BHS - 7A – Removing Police from Traffic Enforcement | Bump Stocks on Guns

Los Angeles OK’s study removing police from traffic enforcement. New rental developments are changing the suburban dream. Supreme Court strikes down ban on bump stocks on guns. Why ace golfers are scoring big in today’s job market.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
You're listening to bill Handle on demandfrom KFI A M six forty. You
are listening to the bill handle showno foolist police, no polist fat everywhere,
No coolist polist not foolist stuff byDlist. And this is KFI a

(00:23):
M six forty bill Handle here ona footy Friday, June fourteen. That
police overreach. What a topic itis. Ever since the murder of George
Floyd, obviously the police have beenunder the microscope and attacked a lot for

(00:44):
alleged and obvious and true discrimination andtreating people of color very differently, especially
young black men. So when endedup happening four years ago after George Floyd
was murdered in Minneapolis, reform advocatesand lass Angeles called for an end to
the city's reliance on police. Rememberthat defund the police or dismantle the police.

(01:08):
That was my favorite one. Imean, defunding was one thing.
Right. We want to take achunk of money away from the police department
and not have as many cops outon the street, because cops out on
the street put fear in the mindsof people of color, and everybody's uncomfortable.
And you know, the same YadAYadA stuff. And now that is

(01:30):
on one side of it. Andby the way, I have no problem
saying, yeah, that's probably truein many instances, and we can work
with the police, But do youreally want fewer police officers? Well,
yes, we want fewer police officers. Until that person gets a gun put
up to their head and say giveme all your money, you're on going

(01:51):
to blow your brains out. Thenthey're not so much against the police,
strangely enough, and then you havethe d the dismantle the police people.
I don't even want to go intothat. They're completely just out of their
minds. So this week the citycouncil authorized a study to figure out how
to deal with traffic without cops.Minor traffic stops. You both throw a

(02:14):
stop sign, police shouldn't stop you. You have a dangling one of those
air fresheners which you can't have,and the police use that as an excuse,
according to them, to stop you. And therefore the cops should just
let you drive with the air withthe air freshener. That shouldn't be the
basis of you being stopped. Bythe way the air freshener people really pushed

(02:35):
for that one. They lobbied infavor of that position. So the city
council wants to see adding more speedbumps, more roundabouts, street modifications,
we do speeding unsafe driving, andthat is the city council. Now originally
that was promised. And you havethe advocates of less policing or less involvement

(03:01):
of the police other than in majorcrimes. I mean, they're fine with
the police showing up at, forexample, murders, and they're okay with
armed robbery showing up. The copsshowing up. This has to do with
minor violations, and we don't knowwhat minor violations are because that is really

(03:22):
haven't hasn't been defined. That's whatthis study is about, but minor infractions.
As soon as they figure out whatminor infractions are, the police should
not get involved and what should be. They're not against people saying no to
that, but they are, theseadvocates are against the police getting involved.
And they want some kind of acivilian core that goes around and yeah,

(03:46):
how do you do that? Youhave a civilian corps that are higher and
they're in whatever cars they are andsomeone blows through and you know, registration
isn't on the car, and thecops say, we need that, we
need to slow down the rate ofcrime. I don't know if you've ever
been stopped by the police. Weall have. Everybody's gotten a ticket.

(04:08):
Can I have your driver's license,police and registration? And then go back
and for a few minutes you don'tsee the comp and he is running through
and he warrants out what your historyis to you? Is your driver's license?
Has it been taken away? Forexample? And that leads to people

(04:28):
being nailed for crimes that otherwise thepolice wouldn't be able to do. Uh
uh, can't do that anymore becauseyou don't stop people? And why because
these are people of color that arestopped more often? Okay, where that
is the other question? People ofcolor? For example, Oh, in

(04:51):
South Central, more people of colorare stopped, more blacks are stopped in
South Central? Well, yeah,why is that? Because there are more
blacks in South Central And this doesn'tseem for some reason, doesn't seem to
be in the mathematical mix. Sothe argument is going to be, once

(05:12):
again, the police should should notbe involved. Now, I have no
problem with de escalation, really pushinghard on that certainly going this code of
silent stuff. I mean cops whoknow and a matter of fact, it's
against the law. Now I havea code of silence. You know,
if a cop sees another cop committingany kind of a crime or covering it
up, they have to report it. Otherwise that cop is guilty of a

(05:38):
crime. You know, this bluecode of silence is quickly disappearing. And
so there are moves. There aremoves de escalation. Put down that gun.
Please, you know it's not thatbad. I understand you've just killed
four people, but let's not killa fifth. Okay, stop me if

(05:58):
you've heard this one, the escalation. But you don't think there's still that
boys club mentality? Yes, yes, I know. Rat don't rat yep,
yep, I do. And isthere such a thing as driving while
black? Absolutely? I have talkedto cops that simply deny it, and
I go, that is bull.There is a driving while back black syndrome.

(06:23):
We used to have the general managerof this radio station, Howard Neil,
just the greatest guy in the world, brilliant general manager, and he
left because a clitter channel came inand bought and they swept everybody out and
put their own people in so hehad to leave. And ye he was
hugely successful. Black man dressed intwo thousand dollars suits drove a Mercedes Benz

(06:49):
because they did. He did verywell here. He used to drive through
Beverly Hills to get to the station. He was stopped twice a week.
I have driven through Beverly Hills hundredsof times. I was never stopped.
There is such a thing as drivingwhile black. There's no question. All

(07:09):
right, yesterday big doings. TheSupreme Court. Supreme Court, unanimously,
it's a little unusual, rejected alawsuit challenging the abortion pill mefepristone, because
the challenge by the anti abortion folkswas that the FDA clearing that drug twenty
years ago was done improperly, andtherefore the drug should be illegal. By

(07:33):
the way, it's not because ofabortion. It's because of the health of
the mother in case this drug isgiven the fact that it was okay twenty
four years ago, and tens ofmillions of women have taken the drug,

(07:56):
that has nothing to do with it. It's for their health, is the
reason it out. Blew it out, not because of the merits of the
case, not because of what theA did or didn't do, or the
testing or the efficacy of the drug. It had to do with standing.
The court said, you the plaintiffswho are not affected. You want to
stop other people from taking mepha pristone. The court said, you don't have

(08:18):
standing. You're not you're not avictim of this. You know you've never
taken mepha pristone, you've never beeninjured by mepha pristone. You're just saying
that other people shouldn't take it.And the court said, nah, now
understood, understand your views, that'swhat they said, understand your feelings,

(08:39):
but you can't sue on behalf ofpeople that who have not been injured and
saying that we're afraid of injury tothose people because of the testing twenty years
ago was invalid. So they didn'teven talk about the merits of the case.
Now there's something new that I wantto share with you, and this

(09:01):
is a new way of renting.And usually when you rent in an apartment,
you rent a house with the yard. But how about this, how
about these huge subdevelopments right or thesehuge developments that are being built. They
are being built or being bought bydevelopers for the sole purpose of renting.

(09:24):
That's it. So you go outto one of these new suburban tracks where
people buy and that's typical, that'sthe American family. You want to get
into a three bedroom home with anice yard, maybe a pool if you
can afford it. Well, howabout this. You rent one of those
places. You're not buying, there'sno down payment, there are no taxes

(09:45):
that you're going to pay. You'rea renter. Tenants in these new communities
they're called build for rent saying welove it. We have big houses,
new houses at costs we can afford. Because the people that and buying these
properties, the big developers, longterm investors, not looking at flipping,

(10:09):
and people just get a deal andthey love it. And this is brand
new, and you've got major,major development companies coming around. Bill Shopoff,
who is a founder of shop OffRealty Investments and he's the owner of
soul Terra. In lakinta Commission toMarket study, there are about sixty thousand

(10:33):
households in southern California that would qualifyto live in three bedroom homes. Can't
qualify to build or buy, butto rent. And where do you go?
Well, you do it in theoutlying areas, sure as hell.
Don't do it in the San FranoValley where we are on the west side.
I mean, you can't do that. But they have one going up

(10:56):
in Lakinta, for example, andthere's one woman. People do that they
rent because they how about just tryingto live in a place we don't know.
There's a story about this one womanwho is renting in Lakinta because she
wanted to know whether or not shewould be affected that much by the heat

(11:18):
because it's hot. So what agreat way of doing it? You rent?
And so she was there for sixmonths and they tried to came back
and say, well what do youthink, but she had already died of
heat exhaustion, so they couldn't finishthe interview. Okay, we are done.
I was going to do a topicabout the vote presidential candidates, and

(11:39):
a survey just came out to saidhe just came out in California. But
I'm going to switch it up.This is what live radio is all about,
and it's kind of fun. Itjust came down Amy had reported it.
The Supreme Court, I mean minutesago, came down with the decision
striking down a federal ban on bumpstocks. I remember the shooting at the

(12:03):
in Las Vegas where what sixty eightpeople were killed. And a couple of
interesting things about this. Number One, it's the Second Amendment case, except
it's not a Second Amendment case.And I'll explain the other thing. This
is a ban on bump stocks.And as you can imagine, the gun
advocates fight any kind of control onany kind of a weapon because they believe

(12:28):
it's a slippery slope. If youallow the smallest gun control issue allowed to
become law, then you file thelawsuit and you are automatically are you's Second
Amendment. And this one seems tocome down the pike exactly on those terms.
And this here's an interesting one.It was President Trump that put down

(12:52):
into place the ban on bump stocksafter the fifty eight people were killed in
Las Vegas in twenty seven, themass shooting. It was the worst mass
shooting in the history of the UnitedStates. So the lawsuit came down and
the court struck down that ban six' three right there, conservatives versus versus

(13:13):
the liberals, and Clarence Thomas ofcourse wrote it. Who else would write
that here is from the decision.A bump stock does not convert a semi
automatic rifle into a machine gun anymorethan a shooter with a lightning fast trigger
finger does. Even with a bumpstock, a semi automatic rifle will only

(13:33):
fire one shot for every function ofthe trigger. Now, I am not
a gun owner or know very muchabout guns, and I immediately turned to
Neil, who is not crazy gunyou know, but knows about guns.
In a perfect world, you know, I wish there weren't any okay in

(13:56):
a perfect world. And I dobelieve in proper background checks. I do
believe in being you know, checkedon and regulated in all those things.
But I want to talk about thetech, the functionality and the engineering and
a weapon. You are not makingit a fully automatic weapon with a bump
stock, and that is what Iasked. The ban on bump stock was

(14:16):
challenged by a Texas gun store owner, and the prohibition was implemented, and
then he gave up the guns becauseI had bump stocks, and they sued
to get them back. And theentire question was not one of Second Amendment.
It was not the right to beararms. It was this ban based

(14:39):
on the fact that bump stocks makethe weapon a semi automatic weapon or a
fully automatic weapon from a semi automaticweapon. So Neil explain that what it
is, because you have a knowledgeof this, and if you depress a
trigger on a fully automatic, itwill just fire rapid fire, as fast

(15:03):
as the mechanics will allow it togo. It will shoot. On a
semi automatic, it will fire asfast as your finger can depress the trigger
one at a time. A bumpstock, or they do looping. Sometimes
they'll put their thumb in their beltloop and you can do a thing where

(15:28):
basically what it's doing is it's bouncingoff something shoving your finger back into the
trigger as quickly as possible. Soa bump stock really is bumping it back
against your finger, so your fingercan shoot faster than you mechanically can do
it. Okay, So the pointis so effectively can you get it fast
enough? I don't know what thosenumbers are to equate what you would consider
automatic, but mechanically it still isnot a fully automatic. Now are we

(15:52):
parsing words here? Absolutely? Okay, okay, because in reality, someone
has a trigger finger a very fastability to pull the trigger, and so
that's a one shot at a time. Okay, no matter how fast mechanically
it is, it has to gobe depressed right, then go out and
then be depressed again. Where afully automatic you just press it once,

(16:15):
you just press it and just holdit all right, So a bump stock
is somewhere in between. That makesthe trigger faster, but not fully automatic.
I would say that's absolutely right.So with that, Clarence Thomas,
and this was the majority, isdead ass wrong because he said that the
bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun fair enough

(16:40):
any more than a shooter with alightning fast trigger finger does. So even
with a bump stock, that semiautomatic rifle only fires one shot, but
he doesn't mention that it fires thatone shot faster than you can do.
It's not I don't know. Iwould say it's not intellectually honest, but
it's not exactly wrong either, becausehe's saying that if you can shoot it

(17:03):
really quickly. And I don't knowwho the fastest shoot shot is, but
let's say somebody has that prowess,that athletic ability to do that. I'd
have to compare the numbers between youknow, the fastest. Okay, let
me put it. Because if you'veever shot, I have shot a fully
automatic weapon, yeah, I wouldsay yeah. Through something I did for

(17:26):
the FBI once they allowed me toshoot a multiplicity of weapons, of which
a good number of them were fullyautomatic. It is a whole different experience
than shooting rapid fire on a semiautomatic. I understood. They come out
so rapidly that the sheer force.As a matter of fact, I had
friends that worked on the seventy seventhin gang Territory, and they said people

(17:51):
would come out with gun sideways,fully automatic gun sideways because they see it
in movies, and the force makesit go the opposite direction of the butt
of the magazine. So they wouldjust they know to go in the opposite
direction because you can't. It's veryhard to control. I guess fully automatic
understood, and you've done a goodjob of explaining that. So what the

(18:14):
court said, ignore the fact thata bump stock makes it closer to a
fully automatic and actually makes it closerfor ninety five ninety nine percent of the
people. If I have never touchedthe weapon, and I've never touched the
semi automatic and fired it, somy ability to shoot is as much as
I can pull a trigger as fastas I can pull it with a bump

(18:37):
stock, that's going to increase tremendously. Does it make it more deadly?
Which is the honest question? Yes, okay, and that's what the court.
So you could down more bullets,more harm. And that's that's where
I say it's not intellectually honest tosay it's just the same as book the
fact, it might be, butit makes the gun more deadly. Sure,

(18:57):
okay, just interject really quick toknow how fast you can go.
The guy who did the shooting inLas Vegas in twenty seventeen shot off over
a thousand rounds in eleven minutes.So what then we'd have to calculate that
against what a fully automatic would do. Well, No, I'm sure that
a fully automatic is going to gomuch farther and much quicker than that.

(19:19):
There's no question. The trick isto determine how fast it would go without
a bump stock versus how fast itwould go. But then you can argue,
I think with a bump stock thatyou're less accurate too, So then
you get to an accuracy versus Imean, it doesn't matter because if you're
shooting into a crowd of people.I mean, he wasn't shooting at anybody,

(19:41):
he was shooting at everybody. I'dsay a semi automatic is more deadly
in a crowd of people too,all right, Anyway, the court just
came down and it was a SecondAmendment decision pro Second Amendment kind of because
the courts often do that, allright. Now. It used to be
that executives would play golf with clients. I mean, that was sort of

(20:04):
the thing to do, and thenthat fell away because it gets in the
way of work. I was oftenasked to play golf, for example,
years ago, with some of ourbig clients, to do some schmooze,
and I never did. And Iwas asked, why you have a problem
with our clients. They go,no, there just isn't a one human

(20:26):
being on this planet that I wouldspend five and a half hours with.
It's just not going to happen.And so I was sort of out of
the picture on this one. Andfrankly, that was great for years because
I just did else. No onereally did that, except now it's coming
back like crazy. And this hasto do with standout golfers, very very

(20:52):
good golfers not quite PGA, PGAtour material but almost no hand are very
low handicaps. So what happens?Why are they doing so well? Business
is going after them. Companies aregoing after them, companies in finance,
consulting, sales industry recruiters are callingthem like crazy. The business golf outing

(21:19):
is now back. There's an executiverecruiter, Sean Cole, this is a
Wall Street Journal article, says hegets so many requests to find ace golfers
that he actually when he does hishead hunting, he records candidates handicaps.

(21:40):
That's part of his recruiting. Ashe sells these individuals, these people go
into the executive suite, go intothe sales suite. Now, he says
that golf isn't going to get youa great job, but not playing golf
could cost you the job. Andas he said, I know a guy

(22:03):
that literally flies around the world ina private jet loaded with French wine and
he golfs. That's what he does. He's an almost professional PGA tour material
golfer and he lands one hundred milliondollar deals on the golf course. And
why is golf all of a suddenso popular when we go back to tiger

(22:25):
Woods. Michelle, now Michelle weWest. I helped expand the participation.
In fact, what do we do? I asked this morning, and I
went to Syria. Of course,you know, Tiger Woods played high school
golf. Neil did. And TigerWoods was on the golf team in high
school. By the way, hisfirst PGA tournament as a high school golfer,

(22:48):
he was sixteen years old and heplayed a PGA tournament. How do
you think his team did? Heprobably carried him as my guess, yea.
The point is that, well,tiger Woods, of course is Tiger
Woods, but good golfers are upthere in terms of business. And they've
changed the rules too. I know, if you've ever gone golfing, and

(23:08):
I'm just reading the rules because Idon't golf once or twice I've gone minuture
golfing mini golfing, and I don'thave the patience for that either. I
just don't. It's just what canI tell you, you know? And
that's half an hour on that golfcourse, and I just don't have a

(23:29):
patient for it. So here's what'sgoing on on the golf course. They're
relaxing rules. You couldn't have mobilephone use on most traditional golf courses right
now. Huh, you go aheadall you want, because so many deals
are cut. A stat here,since twenty nineteen, the week day play

(23:51):
among executives and people who are atthat level has doubled, has doubled.
There's a financial advisor at a WallStreet bank, major Wall Street Bank,
was interviewed and he competes on theamateur circuit and says that he completes ninety
percent of his work by ten o'clockam because he's a long term investment a

(24:15):
long term investment counselor, and soit's not a lot of work because you
don't do much there and you don'tmake decisions daily. And he is a
member of a private club with amulti year waiting list. So these other
executives are jumping on playing golf withhim. They can't wait. They have

(24:36):
money. And there he is talkingto new clients on the golf course,
smoothing away and talking. That's back, you know what. The three martini
lunch is not back yet, itis it used to be. Remember Madman,
one of the best TV shows ever, ever, ever, is about
an advertising agency in the sixties.It was two hour, three martini lunches,

(25:03):
and of course those days disappeared becausepeople just don't do that. Is
that coming back? I don't know. I remember distinctly many years ago,
probably well over a decade, thatRobin Bertolucci are a program director and I
were partnering, trying to partner withone of the local television networks, and
one of the news directors came out, you know, bow tie, kind

(25:29):
of like old school news director stuff, and he put away at least three
martinis during that lunch, and Iwas like, wow, I thought this
was only a thing of television.Yeah, you know, who can do
that during lunch would be productive?All right, we're gonna go off the
AIRIC, so I'm gonna tell youa story about someone we know that I
can't do on the radio, whojust plowed through booze at lunch, I

(25:51):
mean came out of lunch and itwas a personality on the air. So
I still, that's very funny.Conyny Wow, Cono Island. Yeah,
Cono, Good for you, Codo. You know it's my job to be
funny, not yours. Okay,I just want to point that out.
You press buttons on it. Heactually pulls it off. I understand that.

(26:14):
That's that's why I'm getting so upsetabout this. All right, coming
up Foody Friday with Neil, hostsof The Fork Report tomorrow, and the
first thing we're going to talk aboutis something that has become huge. You
mayo or you mayo not like it? Yeah, oh, very good,
very good. This is my jobto be clever. Stop it, both

(26:36):
of you, Kono, Neil,stop it. Yes, sir. Monday
is going to be a very differentshow. I'll be doing a lot of
this work by myself. KFI AMsix forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
You've been listening to the Bill HandleShow. Catch my show Monday through
Friday, six am to nine am, and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.