work in both my case.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
As well as Garland v.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Cargil, which was the actual deciding case on the bump stock.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Can you tell us tell us about.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That case, tell us what that case started from, why
NCLA took it, and also if you could answer the question,
it's a bump stock a machine gun.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
So there I can answer that first question, maybe sorry,
that last question first, and the.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
Answer is no, and the Supreme Court agreed with us.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
But the case here really started in twenty nineteen when
ATF published a new regulation that set the opposite that
at bump stock, it's not only a machine gun, but
has always.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Been a machine gun under the Federal.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Machine Gun Statute, which defines a machine gun as a
device that's capable firing multiple bullets with a single function
of the trigger or automatic automatically fires multiple bullets with
a single function of the trigger. And that's how you
know how the blog defined a machine gun. When ATF
first considered the question of whether a non mechanical bump
(11:21):
stock was a machine gun, it said no, because for
every function of the trigger, only one bullet is discharged.
And it made that decision over and over again over
a period of ten to twelve years until twenty nineteen,
when it suddenly reversed course and said, actually, we changed
our mind. This has always been a machine gun and
if you possess it, you've been a fell in this
(11:43):
entire time.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Can I break in there for a second. How is
it that the LPF was able to change their mind?
What kind of procedure, what kind of ability did they
have to just do this without going to Congress?
Speaker 5 (11:59):
Well, they that they are able to interpret the meaning
of the machine Gun Statute, which said, again, the machine
gun is something that discharges automatically multiple bullets for a
single function of the trigger, and they interpret that.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
In interpreting that language.
Speaker 5 (12:16):
They said, well, if you look at a bump stock,
it fires very fast. It's kind of like a machine gun.
And when you press the trigger when each when the person,
the word function really refers to the person and the
person is functioning the trigger just once for multiple discharges,
which I don't think that really makes any sense for
(12:38):
anyone knows how these devices work. But that was ATF's
interpretation at that time. In I think it was January
twenty nineteen and c my firm, we filed two lawsuits,
one in Utah, Clark you were the client there, and
we filed a second lawsuit in Texas representing Michael Argill,
(13:00):
a gunshop owner down in Austin, challenging the UH this
bump stock rule.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Well, how how is it that, I mean, what tell
us the concept the deference if you will, that allowed
ATF and other agencies to make this decision on their
own And what changed now after Cargill with that? Well?
Speaker 5 (13:26):
So yeah, so in the lawsuits, actually ATF didn't actually
ask for any deference because there was a there was
this doctrine of deference dating from the nineteen eighties which
said in litigation, if there's a statute, and the statute
could be interpreted, if there's any vagueness in the statute,
if it could be interpreted multiple ways, all the agency
(13:48):
has to do is choose one of the permissible or
reasonable interpretations, and then the agency automatically wins, even if
the court, you know, determines that that that the agent's
leading is not the best interpretation. Uh So, ATF actually
didn't seek difference under this theory, but they got it nonetheless,
(14:09):
which which was kind of interesting in in in the
your case, in the epotionent case, the court gave it
difference anyway and said, well, under this difference is called
Chevron deference, under a case named after Chevron the eighties,
the agency just, you know, the court look at the
statues as well, what does automatically mean what a single
(14:30):
function of the trigger really mean? We can't figure it out.
We will just defer to the agency's interpretation. If they
say it's a machine gun, it's a machine gun. Uh
And that's how the agency won at sort of the
lower court level. When we got out to the Supreme
Court this term in the Cargo case, the Supreme Court
did two things first, they said, not so fast. You
(14:52):
don't get We're not even going to consider the difference
question because we read this statue to be very unambiguous.
A single function of the trigger. It has a very
clear mechanical meaning, and it means, you know, if the trigger,
you know, there's a mechanism at the functions once and
only one bullet comes out, that's that's you know, that's
a semi automatic rifle.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
We're done here. That's not a machine gune.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
And a few weeks later, the Supreme Court also overruled
the difference doctrine in actually a separate case that in
CLI brought on behalf of the number of fishermen challenging
a different statute.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
So the n c l A really, I mean, oh,
by the way, how can people find out more about
n c l A and if they like what they've
been hearing? How if they like what they've been hearing,
do you folks accept donations, because yeah, anyway.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
We do, We certainly do, and we also accept if
you you know. So, n CLI is a little background.
We can be found at n c l A Legal
dot org on the internet and uh as a background
where we're a nonpartisan, nonprofit law firm, and we represent
small business and individuals whose civil liberties have been infringed
(16:02):
by administrative agencies, such as in this case, the.
Speaker 4 (16:08):
API. So so you know.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
We're certainly accept donations. And also if your civil liberties
have been infringed by an administrative agency, whether it's federal, state,
we'd be interested in learning about it and may be
able to help.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Is the bump stock case with Cargill and and the
potion case?
Speaker 3 (16:28):
Is it bigger than bump stocks?
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Oh, very much. So.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
It's it's about how laws are made. I mean, this
is I mean this this happens to be you know,
a sort of a culturally or politically divisive issues, sometimes
because because of guns. But it's really not about guns.
It's about whether unelected bureaucrats at ATF have the power
to change criminal law.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
That Congress enacted.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
And when you know, Congress enacts a criminal law that
tells the public what the law is, how you stay
on one side of it, how you stay on the
other side of it, how you obey it. But if
you allow unelected bureaucrats to change what a criminal law is, it,
it means you know, under this case, you know they
told everybody for a decade or more that these devices
(17:13):
were legal, and everyone went out and boss hundreds of thousand.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Of these were sold, and then.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
As they suddenly turned around and said that they've actually
illegal along and by the way that that affects it.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
It's retroactive.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
If you bought it in twenty ten thinking it was legal,
you know, you're now a felat because you possess this
thing that's a machine gun, and it's it's quite a
an awesome power to just delegate to bureaucrats. And the
point of this case is to to say bureaucrats don't
have that power. It doesn't matter whether it's a you know,
a machine gun as in this case the machine gun statute,
(17:46):
or any other device or any other thing. You know,
you can't Congress can't you know, you can't have a
situation where Congress passed the law that says, you know,
if you if you pay your taxes in this particular way,
or if you drive this particular car or have this
particular device and you know, appliance in your home, and
that's all fine. And then ten or twenty years later
(18:07):
the agency comes in and says, I, actually we changed
our mind.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Forget what Congress passed.
Speaker 5 (18:11):
We've decided this activity or this device it's suddenly illegal
and you have to turn it over or you know,
be a Felon's that's not how.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
You literally democracy works.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, you literally you know if I hadn't turned it in,
I could have been in federal prison. Well, and for
some time that was perfectly legal.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Here's a question I have for you, Shying what happens
because we're going to talk about this later on the
show about Canadia.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
But Canadian what about all the.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Other law abiding citizens that turned their bump stocks in
or destroyed them? I mean, what's in it for them?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Now?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
I mean there's a number out there. We're talking there's
over a million of these things that are possibly out there.
Speaker 5 (18:59):
If you if you turned yours in or or destroyed
the word give it to the government.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
You know. It's difficult to say.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Depends on the exact circums situation.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
My understanding.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
There was a another lawsuit filed in the Court of.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Federal Claims a few years back, seeking.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Seeking like a federal takings claim against the government for
basically taking people's property. That lawsuit was dismissed for same
for the same reason. Clark, your lawsuit was dismissed at
the lower courts that under the Chevron deference. Of course,
the Supreme Court overturned that difference. It also in the
(19:40):
Cargo case made clear that the ATF regulation is unlawful.
So so I don't know, maybe those folks can restart
that lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims or some
other people could.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
It's possible to me. I actually don't know when that
was filed, so the statute of limitations may have run.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
But that's that's certainly one thing that could do. In
other respects, it's you know a lot of times there's
not really there's not really a good way when the
government gets in to violate your civil rights.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
There's not really a.
Speaker 5 (20:16):
Way to fully compensate the person because there's you know,
when a company does it, you can see them for
damage or something like that. Particularly, you have a lot
fewer ways to do that for the federal government or
any kind of government. Well, I think, which is why
I think it's more important to stop it in the
first place.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Yeah, And I think one thing that we can learn
from this, and I think a lot of people caught
onto this and just put the bump stock the bump
stock thing aside to But it's the way the principle
they went around this to make this illegal to be
in possession of it. I mean, look what happened to
the sig brace. Okay, now what did a lot of people?
(20:53):
Do you know they weren't turning those braces in. I
mean think they're kind of holding onto these things. Let's
wait till the last Let's see what's actually.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Going to happen now.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
And you know, hopefully the ATF, you know, has learned
a lesson from this.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Yeah, you know, I'm not I'm not so sure because
they have issued a few other kind of flip flopping
regulations since then. But but I think it'll be easier
to challenge those regulations in court because of yours and
uh and Michael Cargill's case. The the you know, to
be clear, our point has never been you can never
(21:31):
ban these devices. In fact, in the Cargo Supreme Court decision,
the Supreme Court said, look, if Congress wants to come
and rewrite the Machine Gun Statute to encompass bumpstocks or
any other device they want, Congress is welcome to do that.
But of course, if Congress does do that, they are
accountable to their voters, people, right, the people. So so
you might think Congress will think long and hard about
(21:54):
writing about banning those devices, and if they do ban
them or or restrict them in some way, those restrictions
will be reasonable and it wouldn't effect Maybe it would
have some grandfather clause for people who purchased them in
the past and that sort of thing, But would have
did that that didn't happen. You know, you had unelected
bureaucrats go around Congress and supersedual Congress was trying to do.
(22:17):
And in fact, I think at the time the ATF
was developing the bump stock will, Congress was actually debating a.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Bill to restrict bumb socks.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
It probably would not have been you know, I don't
know if that would have passed, but if it did pass,
it probably would not have been wide ranging. It probably
would have had the same retroactive effects as the regulation
that ATF ultimately enacted and was overturned.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Very good, Okay, last thing before we go is we've
got to go to a break. I contacted at your recommendation,
I contacted the Salt Lake office at the ATF where
Bill and I had dropped off my bump stock back
in March of twenty nineteen and told them that I'd
like to arrange to pick it up. They have yet
to return my call, so I may be calling you
(23:02):
again on Monday to figure out what to do.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Okay, we'll figure that out. As federal judge did order
them to return it to you, so they are you know,
under under under.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
There's mandated to.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
Give it back to you. They can't withhold it from me.
Now if say, you know, if they lost it or
something like that, we'll have other.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
Things we can do.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
But they are they cannot you know, they cannot legally
hold that from you.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Yeah, they lost it in Upouting.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
All right, Shenley Lee, New Civil Liberties Alliance, thank you
so much. And I appreciate your hard work on this
case and the all the others.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
All right, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
To take care, all right, And when we come back
on Gun Radio, Utah, we've got lots more to cover,
so stay tuned.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
I wonder I don't know if that might have been
billable time.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So anyway, welcome back to Gun Radio, Utah.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
There are no apologies.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
And before I get into you know, Bill, I was
out actually with just last week shooting my Bran new
glock Model twenty one, which is the forty five. And
you know the twenty one refers to forty five because
it's almost double and the number and anyway.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
It's a mathematic there's no white. Yeah, it's a mathematical thing.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah, like the Glock nineteen is a nine milimeter because
there's a nine and a one and it's the mids anyone.
Just it's the order in which block came out with
those models.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
So and because I had I wanted to try it
out because Glockhead completely overhauled my Gen two glock Model
twenty one forty five and it functioned absolutely perfectly.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
It's so cool.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Sarah co did and trigger job and and you know
forward serration cuts.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
It's just cool anyway.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
So let me tell you if you want that done
to your gun, doesn't matter if it's a glock, a
Smith and Wesson, a rifle, of shotgun, a pistol, doesn't matter.
Get it over to the gunsmith of Sportsman's Warehouse. The
Gunsmith of Sportsman's Warehouse, you get them at sixteen thirty
South fifty seventy West in Salt Lake City, or give
McCall it eight to one, three zero, four eighty seventy
and whatever you need done. If you want finished work,
(25:09):
if you want it repaired, if you want it figured
out why it's malfunctioning, you can get it done. Custom engraving,
Sarah Coting, refinishing, stock work, you name it, get it
over to the gunsmith at Sportsman's Warehouse. And if you
can't get it to them, you can take it into
any of the over one hundred and forty five Sportsman's
(25:29):
Warehouse locations. There's got to be one near you, all right, Bill.
So we don't have a lot of time in this segment,
but I don't want to talk about Canadia. Canadia or
what is that our fifty first state up north something
like that. Anyway, they don't have the Second Amendment. And
one of the things in an article I was reading
(25:52):
was justin Trudeau about four years ago and his the
Canadian federal government system institute a program where they said,
all these guns right here, these scary looking guns, especially
if they're black, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
They're now banned.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
And even though we didn't necessarily sell them to you,
we're going to buy them back for whatever price we say.
So that's just whenever you hear that kind of thing,
just think gun confiscation, because it's if you have an
option to sell it or not, that's a true buyback
or sale. But if they require you to do it
and give give you what they say, then it's confiscation.
(26:32):
So they've been hearing they've been trying to implement this
thing for four years now, and they've run up to
some problem because there's several provincial governments that you know,
kind of like the individual states, that.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Have already said forget it.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
We are ruling out entirely any possibility that their law
enforcement are going to be used in any way to
implement the confiscation of these banned firearms and devices along
with it and that kind of stuff that includes magazines
and so on and so forth. And I mean, that's fantastic.
(27:08):
The the the amount of non compliance is huge. Now
keep this in mind when you hear blah blah kamala
uh talk about buybacks, which are mandatory buybacks. She's backed
off on that, by the way, because I guess it
(27:29):
wasn't it wasn't polling very well, but she hasn't forgotten it.
She'll do it. You're just not promoting it. Uh they
so they said, well, if the provinces aren't going to
do it, they're going to hire a private company. They're
going to hire a private company to come out and
(27:51):
and and take the guns, I guess, or maybe a
distribution point where you could bring your gun in, and
then they would promise, because it's a different company, the
government's going to send you a check, so that would
be a separate thing. And then they've actually gotten so
much grief from that they've said, well, we're not going
to tell you who the private contractors are going to be.
(28:13):
They're going to collect these guns because they're going to
come under so much fire, so much grief.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
You're doing that?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
No, no, no, no, they said, if the government wants
to collect them. If the government wants to collect them,
they need to get their butts at the front door
and see.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
See why.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, I mean, don't put a contractor out there to
do that job.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Yeah. Okay. So then they thought of another idea.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
They said, Okay, we're going to supply all the people
that have these guns with these government issued cardboard boxes,
and you put your gun in there, unloaded of course,
and mail it.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Okay, So the Amazon return center.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
The Canada Post Canada Post which is a Crown I
mean it's a federal post office.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
They said, whoa, whoa, whoa, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Like a lot of our we have zero security here
at our post offices.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
We don't want these things.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
There's no Also, they said, by the way, it's against
federal law in Canada to mail these guns, these specifically
the guns that you're taking.
Speaker 3 (29:17):
It's against the law.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
You can't do that. You're encouraging people to break the law.
So then they said, uh, what was the last Oh yeah,
they were going to have retired RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted
Police go to order door and collect these guns, and
the kind of the union or whatever that that effects
these they said, we don't want to do that. So
(29:41):
Justin Trudeau is trying to figure out. They've already got
the law passed. Now they're trying to figure out, how
do we implement this, How do we implement it. I'd
really like to when we come back off the break,
I want to talk about Texas and it's implications for
Utah and but uh, but if we've got something better,
then we'll figure it out when we come back after
(30:01):
this break. So stay tuned and welcome back to gun
Radio YouTube. Bill Patterson, you want me to bring this in,
but I'm I'm bringing it in, but I'm gonna throw
it to you to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
You're not gonna believe this.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
I just got another spam notification literally while we're doing
this show ATF for the title is ATF Returns bump
Stock after five years And it's a YouTube video. Yeah,
it's a YouTube video, so I can't wait to see. Really,
it's by Liberty Doll and so that's going to be
(30:33):
an interesting one.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
Uh see what she says. She does some pretty good things.
I like. I like the Liberty Doll tell us about
Utah Shooting Sports Council. Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
We are a grassroots organization that I know every one
of our listeners wants to get actively involved in doing
something to protect their Second Amendment rights. You might not
want to be able to, you know, might not have
the time at the moment, but you're gonna want to
do something where you can contribute some talent, some skill.
You can go check us out over at Utah Shooting
(31:02):
Sportscounsel dot org. Get signed up for our email alerts,
send us emails, send us notifications. We have received some emails.
Now I'm going to tell our listeners. We will get
back to your emails. Sometimes we don't do it immediately,
but we put them all together and we filter them
out and send them over to the right and appropriate
(31:23):
board members to take care of that. But yeah, I mean,
we're always looking for help. Things are going to think.
I think this legislation session is going to be.
Speaker 3 (31:33):
A big scale or something. There's one kid.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
There's one kid I shouldn't call him kid, a young
man that is going through law school that I brought
up to the board that I want them to utilize
him because he is he's asking.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
So we will get back with you.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Yeah, we're always looking for talent. So shoot over to
Utah Shooting Sports Council dot org. Get signed up. You
can send us an email if you like Utah Shooting
Sports counseled. What is our email.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
Board dot org? It's dot org or.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
At Utah Shooting Sports Council dot org. That's an email.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
Address you can use at Utah Shooting Sports.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
But don't be saying sending a stupid emails and asking
for money for you know, people in Nigeria or something
like that.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
We don't like that, so really I'm not doing that
again any likely. Uh Bill have you? Do you go
to the Utah State Fair. I do. I haven't been
in a while, but every year.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yeah, it's it's Hansen family. The Hansen family has a
big outing there Utah State Fair. We have we eat
dinner there and we bart our own dinner and that
kind of stuff. But I mean, isn't it it's it's
basically just kind of like a giant outdoor Walmart with
carnival rides with cows and poutine poutine anyway, that's the
(32:52):
only place I ever see poutine, by the way.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
It's it's French fries.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
And something else anyway, And they always ask if I
want someone. I said, I'm not pooting that in my mouth.
So anyway, it so Dallas. So Texas has their state Fair.
It's held in Dallas every year. It's a big I mean,
you can imagine the Texas State Fair has gotta be huge.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Well, the attorney.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Is threatening to stew sue the State Fair of Texas
because you'd think the State Fair of Texas is going
to be just reminiscent of Texas by God, we have
guns and.
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Anyway crazy all that stuff.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, yeah, just big stuff. And if it's I mean, hey,
it's if it's guns. You know, Texas is going to
be leading in that. But apparently the city of Dallas
is the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxon is threatening to
sue Dallas, the City of Dallas, which apparently is over
(33:51):
the state Fair because they have said there's no guns
allowed unless it's carried by active law enforcement or retired
law enforcement too. We're gonna throw those into the to
the mix. And would have loved to have been there
at that meeting when they decided on that. But so
they say no, you can't can't bring any guns into
Texas State Fair. I mean, that's that's like saying there's
(34:14):
gonna be no carnival rights for goingness sakes. So Texas
has what about the shooting Galexas law good point, And
Texas law clearly states that licensed to carry holders concealed
carry permit holders may not be prevented from carrying a
firearm on property owned or leased by the government unless
(34:37):
otherwise prevented by state statute. And there is no state statute. Well,
the State Fair of Texas come to find out it's
a it's a private, not for profit organization. It isn't
the state, but it has something to do with the city.
So anyways, Ken Paxton, the Attorney General, wrote them a
note and said, you know what, you're in violation and
(35:00):
you have fifteen days to fix the issue otherwise I'll
see you in court.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
And we know about that.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
So because as with any big city, you're gonna get
your woke anti gun hand ringing bedwetters in there. And
this will be interesting because we have similar stuff here
in Utah.
Speaker 6 (35:19):
Yeah, and boy, I dread the day that they say
you can't bring guns. But you know, in the same article,
when I was researching it, I came across an article
that last year Texas State Fair in Dallas evacuated over
a shooting in which three people were injured. Obviously those
people probably didn't legally possess those guns illegally shot people.
(35:43):
But I guess the state fair management would say, the
public does not need to worry now that we got
these people under control.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Isn't that what they always say? Nothing to see here,
nothing to see here? Yeah, nothing to see here? Bill,
realize it is we've got up out a little about
a minute or so left. And uh, you know today,
even though it's raining and rather humid out, you could
take your stainless steel gun. So I encourage people with
(36:12):
palmer stocks, stainless steel guns, get them out there, get
them out in the rain, get out shooting, clean up
after yourself. And I don't do you have any thoughts,
parting thoughts before the music starts playing.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
No, you definitely take someone out shooting.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Find out.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I mean, if there's family members, friends, you know that
have always expressed interest into shooting, take them out shooting.
Even if you go to a range. There's great instructors
out there. You can learn quite a bit. But yeah,
take them out shooting. Let them have the experience.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Hey, we'll talk about Uvaldi and dangle defense.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Next week and we'll definitely do that, and I'll have
some more news for you.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
Did the ATF lose Clark's gun?
Speaker 2 (36:56):
No, No, my bump stocks not a gu bumstock.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
The ADF lose it in a bating accident. We'll find out,
hopefully by next week.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
I know I know where my twenty dollars is. Have
a good one a rounder bell.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Take care
Popular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.