December 3, 2025 • 28 mins
In this episode of the Sean Hannity Show, we dive into the escalating crime epidemic in America and the importance of personal safety strategies. Joining Sean is Luan Pham, chief marketing officer of Berner, who discusses their recent lawsuit against California's Governor Gavin Newsom for restricting access to non-lethal self-defense products. The conversation explores the implications of these laws on law-abiding citizens and the need for effective alternatives to lethal force. With examples from current events and the challenges of navigating California's legal landscape, this episode sheds light on the broader issues surrounding self-defense and gun rights in America. Tune in for insightful dialogue on protecting individual freedoms and ensuring safety in our communities.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, news round up in Information Overload hour. Here's
(00:02):
our toll free telephone number if you want to be
a part of the program. It's eight hundred and ninety
four one Sean if you'd like to join us. About
an hour ago, four o'clock Eastern, our friends at Berner
Byarna dot com. I've been telling you all about them.
You know, the beauty of Burner is this non lethal
self protection. We have a crime epidemic in this country
(00:26):
and it is out of control. And I argue, and
I believe with all my heart, mind, body and soul
that everyone needs a personal safety and security strategy for
them and their family. Now, how does this relate to Berner, Well,
they're breaking news today. About an hour ago they filed
(00:46):
the lawsuit against the United Socialist Utopia of California and
its governor, Gavin Newsom for the disarming of everyday civilians
for even non lethal forms of self defense products. Now,
remember all of these politicians, every one of them, and
I believe they need it. I believe they deserve it.
(01:08):
I don't care what their politics are. We live in
an assassination culture. I want our politicians safe, whether I
agree with them and disagree with them here to talk
about it is Lewan Bom and he's the CMO CFO
of Burner. So you just fillowed this lawsuit an hour ago.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yes, sir and Sean. Always great to join you and
Merry Christmas to you and your audience. And you know,
we're thankful for you giving us to giving Berner the
platform to talk about something incredibly important to us and
our challenge, our challenge against California's ban on Berna's pepper rounds,
which we believe effects law boddying citizens of the state
(01:49):
who simply wants a safe and effective alternative to lethal force.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, you know it's interesting because we have a story
out today. Well well, first of all, we have the
story that I mentioned where, you know, because of the
sanctuary state policies out there, we had another rig driver,
a team wheeler driver that ended up killing a newlywed
couple in Oregon, licensed from the state of California. You know,
(02:16):
three of my fellow Floridians died because you know, you
had a guy that couldn't read English and couldn't read
road signs, and he had licenses in Washington State and
in California. Now there's a story out today, federal prosecutors
in California charged a fifty four year old ice hating
lunatic after he hurled, you know, multiple molotov cocktails into
(02:40):
a downtown federal building in an attack targeting immigration officials. Again,
what have I been saying? The rhetoric is insightful. That
is being used by the elected Democrats all around the country.
It's insightful, it's dehumanizing, you know. And here in Washington,
d C. We have one National guard's been clinging to
(03:01):
life and he's twenty four years old, and a twenty
year old that lost her life keeping the nation's capital safe. So,
you know, I think self defense is critical and important.
Why would they allow the sale when I lived in California?
Now this goes back to the eighties, you know, so
let's put this in perspective the late eighties. Why was
(03:23):
I I had a license carried permit when I lived
in California? Is are they hard to get?
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Now?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah? Extremely hard. You know, as a person that lived
in California for thirty five years, I who've never had
access to a firearm, So you really had to go
the extra mile to have the ability to lethal weapons
and training. So it leaves folks with a lot of
(03:51):
less options, and we're just dumbfounded why there is such
a lack of common sense to give folks to If
you're going to restrict legal force and limit it to
a few, then the mass needs something that's effective to
defend the sales and burnout is dessolution. And quite frankly,
(04:12):
we have a strong customer base in California, but they're
only relegated to using the kinetic rounds, which are formidable,
but the chemical rounds attack the central nervousism that shuts
down the aggressor for thirty to forty minutes.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Well, I mean, this is the point. So let's talk
about the merits of the lawsuit. And I think one
of the problems you have whenever you bring a lawsuit
in California is jurisdiction. And obviously, liberal governors appoint liberal
judges that are activist judges, and then I imagine you
probably lose at the local level, then you probably have
(04:50):
to take it to the appeals court, then you probably
have to then you petition the Supreme Court at some point.
I would like this to be a case law for
the entire country, because I think every American has the
same right to self defense that all of these elected
officials have. You know, I had this rather infamous exchange
(05:10):
with Bill Deblasio when he was the Mayor of New
York and he came in my studio and he came
in with four or five, six, I don't remember how
many New York City police officers. All of them were armed, rightly,
so I think he deserved the protection. I said, should
every New Yorker have the right to protect themselves in
(05:34):
their homes, in their lives the way you're being protected?
And his answer was, every New Yorker has the right
to be safe? And I'm would be like, that's not
the question I asked you. I said, should every New
Yorker have the right to have a firearm? You know,
assume obviously you go through a background check, whatever the
laws require. And should they have the same ability to
(05:57):
defend themselves the way you have? And he kept saying
every New Yorker has the right to be safe. It's
his way of saying no. It was his way of ducking,
dodging and weaving. It was his way of obfuscating because
obviously the answer is he does not believe that every
New Yorker should be protected like he's protected. So let's
(06:18):
talk about the merits of the suit and what you believe. Massachusetts,
by the way, used to have a similar band, did
they not on stunt guns.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, that actually the company acts on who produces and
markets the Taser stunt guns challenge the courts and one
based on the fact that the stun guns are protected
under the second right Second Amendment rights, and so Bernard
(06:48):
is making that same same claim. You know, as you
know Sean, we're we're Second Amendment supporters here at Berno.
Many of us are firearms practitioners, but we also or
the use of common sense when it comes to self
protection because the laws around overuse of force, especially in
(07:09):
the state of California, can ruin a person's life financially
and take away their freedoms, et cetera. So we just
want California to participate like forty other eight other states
in the Union that states that having less lethal alternatives
is the smart thing to do. And if you're in
(07:31):
the blue state like California, we would think that they
would be on board in full support of Burna's mission
to reduce death by firearm. Yet somehow they're restricting us
from giving law buying citizens the opportunity to defend themselves
without taking or having to resort to deadly force.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
And here is that I don't understand because I researched
this and I read your lawsuit. The state of California
allows people to buy lethal firearms and bullets, obviously if
you pass your background check, but they prohibit the sale
and ownership of non lethal pepper rounds, which is what
Berner uses. And they even allow in the state people
(08:16):
to purchase their own pepper spray. The problem with pepper
spray is at that point, you're now close quarter. That's
called you know, at least if somebody's twelve feet away
from you and you pull out your burner launcher and
you can incapacitate them, that prevents them from taking your
weapon from you or having a physical altercation of which
(08:39):
most people are not trained or prepared for. And you know,
and the second thing that I noticed too, is the
Supreme Court has been very clear in their precedence that
it allows for the protection that the second member of
protects citizens right to carry weapons commonly possessed for awful
(09:00):
defensive purposes, including modern non lethal weapons. So when did
this come up in California.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
It has always been a restriction for us. We've gone
to great lengths to you know, implore legislation and lawmakers
in California. And you know, we are now going to
the airwaves, going to court to demand that the state
revisits their policies, and we're asking all Californians to pick
(09:34):
up the phone, call your state legislat leaders and you know,
demand that they give everyone in California the opportunity to
defend themselves and their families. I think this is probably
an overlooked policy, but it needs to be revisited in
a way where you know, we allow Californians in the yeah,
(10:00):
the era of just out of control crime and homelessness,
et cetera, to give them a chance to have something
that doesn't you know, leave them to resort to the
nuclear option, as we say. And you know, for us,
it's we're not trying to take a fight. It's about
(10:24):
saving lives. Burn is all about saving lives. We want
to work with lawmakers so Californias can legally access these
tools to protect their families. And you know, this is
we strongly feel this is covered and protected by the
Second Amendment and these things can coexist, and burn is
(10:44):
fighting to make sure that you know, the Californian lawmakers
understand our point of view and do what's right for
the for their citizens.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Well, I applaud you for what you're doing. It's unfortunate,
it's expensive to bring lawsuits. However, I do think if
you don't take a stand here, then these blue states,
you know, they're going to be like Domino's and they're
going to follow. There used to be a saying, so
goes California, so goes the rest of the country. I
(11:16):
don't think that's the case anymore because they moved so
far to the radical left. Did you ever have a
conversation or reach out to the governor?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
We are we in the past, we have talked to
organizations like DSIs, who manages security guards and those types
of folks, and you know, we're essentially shut down. At
one point, we had a program that allowed people to
take an no online class to have access to chemical
(11:48):
irriton rounds. But just overnight they changed that policy and
restricted us from doing that. And we've spoke to makers
in California on behalf of the citizens that we're calling
in and there people called this and say hey, what's
this all about, and we articulate our point of view
and saying, hey, we are on the side of saving
(12:12):
lives here, and he just didn't lead us very far
and very hard to get anything going from that standpoint. So,
you know, we had we were left with no other
option than to bring litigation so that someone can hear
us because we are we believe that we're doing the
(12:32):
right thing from a legal perspective, from a Second Amendment perspective,
and to protect the citizens of California. And Sean, you
and I were both California's at one point, and it's
a beautiful state, and so we're just trying to make
it safe for everyone and giving folks to empowerment to
go out and enjoy the freedoms that this great country provides.
(12:53):
And in a beautiful state like California, and you're afraid
to leave your own home because you think you're going
to get attacked, that's a travesty and it needs to
be changed and we need empower folks to you know,
enjoy all the freedoms that this great country provides.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Well, I got to tell you something. It is the
technology is superior. Again, I go back to I've never
been a big fan of tasers because if you're involved
in a conflict and it's a taser, that means you're
close quarter fighting. I have often said, if I'm close
quarters and people don't understand what I'm saying, if it's
close quarter confrontation, I would prefer dealing with a fire
(13:34):
ar close quarter pay close attention what I'm saying, then
a knife. It's much harder to defend against a blade.
And I say that, however, you don't want to be
in a position where it's that close that you need
a taser. You don't want to be in close quarters
where you need pepper spray at that point. Most people
(13:57):
don't have situational self defense skills. I've been training in
it for fifteen years. They're not going to be They're
going to be overwhelmed by a lunatic and they're not
going to be prepared for it, and usually they'll end
up with the weapon and not you. But by the way,
people should look at the videos to know exactly what
Berner offers. Just go to BYRNA dot com. And you're
(14:18):
not only an advertiser, but I believe in the cause,
So I want people to really know what their options
are out there, and you know this way, somebody's coming
at you the twelve feet, fifteen feet, twenty feet away,
you can incapacitate them and you don't have a risk
that they're going to be suing you after or you're
going to be arrested after. But anyway, we really appreciate
(14:40):
your time. Thank you so much for being with us.
Luan FOM, thank you. We appreciate it. BYRNA dot com.
And it's sad that it's come to this, especially in California.
But it's not a shock, is it. So we're in DC.
Marco Rubio has been too busy traveling the entire globe
and I went through the list last night of all
(15:01):
the areas around the world where you know he's been able,
along with the president to secure peace and that working
double time, over time, triple time to hopefully get a
deal with Russian Ukraine. I hope the killing stops. I
hope this piece in Europe. I hope the piece holds
in the Middle East as well. Here's my interview with
Marco Rubio's Secretary of State.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
I want to start this out with a fun question,
because there are really serious issues involving national security piece
around the globe. I mean, you're at the highest level
of discussions and we're going to get into a lot
of the hot spots and success and all that. But
I got to ask you. There's there's a show that's
come out. It's called The Age of Disclosure. Yeah, okay,
(15:41):
I know everyone probably that right, everyone asks you about it.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Sure, it's a new documentary.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
We had repeated instances of something operating in the airspace
over restricted nuclear facilities. It's not ours, and presidents operate
on a need to know base.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Yeah, okay. That is So a couple points on it.
First of all, I'm not disavowing that I was an
interview that was done almost like maybe three or four
years ago when I was in the Senate, so it
wasn't recent. The second point I would make, I was
describing the allegations that people have come forward with the
people that came forward to us. You know, some of
these people were navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever that would come.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Forward and say.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
That there were programs in the US government that not
even presidents were made aware of. So I was describing
what people had said to me, not things that I
have firsthand knowledge of in that regard, a little bit
of selective editing, but it's okay because you know, you're
trying to sell a show there. But the fundamental comments
I haven't seen it, but the clips I've seen and
people have shown me are fundamentally true. And that is,
there are things we know this this has been documented.
There have been things that fly over the airspace, restricted airspace,
(16:45):
be it where we're conducting military exercises I like, and
everyone in the government says they're not ours. And so
what I worry most about, just me personally, is that
some adversary, another country, for example, has developed some asymmetric
capability for valance of the like that we just are
not prepared for. You know, we're looking for missiles and
(17:06):
fighter jets and they're coming at us with drones and balloons.
The one observation I had is we had people that
did very important jobs in the US government who are
saying these things. So we have people with very high
jobs in the US government that are either a liars,
B crazy, or c telling the truth. And two of
those three options are not good. Those three options, I
don't know the answer. I don't have any point of
(17:27):
You know, I don't want to call them liars. I
just don't have any independent way to verify everythings they said.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
I spent time.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
I've been talking to the mother of the National guardsmen
that's in a hospital here in d C. Who's clinging
to life. The issue of the vetting of Afghan nationals.
You know, we learned that so many of them had
so many warning signs. And I'll put up on the
screen the statistics we took in seventy six thousand. There
(17:54):
were over five thousand that never should have.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Made it into this country. We were sure to repeat.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Leave by the Biden administration that they had been vetted.
There's no way that many of them could have been vetted.
Eight hundred and eighty six of them. Will put that
on the screen. Also are at large in the country
as we speak. Right, you put a pause on this.
The State Department has, the President has Christy Noma's spoken out,
where are we with all of this and how dangerous
(18:22):
is this?
Speaker 5 (18:22):
Well the pause is actually you know, we've announced it,
but in fact we've we've been much more careful since
we took over, with a lot of pressure on us
by the way to let more people in so many
of them served as interpreters alongside us in Afghanistan, and
so their lives were at risk. So we had a
lot of pressure to begin with, but we slowed that
process down from day number one to take an extra
look at people. Here's the problem with vetting people. You
can't have a perfect vet, no matter who that person
(18:44):
is for a couple of reasons. The first is we
don't You can only vet information that exists, right, so
it is possible that in many cases there are things
about these people.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
You just don't know no matter how much you vet them.
You just don't have certain information.
Speaker 5 (18:56):
And in some parts of the world where there's very
limited documentation, very limited, you can't just go out and
interview people. In many cases because of the presence of
the Taliban, et cetera, it becomes very difficult. The second thing,
you can't vet. You can vet what people have done
in the past. You can't vet what people might do
in the future. There's another dynamic at play here, and
that is you could allow someone into our country who
has no history of radicalization, perhaps they even have worked
(19:18):
with you in the past, but they are susceptible to
radicalization once they enter the United States because they don't
assimilate well, because they fall victim to some of this
online propaganda and efforts to radicalize people, and two or
three years later you find that they have radicalized.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
That is a threat, That is a real threat. It
is a threat for everyone.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
We have homegrown people people in the United States born
here that have been radicalized. But I do think it
is a higher threat among people that come from cultures
and backgrounds that make them make it harder for them
to assimilate once they get into the United States.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
And that make them vulnerable to Arabic.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Language, for example, a propaganda by ISIS or al Qaida
or any.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Of these other groups that are looking to radicalize people.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
So it's look, the bottom line is there is no
effective way to allow hundreds of thousands of people to
enter any country in the world and not face consequences.
You take one hundred thousand people from anywhere in the world,
and you're going to have some percentage of them to
turn out bad, either to turn into criminals or potentially terrorists.
I think that threat is heightened when you come from
places that have terrorist movement that would target these people
(20:22):
for odicalization once they enter our country.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
You know, there seems to be some misunderstanding I called
the Trump doctrine. I have my definition of it. Okay,
I agree with the president. I don't want America involved
in forever wars. Ever, again, I agree with that part,
But that does not mean isolationism. There seems to be
a group of Americans that misinterpret what the president means.
(20:47):
As an example, soon his first term, he wiped out
the Isis Caliphate. He took out Solo money on the tarmac,
he took out Magdady and associates. He dropped the mother
of all bombs on Afghanistan. You know, I don't know
how anybody could think the world's not a safer place
by taking out Rand's nuclear sites.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
That's not isolationism.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
That is American force used for good and twelve days
later Israel and Iran stopped fighting.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
But the way I would describe it, it's not isolationism.
It's also not adventurism, which is this argument that others
have fallen into that somehow there's a problem in the
world and the only solution to it is for the
United States to send military assets to go solve it.
What the President has done is he has Number one,
he defines what's.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
In the core national interest to the United States. There's
a lot of.
Speaker 5 (21:33):
Terrible things happening in the world, not all of them
are at our core national interest. Number two, he defines
what the outcome he wants, and number three, he takes
actions that are very specific and limited to getting the
outcome that's good for our country.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
So the case in point is irong Iran had these
nuclear facilities.
Speaker 5 (21:49):
We know what they were, We've known what they were
for a long time, and the president conducted a precise campaign.
It wasn't a prolonged war. It was a twenty four
hour operation. B two bombers left the mainland of the
United States, came over a defined target, dropped payload fourteen
missiles or fourteen rockets right into the holes of the
boilers the bunker of us, turned around and went home.
(22:11):
And that's it. It didn't involve five days of fighting.
It in't all fifteen days of fighting. It involved ground
troops or six months.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
He had a goal.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
The goal was we were going to destroy this nuclear facility.
We were going to obliterate it. He went in, he
did it, he got out, We were done.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
We achieved our objective. The objective was the destruction.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
Of the nuclear facility, which was achieved without entangling America
on something broader than that. That's a great example of
the limited and strategic and focused use of American power
to achieve something that's in our national interest.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
It was in our national interest not to have her
on have.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
A nuclear program that can be turned into a weapons
program that could one day threat in the United States,
and the presidents found an opportunity to do something about.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
It, and he did it.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
We talk a lot and a lot of people talk
in the Make America Great Again movement about America first,
and I believe in America first, but I also believe
that we have to insight wisdom understanding.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
That goes along with that.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
And it seems like every one of the examples I
just gave you where the President did use the might
of the US military, it's against radical Islam and that
threat I think, you know when people are chanting death
to Israel, when they chanting death to America, specific threats
against against our country. I have not forgotten nine to
(23:29):
eleven oh one. What is the nature of radicalism that
maybe some people don't understand, why it's in America's first interest.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Because ultimately, all radical Islamic movements in the world identify
you the West written large, but the United States in particular,
as the greatest evil on the earth. And every chance
to have the notion that somehow Radical Islam would be
comfortable with simply controlling some province in Iraq or Syria
is just not born.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Out by history.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply
to occupy one part of the world and be happy
with their own little califee. They want to expand. It
is a revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand
and control more territories and more people. And Radical Islam
has designs openly on the West, on the.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
United States, on Europe.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
We've seen that progress there as well, and they are
prepared to conduct acts of terrorism in the case of
Iran nation, state actions, assassinations, murderers, you name it, whatever
it takes for them to gain their influence and ultimately
their domination of different.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Cultures and societies.
Speaker 5 (24:33):
That's a clear and imminent threat to the world and
to the broader West, but especially to the United States,
who they identify as the chief chief source of evil
on the planet. The reason why they hate the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE of Bahrain
is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them.
That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it.
They hate Israel, but they also hate America, and they
(24:55):
hate anywhere in the world that we have influenced. They
seek to attack it, including here in the homeland. If
you look at the domestic terrorists, at the attacks that
happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been
inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Let me move to Venezuela and Venezuela, it seems like
America is showing its military presence. We've been taken out
in Arcro terrorists conflict about that. Pete haik Set, the
Secretary of Ward, addressed us earlier today in terms of
the chain of command and taking out the right decision
to take out these boats that are bringing drugs into
(25:33):
our country.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
They are killing Americans. Maduro has been.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
Basically told by the President to get out. We on
the verge of a possible conflict here now.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
So the a couple of things that I would say
about it. The first is what the president is authorized
as the.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Counter drug mission in the region.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
The fact that Maduro is upset about it tells you
the drugs are coming out of Venezuela. If you look
at these boats today, the Maduro regime is not a
legitimate government.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
What it is is that takes transhipment organization.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
It allows and other drugs that are produced in Colombia
to be trafficked through Venezuelan territory, and with the cooperation
of elements of the regime, are allowed to sail out
on airplanes and lead Venezuela on airplanes and ships headed
towards the United States, so they openly cooperate with the
drug dealers. In addition to that, the Venezuelan regime is
a source of instability in the entire region. Over eight
(26:21):
million Venezuelans have flooded into neighboring countries as a result
of the regime's activities within their own country, including into
the United States. They also happen to be the foothold
of Iran that's.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Not spoken about enough. Iran.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
It's IRGC and even Hesbolah has a presence in South
America and one of their anchor presents, especially for the Iranians,
is inside of Venezuela. So we we just finished talking
about Iran and the hostility it has towards the United States,
where they have planted their flag in our hemisphere is
on Venezuelan territory with a full an open cooperation of
that regime. So the fact that Maduro feels threatened by
(26:55):
the presence of US assets in the region and accounter
drug mission, it proves that he's into the drug business.
And by the way, we don't it's not me saying it.
I'm not just making this up. This was an indictment
that came out of the Southern District of New York
back in twenty twenty, an indictment. It was undisputed until
the President decided to do something about it. No one
disputed that Maduro was in the drug trafficking business.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
No one.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
Now that he's doing something about you have all these
people on the left and others that are coming out saying, well,
it's not.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
True and it hasn't been proven.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
We have an indictment by a grand jury, not by politicians,
by a grand jury in the Southern District of New
York that indicted him and a bunch of people in
the regime so.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
That's what's important to point out here.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
All right, that's going to wrap things up for it today.
Back in the Free State of Florida tomorrow, Thank goodness.
Loaded up tonight. You know, Scott Bessen is going to
explain the economy to everybody. It's important. Also, Senator John
Kennedy will join us. Also, we'll check in with Steve Miller.
He'll be with us tonight, and Christy nomanill be on
(27:55):
set as we're in Washington, DC all the we're going
to have our own little cabinet me basically say DVR
nine Eastern from the Swamp. Hannity back in the Free
State of Florida tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
We'll see you tonight.
All right, news round up in Information Overload hour. Here's
(00:02):
our toll free telephone number if you want to be
a part of the program. It's eight hundred and ninety
four one Sean if you'd like to join us. About
an hour ago, four o'clock Eastern, our friends at Berner
Byarna dot com. I've been telling you all about them.
You know, the beauty of Burner is this non lethal
self protection. We have a crime epidemic in this country
(00:26):
and it is out of control. And I argue, and
I believe with all my heart, mind, body and soul
that everyone needs a personal safety and security strategy for
them and their family. Now, how does this relate to Berner, Well,
they're breaking news today. About an hour ago they filed
(00:46):
the lawsuit against the United Socialist Utopia of California and
its governor, Gavin Newsom for the disarming of everyday civilians
for even non lethal forms of self defense products. Now,
remember all of these politicians, every one of them, and
I believe they need it. I believe they deserve it.
(01:08):
I don't care what their politics are. We live in
an assassination culture. I want our politicians safe, whether I
agree with them and disagree with them here to talk
about it is Lewan Bom and he's the CMO CFO
of Burner. So you just fillowed this lawsuit an hour ago.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yes, sir and Sean. Always great to join you and
Merry Christmas to you and your audience. And you know,
we're thankful for you giving us to giving Berner the
platform to talk about something incredibly important to us and
our challenge, our challenge against California's ban on Berna's pepper rounds,
which we believe effects law boddying citizens of the state
(01:49):
who simply wants a safe and effective alternative to lethal force.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Well, you know it's interesting because we have a story
out today. Well well, first of all, we have the
story that I mentioned where, you know, because of the
sanctuary state policies out there, we had another rig driver,
a team wheeler driver that ended up killing a newlywed
couple in Oregon, licensed from the state of California. You know,
(02:16):
three of my fellow Floridians died because you know, you
had a guy that couldn't read English and couldn't read
road signs, and he had licenses in Washington State and
in California. Now there's a story out today, federal prosecutors
in California charged a fifty four year old ice hating
lunatic after he hurled, you know, multiple molotov cocktails into
(02:40):
a downtown federal building in an attack targeting immigration officials. Again,
what have I been saying? The rhetoric is insightful. That
is being used by the elected Democrats all around the country.
It's insightful, it's dehumanizing, you know. And here in Washington,
d C. We have one National guard's been clinging to
(03:01):
life and he's twenty four years old, and a twenty
year old that lost her life keeping the nation's capital safe. So,
you know, I think self defense is critical and important.
Why would they allow the sale when I lived in California?
Now this goes back to the eighties, you know, so
let's put this in perspective the late eighties. Why was
(03:23):
I I had a license carried permit when I lived
in California? Is are they hard to get?
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Now?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah? Extremely hard. You know, as a person that lived
in California for thirty five years, I who've never had
access to a firearm, So you really had to go
the extra mile to have the ability to lethal weapons
and training. So it leaves folks with a lot of
(03:51):
less options, and we're just dumbfounded why there is such
a lack of common sense to give folks to If
you're going to restrict legal force and limit it to
a few, then the mass needs something that's effective to
defend the sales and burnout is dessolution. And quite frankly,
(04:12):
we have a strong customer base in California, but they're
only relegated to using the kinetic rounds, which are formidable,
but the chemical rounds attack the central nervousism that shuts
down the aggressor for thirty to forty minutes.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Well, I mean, this is the point. So let's talk
about the merits of the lawsuit. And I think one
of the problems you have whenever you bring a lawsuit
in California is jurisdiction. And obviously, liberal governors appoint liberal
judges that are activist judges, and then I imagine you
probably lose at the local level, then you probably have
(04:50):
to take it to the appeals court, then you probably
have to then you petition the Supreme Court at some point.
I would like this to be a case law for
the entire country, because I think every American has the
same right to self defense that all of these elected
officials have. You know, I had this rather infamous exchange
(05:10):
with Bill Deblasio when he was the Mayor of New
York and he came in my studio and he came
in with four or five, six, I don't remember how
many New York City police officers. All of them were armed, rightly,
so I think he deserved the protection. I said, should
every New Yorker have the right to protect themselves in
(05:34):
their homes, in their lives the way you're being protected?
And his answer was, every New Yorker has the right
to be safe? And I'm would be like, that's not
the question I asked you. I said, should every New
Yorker have the right to have a firearm? You know,
assume obviously you go through a background check, whatever the
laws require. And should they have the same ability to
(05:57):
defend themselves the way you have? And he kept saying
every New Yorker has the right to be safe. It's
his way of saying no. It was his way of ducking,
dodging and weaving. It was his way of obfuscating because
obviously the answer is he does not believe that every
New Yorker should be protected like he's protected. So let's
(06:18):
talk about the merits of the suit and what you believe. Massachusetts,
by the way, used to have a similar band, did
they not on stunt guns.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, that actually the company acts on who produces and
markets the Taser stunt guns challenge the courts and one
based on the fact that the stun guns are protected
under the second right Second Amendment rights, and so Bernard
(06:48):
is making that same same claim. You know, as you
know Sean, we're we're Second Amendment supporters here at Berno.
Many of us are firearms practitioners, but we also or
the use of common sense when it comes to self
protection because the laws around overuse of force, especially in
(07:09):
the state of California, can ruin a person's life financially
and take away their freedoms, et cetera. So we just
want California to participate like forty other eight other states
in the Union that states that having less lethal alternatives
is the smart thing to do. And if you're in
(07:31):
the blue state like California, we would think that they
would be on board in full support of Burna's mission
to reduce death by firearm. Yet somehow they're restricting us
from giving law buying citizens the opportunity to defend themselves
without taking or having to resort to deadly force.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
And here is that I don't understand because I researched
this and I read your lawsuit. The state of California
allows people to buy lethal firearms and bullets, obviously if
you pass your background check, but they prohibit the sale
and ownership of non lethal pepper rounds, which is what
Berner uses. And they even allow in the state people
(08:16):
to purchase their own pepper spray. The problem with pepper
spray is at that point, you're now close quarter. That's
called you know, at least if somebody's twelve feet away
from you and you pull out your burner launcher and
you can incapacitate them, that prevents them from taking your
weapon from you or having a physical altercation of which
(08:39):
most people are not trained or prepared for. And you know,
and the second thing that I noticed too, is the
Supreme Court has been very clear in their precedence that
it allows for the protection that the second member of
protects citizens right to carry weapons commonly possessed for awful
(09:00):
defensive purposes, including modern non lethal weapons. So when did
this come up in California.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
It has always been a restriction for us. We've gone
to great lengths to you know, implore legislation and lawmakers
in California. And you know, we are now going to
the airwaves, going to court to demand that the state
revisits their policies, and we're asking all Californians to pick
(09:34):
up the phone, call your state legislat leaders and you know,
demand that they give everyone in California the opportunity to
defend themselves and their families. I think this is probably
an overlooked policy, but it needs to be revisited in
a way where you know, we allow Californians in the yeah,
(10:00):
the era of just out of control crime and homelessness,
et cetera, to give them a chance to have something
that doesn't you know, leave them to resort to the
nuclear option, as we say. And you know, for us,
it's we're not trying to take a fight. It's about
(10:24):
saving lives. Burn is all about saving lives. We want
to work with lawmakers so Californias can legally access these
tools to protect their families. And you know, this is
we strongly feel this is covered and protected by the
Second Amendment and these things can coexist, and burn is
(10:44):
fighting to make sure that you know, the Californian lawmakers
understand our point of view and do what's right for
the for their citizens.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Well, I applaud you for what you're doing. It's unfortunate,
it's expensive to bring lawsuits. However, I do think if
you don't take a stand here, then these blue states,
you know, they're going to be like Domino's and they're
going to follow. There used to be a saying, so
goes California, so goes the rest of the country. I
(11:16):
don't think that's the case anymore because they moved so
far to the radical left. Did you ever have a
conversation or reach out to the governor?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
We are we in the past, we have talked to
organizations like DSIs, who manages security guards and those types
of folks, and you know, we're essentially shut down. At
one point, we had a program that allowed people to
take an no online class to have access to chemical
(11:48):
irriton rounds. But just overnight they changed that policy and
restricted us from doing that. And we've spoke to makers
in California on behalf of the citizens that we're calling
in and there people called this and say hey, what's
this all about, and we articulate our point of view
and saying, hey, we are on the side of saving
(12:12):
lives here, and he just didn't lead us very far
and very hard to get anything going from that standpoint. So,
you know, we had we were left with no other
option than to bring litigation so that someone can hear
us because we are we believe that we're doing the
(12:32):
right thing from a legal perspective, from a Second Amendment perspective,
and to protect the citizens of California. And Sean, you
and I were both California's at one point, and it's
a beautiful state, and so we're just trying to make
it safe for everyone and giving folks to empowerment to
go out and enjoy the freedoms that this great country provides.
(12:53):
And in a beautiful state like California, and you're afraid
to leave your own home because you think you're going
to get attacked, that's a travesty and it needs to
be changed and we need empower folks to you know,
enjoy all the freedoms that this great country provides.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Well, I got to tell you something. It is the
technology is superior. Again, I go back to I've never
been a big fan of tasers because if you're involved
in a conflict and it's a taser, that means you're
close quarter fighting. I have often said, if I'm close
quarters and people don't understand what I'm saying, if it's
close quarter confrontation, I would prefer dealing with a fire
(13:34):
ar close quarter pay close attention what I'm saying, then
a knife. It's much harder to defend against a blade.
And I say that, however, you don't want to be
in a position where it's that close that you need
a taser. You don't want to be in close quarters
where you need pepper spray at that point. Most people
(13:57):
don't have situational self defense skills. I've been training in
it for fifteen years. They're not going to be They're
going to be overwhelmed by a lunatic and they're not
going to be prepared for it, and usually they'll end
up with the weapon and not you. But by the way,
people should look at the videos to know exactly what
Berner offers. Just go to BYRNA dot com. And you're
(14:18):
not only an advertiser, but I believe in the cause,
So I want people to really know what their options
are out there, and you know this way, somebody's coming
at you the twelve feet, fifteen feet, twenty feet away,
you can incapacitate them and you don't have a risk
that they're going to be suing you after or you're
going to be arrested after. But anyway, we really appreciate
(14:40):
your time. Thank you so much for being with us.
Luan FOM, thank you. We appreciate it. BYRNA dot com.
And it's sad that it's come to this, especially in California.
But it's not a shock, is it. So we're in DC.
Marco Rubio has been too busy traveling the entire globe
and I went through the list last night of all
(15:01):
the areas around the world where you know he's been able,
along with the president to secure peace and that working
double time, over time, triple time to hopefully get a
deal with Russian Ukraine. I hope the killing stops. I
hope this piece in Europe. I hope the piece holds
in the Middle East as well. Here's my interview with
Marco Rubio's Secretary of State.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
I want to start this out with a fun question,
because there are really serious issues involving national security piece
around the globe. I mean, you're at the highest level
of discussions and we're going to get into a lot
of the hot spots and success and all that. But
I got to ask you. There's there's a show that's
come out. It's called The Age of Disclosure. Yeah, okay,
(15:41):
I know everyone probably that right, everyone asks you about it.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Sure, it's a new documentary.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
We had repeated instances of something operating in the airspace
over restricted nuclear facilities. It's not ours, and presidents operate
on a need to know base.
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Yeah, okay. That is So a couple points on it.
First of all, I'm not disavowing that I was an
interview that was done almost like maybe three or four
years ago when I was in the Senate, so it
wasn't recent. The second point I would make, I was
describing the allegations that people have come forward with the
people that came forward to us. You know, some of
these people were navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever that would come.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Forward and say.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
That there were programs in the US government that not
even presidents were made aware of. So I was describing
what people had said to me, not things that I
have firsthand knowledge of in that regard, a little bit
of selective editing, but it's okay because you know, you're
trying to sell a show there. But the fundamental comments
I haven't seen it, but the clips I've seen and
people have shown me are fundamentally true. And that is,
there are things we know this this has been documented.
There have been things that fly over the airspace, restricted airspace,
(16:45):
be it where we're conducting military exercises I like, and
everyone in the government says they're not ours. And so
what I worry most about, just me personally, is that
some adversary, another country, for example, has developed some asymmetric
capability for valance of the like that we just are
not prepared for. You know, we're looking for missiles and
(17:06):
fighter jets and they're coming at us with drones and balloons.
The one observation I had is we had people that
did very important jobs in the US government who are
saying these things. So we have people with very high
jobs in the US government that are either a liars,
B crazy, or c telling the truth. And two of
those three options are not good. Those three options, I
don't know the answer. I don't have any point of
(17:27):
You know, I don't want to call them liars. I
just don't have any independent way to verify everythings they said.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
I spent time.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
I've been talking to the mother of the National guardsmen
that's in a hospital here in d C. Who's clinging
to life. The issue of the vetting of Afghan nationals.
You know, we learned that so many of them had
so many warning signs. And I'll put up on the
screen the statistics we took in seventy six thousand. There
(17:54):
were over five thousand that never should have.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Made it into this country. We were sure to repeat.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
Leave by the Biden administration that they had been vetted.
There's no way that many of them could have been vetted.
Eight hundred and eighty six of them. Will put that
on the screen. Also are at large in the country
as we speak. Right, you put a pause on this.
The State Department has, the President has Christy Noma's spoken out,
where are we with all of this and how dangerous
(18:22):
is this?
Speaker 5 (18:22):
Well the pause is actually you know, we've announced it,
but in fact we've we've been much more careful since
we took over, with a lot of pressure on us
by the way to let more people in so many
of them served as interpreters alongside us in Afghanistan, and
so their lives were at risk. So we had a
lot of pressure to begin with, but we slowed that
process down from day number one to take an extra
look at people. Here's the problem with vetting people. You
can't have a perfect vet, no matter who that person
(18:44):
is for a couple of reasons. The first is we
don't You can only vet information that exists, right, so
it is possible that in many cases there are things
about these people.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
You just don't know no matter how much you vet them.
You just don't have certain information.
Speaker 5 (18:56):
And in some parts of the world where there's very
limited documentation, very limited, you can't just go out and
interview people. In many cases because of the presence of
the Taliban, et cetera, it becomes very difficult. The second thing,
you can't vet. You can vet what people have done
in the past. You can't vet what people might do
in the future. There's another dynamic at play here, and
that is you could allow someone into our country who
has no history of radicalization, perhaps they even have worked
(19:18):
with you in the past, but they are susceptible to
radicalization once they enter the United States because they don't
assimilate well, because they fall victim to some of this
online propaganda and efforts to radicalize people, and two or
three years later you find that they have radicalized.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
That is a threat, That is a real threat. It
is a threat for everyone.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
We have homegrown people people in the United States born
here that have been radicalized. But I do think it
is a higher threat among people that come from cultures
and backgrounds that make them make it harder for them
to assimilate once they get into the United States.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
And that make them vulnerable to Arabic.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Language, for example, a propaganda by ISIS or al Qaida
or any.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Of these other groups that are looking to radicalize people.
Speaker 5 (19:58):
So it's look, the bottom line is there is no
effective way to allow hundreds of thousands of people to
enter any country in the world and not face consequences.
You take one hundred thousand people from anywhere in the world,
and you're going to have some percentage of them to
turn out bad, either to turn into criminals or potentially terrorists.
I think that threat is heightened when you come from
places that have terrorist movement that would target these people
(20:22):
for odicalization once they enter our country.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
You know, there seems to be some misunderstanding I called
the Trump doctrine. I have my definition of it. Okay,
I agree with the president. I don't want America involved
in forever wars. Ever, again, I agree with that part,
But that does not mean isolationism. There seems to be
a group of Americans that misinterpret what the president means.
(20:47):
As an example, soon his first term, he wiped out
the Isis Caliphate. He took out Solo money on the tarmac,
he took out Magdady and associates. He dropped the mother
of all bombs on Afghanistan. You know, I don't know
how anybody could think the world's not a safer place
by taking out Rand's nuclear sites.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
That's not isolationism.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
That is American force used for good and twelve days
later Israel and Iran stopped fighting.
Speaker 5 (21:14):
But the way I would describe it, it's not isolationism.
It's also not adventurism, which is this argument that others
have fallen into that somehow there's a problem in the
world and the only solution to it is for the
United States to send military assets to go solve it.
What the President has done is he has Number one,
he defines what's.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
In the core national interest to the United States. There's
a lot of.
Speaker 5 (21:33):
Terrible things happening in the world, not all of them
are at our core national interest. Number two, he defines
what the outcome he wants, and number three, he takes
actions that are very specific and limited to getting the
outcome that's good for our country.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
So the case in point is irong Iran had these
nuclear facilities.
Speaker 5 (21:49):
We know what they were, We've known what they were
for a long time, and the president conducted a precise campaign.
It wasn't a prolonged war. It was a twenty four
hour operation. B two bombers left the mainland of the
United States, came over a defined target, dropped payload fourteen
missiles or fourteen rockets right into the holes of the
boilers the bunker of us, turned around and went home.
(22:11):
And that's it. It didn't involve five days of fighting.
It in't all fifteen days of fighting. It involved ground
troops or six months.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
He had a goal.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
The goal was we were going to destroy this nuclear facility.
We were going to obliterate it. He went in, he
did it, he got out, We were done.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
We achieved our objective. The objective was the destruction.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
Of the nuclear facility, which was achieved without entangling America
on something broader than that. That's a great example of
the limited and strategic and focused use of American power
to achieve something that's in our national interest.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
It was in our national interest not to have her
on have.
Speaker 5 (22:43):
A nuclear program that can be turned into a weapons
program that could one day threat in the United States,
and the presidents found an opportunity to do something about.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
It, and he did it.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
We talk a lot and a lot of people talk
in the Make America Great Again movement about America first,
and I believe in America first, but I also believe
that we have to insight wisdom understanding.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
That goes along with that.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
And it seems like every one of the examples I
just gave you where the President did use the might
of the US military, it's against radical Islam and that
threat I think, you know when people are chanting death
to Israel, when they chanting death to America, specific threats
against against our country. I have not forgotten nine to
(23:29):
eleven oh one. What is the nature of radicalism that
maybe some people don't understand, why it's in America's first interest.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Because ultimately, all radical Islamic movements in the world identify
you the West written large, but the United States in particular,
as the greatest evil on the earth. And every chance
to have the notion that somehow Radical Islam would be
comfortable with simply controlling some province in Iraq or Syria
is just not born.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Out by history.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply
to occupy one part of the world and be happy
with their own little califee. They want to expand. It
is a revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand
and control more territories and more people. And Radical Islam
has designs openly on the West, on the.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
United States, on Europe.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
We've seen that progress there as well, and they are
prepared to conduct acts of terrorism in the case of
Iran nation, state actions, assassinations, murderers, you name it, whatever
it takes for them to gain their influence and ultimately
their domination of different.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Cultures and societies.
Speaker 5 (24:33):
That's a clear and imminent threat to the world and
to the broader West, but especially to the United States,
who they identify as the chief chief source of evil
on the planet. The reason why they hate the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE of Bahrain
is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them.
That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it.
They hate Israel, but they also hate America, and they
(24:55):
hate anywhere in the world that we have influenced. They
seek to attack it, including here in the homeland. If
you look at the domestic terrorists, at the attacks that
happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been
inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Let me move to Venezuela and Venezuela, it seems like
America is showing its military presence. We've been taken out
in Arcro terrorists conflict about that. Pete haik Set, the
Secretary of Ward, addressed us earlier today in terms of
the chain of command and taking out the right decision
to take out these boats that are bringing drugs into
(25:33):
our country.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
They are killing Americans. Maduro has been.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
Basically told by the President to get out. We on
the verge of a possible conflict here now.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
So the a couple of things that I would say
about it. The first is what the president is authorized
as the.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Counter drug mission in the region.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
The fact that Maduro is upset about it tells you
the drugs are coming out of Venezuela. If you look
at these boats today, the Maduro regime is not a
legitimate government.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
What it is is that takes transhipment organization.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
It allows and other drugs that are produced in Colombia
to be trafficked through Venezuelan territory, and with the cooperation
of elements of the regime, are allowed to sail out
on airplanes and lead Venezuela on airplanes and ships headed
towards the United States, so they openly cooperate with the
drug dealers. In addition to that, the Venezuelan regime is
a source of instability in the entire region. Over eight
(26:21):
million Venezuelans have flooded into neighboring countries as a result
of the regime's activities within their own country, including into
the United States. They also happen to be the foothold
of Iran that's.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Not spoken about enough. Iran.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
It's IRGC and even Hesbolah has a presence in South
America and one of their anchor presents, especially for the Iranians,
is inside of Venezuela. So we we just finished talking
about Iran and the hostility it has towards the United States,
where they have planted their flag in our hemisphere is
on Venezuelan territory with a full an open cooperation of
that regime. So the fact that Maduro feels threatened by
(26:55):
the presence of US assets in the region and accounter
drug mission, it proves that he's into the drug business.
And by the way, we don't it's not me saying it.
I'm not just making this up. This was an indictment
that came out of the Southern District of New York
back in twenty twenty, an indictment. It was undisputed until
the President decided to do something about it. No one
disputed that Maduro was in the drug trafficking business.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
No one.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
Now that he's doing something about you have all these
people on the left and others that are coming out saying, well,
it's not.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
True and it hasn't been proven.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
We have an indictment by a grand jury, not by politicians,
by a grand jury in the Southern District of New
York that indicted him and a bunch of people in
the regime so.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
That's what's important to point out here.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
All right, that's going to wrap things up for it today.
Back in the Free State of Florida tomorrow, Thank goodness.
Loaded up tonight. You know, Scott Bessen is going to
explain the economy to everybody. It's important. Also, Senator John
Kennedy will join us. Also, we'll check in with Steve Miller.
He'll be with us tonight, and Christy nomanill be on
(27:55):
set as we're in Washington, DC all the we're going
to have our own little cabinet me basically say DVR
nine Eastern from the Swamp. Hannity back in the Free
State of Florida tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
We'll see you tonight.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.