The Gun Guy - Full Show - 8/16/25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in their arms shall not be infringed. This is the
Second Amendment, and this is the Gun Guy.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom
boom boom bang bang.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Bo Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
Welcome afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show here
on ninety three WIBC. Hope you're enjoying your weekend. Hope
you had a chance to get outside and bust some primers,
exercise your Second Amendment rights. You know, in the first
segment last week, I mentioned an event that I'm excited
about and I just registered for I didn't just register
for it, I signed my whole team up. I've got

(00:50):
a squad, got a team. We're gonna go out and
shoot in plays for a cause, which is coming up Thursday,
September eleventh, obviously an important date in this country's history.
And I can't imagine a better thing to do on
a date like that than go out, exercise your Second
Amendment rights and raise some money for the Salvation Army

(01:13):
and at risk children right here in Central Indiana. And
it's going to be at the Indiana Gun Club again.
It's Thursday, September eleventh. This is a fundraiser to send kids.
The Salvation Army is sending at risk kids to the
Hidden Falls Camp down in Lawrence County, down by Bedford, Indiana.

(01:34):
But joining me with much more in the way of
detail and information on this is Division Commander of the
Indiana Division of Salvation Army, Major Mark Johnson. Major Mark,
thanks so much for joining us here on the Gun
Guy Show.

Speaker 4 (01:48):
Oh, thank you so much for having me. It's pleasure
to be here.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
Absolutely So the Hidden Falls Camp. First of all, tell
me about the camp, because at the end of the day,
this event is really about raising money to send at
risk kids to that particular camp, is it not.

Speaker 4 (02:03):
That's correct. The Salvation Army has a long history of
bringing people to camp. Specifically, it started with inner city
families with the we're called fresh air camps because they
a lot of families that were poor didn't have any
way to get out of even the city for the summer,
so it provided a respite. And it's been part of

(02:24):
our history now for a long long time. And the
camp down in Hidden Falls is a beautiful seven hundred
acre camp with trails and indoor swimming pool. We have
outdoor activities like a zip line, high ropes, low ropes,
you name it. We do it for kids and in
for families as well.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
That's fantastic. Now, is this going to be all age
groups of kids or are we focused on particular age groups.

Speaker 4 (02:47):
Well, for the overnight camping, it's focused on basically six
year olds and up through eighteen. But there are other
family camps where the entire family can come and other
activities throughout the year.

Speaker 3 (03:02):
Well, tell me about Clays for a Cost coming up
on September eleventh, and you'll see my name on the roster.
I signed up my team this morning actually, and I'm
in it to win it. I'm a little competitive. I
come out there. I love shooting sporting plays. By the way,
it's one of the all time great shooting activities you
can possibly engage in. But tell me about the event,

(03:23):
give the specifics and if people are interested, how could
they possibly sign up?

Speaker 4 (03:27):
Sure? Well, the easiest way to sign up is Clays
for a Cause dot net And that's FLR, not a
number four. Clays for a Cause dot net And the
event really is like you said to help us raise
funds to our summer camp to help kids go to camp.
And the event itself will happen on September eleventh. Registration

(03:49):
starts at twelve thirty. We aim to get guys and
the ladies back on the road by five thirty pm,
so it'll be a nice afternoon. You get to shoot
fifty round sporting clays up at the beautiful Indiana Gun
Club Sporting Clays Course, and it's two hundred and twenty
five dollars for an individual person or eight hundred dollars

(04:10):
for a team of four, so you get a little
discount there for that. And we will have a short program,
awards program, and one of the most exciting things really
for me is, you know, there's always things to purchase,
and there'll be some great packages there that you can
bid on in a silent auction type thing. But we

(04:31):
do things a little bit differently. We have donated Bonelli
I believe it's an M two shotgun Nelly and everyone,
every paid shooter gets one ticket into the drawing for
that gun just for showing up and supporting us. Of course,
that's really pretty good odds because last year we had

(04:51):
about forty eight shooters, so you can improve your odds
there by purchasing a few more tickets and making a
donation for the Salva Army. So it's a fun event.
We have an MC by the name of mister Creek Stewart.
He's an outdoor wilderness survivalist right here from Indiana, lives

(05:12):
here in Indianapolis, and he has come out and actually
donated his time to teach at our Salvetion Army outdoor
camp in overnight camp for kids where they sleep in tents,
chop their own wood, cook over a fire, all those
kinds of things. On the Oh, yeah, it is cool.

Speaker 3 (05:28):
So when I talk to people about sporting play fundraisers
and I'm looking at the details on clays for a cause,
so we know there are answers to each of these things.
But I hear things like, gosh, I've never shot sporting
clays before. I don't really know what I'm doing. I'd
love to support this cause, but could I show up

(05:50):
and shoot an event like this and still enjoy it
even though I'm not an experienced shooter?

Speaker 4 (05:56):
You know, guy, I heard you say your team is
a little on the competitive side. That's wonderful, but it's
also for the person who's never done it before. The
Indiana Gun Club included in your registration is not only
your shotgun shells for the day in all the rounds
for the play shoot, but also if you don't have

(06:17):
a gun, they'll include a loaner shotgun for you and
we'll you'll go with some experienced people. It's a great
time to come and learn. So there's we're open for
all levels competitive. There are some pretty cool trophies in
the shape of a walnut clay pigeon, so yeah, they're
pretty cool and so but you do not have to

(06:40):
know how to do this or even own your own
shotgun to come and support the Salvation Army and have
a lot of fun.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
I'll say that is absolutely true. I've shotten a lot
of fundraisers at Indiana Gun Club in particular, and they
do such a nice job out there. There's some oversight,
there's a safety lesson at the beginning. The way this
stations are set up. You know, the thing I love
about sporting plays among so much I love about it,
but one thing I love is it's set up so

(07:08):
well for beginners. Because you stand up on the station,
you don't load your shotgun until your barrel's over. They're
railing on this station that's set up out there. There
are posts on either side, so you can only swing
the shotgun so far in either direction. The bird goes up.
Either hit it or you don't. And you know, you
shoot your four shots per station or so and go

(07:30):
on to the next one. And you know, it's not
like golf where you got to chase the ball off
into the woods. It's not like tennis where you got to,
you know, chase the ball that you've just hit over
the fence. You know, you stand up, you shoot, you
hit the bird, you don't hit the bird. You have
a great time. You learn as you go, you get better.
If you've never done it before, you'll get better station
to station to station. And I love watching beginners walk

(07:52):
out of there with a great, big, huge smile on
their face. And here they could do that because they
had a great time shooting sporting plays, but also because
they had a great time raising money for at risk
kids right here in central Indiana.

Speaker 4 (08:03):
Yeah, can I just tell you a quick story about
our summer camp at that outdoor living camp. One of
the activities was clay shooting, and right there on camp.
We don't have a sporting clays thing, but we could
throw some clays and there were young boys and girls
who had never shot before, and some were afraid to
do it. And they get up there and you're helping

(08:25):
them with their stance and they take their first shot
and oftentimes they miss, of course, but you know that second, third,
or fourth time and they hit a clay, their chest
just pops out and they got a grin from ear
to ear because you know, I did that, I accomplished something.
So it's about self esteem as much as having a
lot of fun.

Speaker 3 (08:45):
So beautiful time, Absolutely true. And listen the last question
before we reiterate how folks can get involved or get
signed up. But you know one thing about any form
of fundraiser, a lot of times people are worried. You know,
I'm not really sure where my money going. I'm not
sure if I'm going to spend money here in Indiana
and my money is going to be shipped off to

(09:06):
some other place in the country. I'm not really sure.
You know, who's going to benefit from my contribution to
something like this. And one of the reasons I love
working with Salvation Army and I'm so proud of WIBC
for doing the radio thon every year. It raises money.
Is we're working with the Indiana Division of Salvation Army,
and we know where our money goes when we participate

(09:29):
in an event like this or where we when we
raise money for Salvation Army Indiana.

Speaker 4 (09:34):
That's right, it stays here, it stays local. And you know,
you put money in a kettle in Bedford, Indiana, and
it's going to stay in Bedford, Indiana. It's going to
go to work right in that community. So all across
the state, we're at work in every single county across
the state in one way or another.

Speaker 3 (09:49):
And so we we.

Speaker 4 (09:50):
Serve Hoosiers, and Hoosiers support us. So we couldn't do
what we do without the support of the many great
Hoosiers who live in the state who say, Hey, I
want to help. I want to help others out who
maybe don't have it as as good as I do,
or have a need, ran into a problem that they
didn't see, and I'm going to help them over the
hump by helping the Salvation Army.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Fantastic. Well, I'll tell you what. Let's remind folks I've
heard this. They say, yeah, I want to do this.
I want to register my team of four for eight
hundred bucks, or I want to register as an individual,
which is fine. They'll get put on a team, you know,
and be able to participate for two hundred and twenty
five for an individual. Somebody wants to get involved, how
again do they go do that?

Speaker 4 (10:30):
Best way is just to go to our website plays
for a Cause, plays fo r for a Cause dot
net and you can register right there get more information.
It'll give you all the details. September eleventh. Registration starts
at twelve thirty. We're going to be shoot on the
course by two. We're going to have supper together around

(10:51):
four thirty, and by five thirty after our program and
of course that drawing for that Benelli shotgun, along with
the other great things that you could purchase. Uh, we'll
be out of there by five thirty, quarter to six.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
Fantastic. Well, Major Mark Johnson, Division Commander, Statelisian Army, Indiana,
thank you so much for joining us. I will see
if you're gonna be out there. I hope you are.
I'll be out there. I'd love to shake your hand
because I'll show be there on September eleventh. That plays
for a cause, So thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (11:20):
Looking forward to it.

Speaker 3 (11:21):
All right, God bless you too, sir. That is it
for this segment. We're going to take a break. We'll
be right back. We'll take your phone calls throughout the
show as we always do. Three one seven two three
nine ninety three ninety three three one seven two three
nine ninety three ninety three. This is Guy Ralford on
The Gun Guys Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
Second to nine on this second amendment, this is the
Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (11:55):
Man, welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. Thank you for joining us.
By the way, you can also join the YouTube feed.
If you're to watch the video, there's a chat feature.
I think that's why most people use the YouTube feed.
As I've always said, watching the video of the show
isn't necessarily much to look at, but people ask questions

(12:18):
and have interaction, and I think enjoy the chat features.
So if you just go to YouTube search for ninety
three WIBC, you'll see the Gun Guy right there listed.
And by the way, most of the shows here at
WIBC are also broadcast on video on YouTube, so feel
free to observe those other shows as well. I was

(12:40):
reading in m o Land Sporting I should say, let
me rephrase that Moland Shooting Sports News. M o Land
Shooting Sports News was a really interesting article, and one
of the columnists there, a guy named Dave Kadrilla, posted

(13:00):
an article where he was essentially reminding President Trump of
a pledge that President Trump made first when he was
running for president in twenty fifteen, running there before his
first term, and then also as a first term president
in twenty eighteen, two different times publicly, President Trump made

(13:21):
a pledge to end the current prohibition for members of
our military carrying their personal firearms on military basis as
of today. And listen, I never served in the military,
and there are going to be people out there listening

(13:42):
that know infinitely more about this subject generally and how
the logistics of this work. And please call in join
the discussion and share your experience and information you've gleaned
through military service in particular. I would love to hear it.
One thing I do know is that most military bases,

(14:04):
other than posted sentries, posted guards or people do specifically
assign to security detail on the base. Generally speaking, the
military bases are gun free zones, as ironic as that sounds,
and carrying of personal firearms, including personal handguns, for instance,

(14:27):
is strictly forbidden in most military bases. And this has
come up a number of times because of the number
of times that we've had shootings, including mass shootings, on
military basis. And I remember there was a shooting at

(14:47):
a recruiting station, and I want to say this was
in It was in Tennessee. It was either Chattanoogat or Nashville,
and there was a shooting at a at a recruiting station,
and then on I believe it was a a reserve base,
and a bunch of people were killed, and at one
point that you had soldiers who were running to the
armory trying to get guns to address the fact that

(15:11):
there was a mass shooting going on on the base.
And after that, I was very pleased to say that,
I believe it was Governor Pennce at the time came
out and announced that he was reversing the policy of
no guns on army reserve bases, or excuse me, on
National Guard bases. Don't let me screw that up. On
Indiana National Guard bases and actually came out and said

(15:34):
that if National Guard soldiers guardsmen had been through training
with handguns, they could carry personal handguns while on Indian
National Guard basis. And I know this because I participated
in some degree, because I was asked to come down
and teach the NRA Basic Pistol course to a whole bunch,

(16:00):
a whole bunch of Indiana guardsmen, Indiana National Guard guardsmen
at the Johnson County Armory down a little south of Indianapolis.
Went down, we had a whole big room full of
people that did the NRA Basic Pistol course, and the
whole reason we were doing that fell a little odd
as a civilian teaching guardsmen. I'm sure there were people

(16:22):
in there who had been active duty, had been snipers,
had been part of you know, seeing combat, carried guns
all over the world. I mean, I'm sure there were
people in there with an incredible amount of experience. But
in order to carry their personal handguns on a National
Guard base, they had to go through some form of training.
And this is one of the forms of training that

(16:43):
was acceptable. And there were several of us and went
around the state offering this training, but that was limited
to the Indiana National Guard. And here the article I
just read in Amo Land was reminding President Trump essentially
to say he had promised in twenty fifteen again in
twenty eighteen to end the prohibition of members of the

(17:06):
military being able to be armed while on base. And
this was after a shooting at Fort Stewart in Georgia,
I believe, where you had five people hurt. And unfortunately
that wasn't a one time event. We've had two different

(17:28):
shootings what you think you could accurately portray as mass
shootings at Fort Hood in two thousand and nine, an
army psychiatrist, of all people who had reportedly become radicalized,
he was a follower of Islam and had reportedly become radicalized,

(17:52):
and he killed thirteen people at Fort Hood. And that
was I believe the second shooting at Fort Hood. He
is currently sitting and I'll repeat these people's names. If
they want to gain notoriety by being mass shooters, they're
not going to get any contribution from me. But we

(18:14):
had a shooting at the Washington Navy Yard done by
a defense contractor. Again earlier shooting at Fort Hood. No,
it was later, it was twenty fourteen another soldier at
Fort Hood, this time armed with a forty five caliber pistol,

(18:35):
started shooting soldiers at Fort Hood. You had a shooting
at Pearl Harbor in twenty nineteen at the Joint Base
Pearl Harbor, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Pensacola Naval Air Station.
We'll get the whole thing out there, and the list
goes on. And when you have these shootings on military basis,

(19:00):
it makes me just abundantly curious as to why we
don't trust our soldiers, particularly if you're going to make
sure they have the adequate level of training for the
weapons system at issue. While we don't allow our members
of the military the capacity to defend themselves, it seems
like if we should trust anyone the capacity to defend themselves,

(19:22):
it ought to be members of our military. And again,
if you have thoughts on this, if I'm not getting
the current policy exactly correct, please give us a call.
Join the discussion three one seven two nine ninety three
ninety three. But the article I'm reading says specifically that

(19:46):
President Trump allowed excuse me, President Trump promised to allow
weapons carry and ultimately concealed carry of personal side arms
starting back in twenty fifteen. He repeated that promise in
twenty eighteen. And that's because the possession of firearms and

(20:13):
use of force in terms of the rules in place
currently on military basis currently forbids all that. So if
you have an opinion on that, I'd love to hear it.
In the meantime, I like the fact President Trump is
being reminded of this. And listen the most recent shooting,
this one at kempst or Fort Stewart in Georgia. Apparently

(20:36):
five people hurt. They're all going to make it. That's fabulous,
But that hasn't always been the case, including thirteen soldiers
killed at in Fort Hood. And it seems to me
it's appropriate to revise that policy and allow our soldiers
the capacity to defend themselves while on a military base.

(20:57):
With that where at the bottom of the hour, we're
going to take a break, we'll come back switch get
a little bit. This is Guy Ralford on The Gun
Guy Show on ninety three wibc's.

Speaker 1 (21:10):
The show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
And welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show.
On ninety three WIBC tell you what. We just wrapped
up a discussion on the fact that President Trump is
being asked to follow through on a promise he made
some time ago to allow the carry of personal side
arms on military basis after we had yet another shooting

(21:42):
on a military base, and Roy has called in and
wanted to comment on that. Roy, Welcome to the Gun
Guy Show.

Speaker 5 (21:49):
Thank you sure, first time caller, a longtime listener.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
Oh, I appreciate you calling. What you got for us.

Speaker 5 (21:57):
Well, I was gonna say, no, there's no way he
could do that or should do that. I mean, full disclosure.
I was in the early nineties, probably one of the
last to get blood wings graduating. But it's a stressful environment.
Lots of young men and people lose it. And it's
not like in movies. The weapons aren't just out on

(22:18):
the table where you walk up and grab what you want.
The armorer has him. He has to have orders to
issue them out right.

Speaker 3 (22:25):
But if you get a mass shooter on base, is
that a good thing or a bad thing.

Speaker 5 (22:29):
That's a bad thing. Yeah, but you'd hope that you
have MP's which now I can't really speak to their
policies but I'm sure they are armed, but how close
are they?

Speaker 3 (22:39):
Yeah? Yeah, it's it's the old it's the old. It's
the old issue. I mean it's the same with school
shootings and any mass shooting. Yeah, you've got armed people,
but there are some distance, some time away. And you know,
like you say, a cop is minutes away when seconds count? Well,
an MP or a century is probably minutes away when

(23:00):
when when seconds count? And and Roy listen, I get
your point, and I never served, And that's the reason
I was inviting callers on this issue. You know, people
who've been through the environment, and I think you raise
a great point where you know you've got you've got
young people. They're going through a stressful time and a
strustful environment that is stressful on purpose. Right, it's part

(23:21):
of the training jacket comes to money. Yeah, yeah, that's
about the whole basis of my knowledge is watching movies
on the subject. But so I I fully get your point,
But at the same time, I can't help but find
it problematic that people who who would be trained that
would be a requirement and so have the appropriate level

(23:42):
of training, not being trusted with their own personal handgun
when they're of age to do so, can do so
as soon as they get off the base, but aren't
allowed to do so by our military, and soldiers have
died as a result. And so I do I get
your point, and I thank you for your call, but man,
this is one I think we need to take a

(24:04):
second look at. And I was thrilled again it was
Governor Pence who said, you know what, We're not gonna
let this happen on at least Indiana National Guard basis
and said, hey, if you get the requisite amount of
training and kind of training, we'll let you carry your
personal handgun while you're serving in the Indiana National Guard.
And I consider that a very good thing. I just

(24:25):
you know me, I'm a two way guy, and I
think anytime you start restricting people's rights in the name
of quote unquote, you know, the greater good or quote
unquote public safety, and in the meantime, you're stripping people's
rights away. And listen, you voluntarily relinquish some rights when
you go into the military. And I fully appreciate that,

(24:45):
I really do. And I think Roy makes a great
point about, hey, gosh, you wanted a bunch of guns
floating around when people are in this high stress environment.
But I still fall back on my baseline position, which is,
if you're an adult you can lawfully carry a gun,
you're in a situation where you may need to defend
yourself at some point. Since we see military bases as

(25:07):
targets for mass shooting, just like supermarkets and churches and schools,
than in my mind, an armed presence is necessary, and
there's no better arm presence in terms of response time
than having an individual right there and available. But let's
switch gears a little bit. We have a little bit
of time here before the next break. Supreme Court is

(25:30):
being asked to hear yet another two a related case,
and we just saw a petition. We call it a
petition for circiarrari. What's circierrari. That's just where the US
Supreme Court is just asked to review a case. Typically
someone who's lost at a lower level, typically in the
Court of Appeals for one of the federal circuits, and

(25:54):
a person who lost below or didn't get the ruling
they were looking for in the circuit Court of Appeals
will ask the Supreme Court to take a look at
the case. That's the most common route. There are some
other routes. To get to the Supreme Court, but we'll
leave it there for now. And you do that by
asking the Supreme Court to review the case filing what's

(26:14):
called a petition for schiari or a lot of times
you hear that just abbreviated to petition for certain Well,
the most recent one, and there are a bunch of
certain petitions pending on two a related cases and a
couple are in committee and are going to be considered
by the Supreme Court in terms of whether the Supreme
Court takes them or not. By the way, what does
it take for the Supreme Court to take a case?

(26:38):
Get this, This is not in the Constitution, it's not
in a federal statute. It's just tradition. And the tradition
in the Supreme Court is that if four justices four
out of the nine, so it doesn't even take a
majority if four justices want to hear a case the
Supreme Court. Here's the case called the rule of four. Well,

(27:01):
there are number two related cases, and I'm going to
talk about some of the other ones, and I'm going
to prioritize a little bit here in the discussion. But
one of the newest ones is the prohibition in California
on so called high capacity magazines, that is, ammunition storage

(27:21):
devices used in firearms that hold more than ten rounds
ten California calls it a high capacity magazine that they've banned,
and they did this in increments. They started by banning
the sale or importation into California of these so called
high capacity magazines, and then they prohibited the possession of

(27:47):
them altogether. You had to destroy them, turn it into
law enforcement. So you couldn't buy and couldn't even possess
a magazine more than ten round because that is a oh, no,
high capacity magazine. How many modern handgun just modern handguns

(28:11):
carry more than ten rounds. Shoot. I've got a little
one of the original P three C sixty five six hours,
a little sig P three sixty five, one of the
first ones that came out, and they come out with
They have come out with various other versions of it
since then, but the original one comes with a ten

(28:33):
round magazine in it. But you can get twelve round magazines,
fifteen round magazines for and now I carry it with
a twelve round magazine and it's a little gun. And
one of the things I love about the gun, it's
one of the guns I carry most often. I actually
have a sig three to sixty five x Macro, which
is seventeen plus one in a compact package. But I

(28:55):
carry that little three sixty five or a twelve round
magazine in it, and it's tiny. It disappear when you're
carrying it. And California would put me in prison for
having that twelve round mage. Am I gone? And that's
exactly what this case that Supreme Court is being asked
to review by the National Rifle Association and a couple
of other litigants in that case, because the Ninth Circuit,

(29:20):
through incredibly twisted form of logic, said oh no, that
ban is just fine under the Second Amendment. And so
this is one of the cases of the Supreme Court
is going to consider. I'm going to talk about some
of the other ones. I'm going to talk about what
the legal issues are associated with a so called high
capacity magazine ban, but also some of the other pending

(29:41):
cases and cases that need to be reviewed and resolved
and overturned frankly by the US Supreme Court. I'll tell
you what. We're a little past three quarter an hour,
but before we do, Steve has called in and also
wanted to talk about the military and firearms on base,
And so before we go to the break, let's bring
Steve and Steve, thanks for your call.

Speaker 6 (30:02):
You're thing. Hey, So I was prayer military, I lived
on base, and I had shotguns and pistols with me
on face. It wasn't a problem your earlier caller who
talked about you know that kids. They're young men who
can can lose their temper.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (30:25):
You've got a lot of the people who live in
family housing that can be armed. But the big problem
with all the service member being able to do it
is what do they do at night? How do they
secure it in the ferry at night?

Speaker 3 (30:39):
Yeah, Yeah, it's a great.

Speaker 6 (30:41):
Would be a major stumbling block.

Speaker 3 (30:44):
Yeah, it's a great point, Steve. I mean, you really
would need, you know, a some kind of secure lock
box or safe or something along those lines, or have
the capacity to you know, have them walked up but
still accessible. It seems to me, well, how did that
work with living in private housing that was still on base.
How did the regulations work? Because I'm assuming you weren't

(31:06):
just willfully violating military regulations by having your personal firearms
in a private residence that happened to be located on base.
How did the regulations work on that?

Speaker 6 (31:18):
You're you're allowed to if you lived in government housing,
you were allowed to have your firearms. If you lived
in the barracks and you wanted and you had firearms,
they had these things they called rod and Gun clubs,
which basically a private club on base that you would
store your personal firearms at. And they're usually open, you know,

(31:41):
certain hours and on the weekends and stuff. It's it's
kind of like an NCO club, but not so much
with the alcohol. But it was set up for, you know,
for storing the firearms for people who lived in the barricks.
You could not have a firearm in the barracks. That
was forbidden completely and I assume you couldn't now government

(32:03):
now did not apply.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Okay, But even if if if you were allowed, even
though you were allowed to have your your your personal
firearms in a private residence on base, you couldn't go
walking around the base carrying your handgun. Could you?

Speaker 6 (32:17):
Off duty?

Speaker 4 (32:18):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (32:18):
Really?

Speaker 6 (32:19):
Because off off off duty, I could I could go home,
get off work, you know, go home, grab a gun
and and go to the local gun range and go shooting.
There was no problem. I didn't have to check with anybody.

Speaker 4 (32:32):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (32:32):
It was a right given to me under the Second
Amendment and perfectly legal on base.

Speaker 3 (32:37):
You bet that I could.

Speaker 5 (32:38):
I could.

Speaker 6 (32:39):
I could take it out of my Uh. Back then
I was a little younger. I didn't have a safe,
I didn't have as many firearms, so but I kept
it in a filing cabinet with a key lock.

Speaker 5 (32:50):
I got you, But I could take it out.

Speaker 6 (32:53):
We'd go to the gun range, go shoot, uh, and
then go back and put it away.

Speaker 3 (32:58):
Gotcha. Well, listen, Steve, thanks so much for calling. I'm
a little late getting into this break, but I appreciate
the additional information. And right now we are taking a break.
This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Your Rights, Your Responsibilities, your guns. This is the Gun
Guy with Guy Relford on three WYVC.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
And we've got a little bit of a short segment. Heres.
We sometimes at the top of the hour ear on
the Gun Guy Show. But high capacity magazine ban Now
at the outset, there's an argument out there, and you
hear this from anti gun people all the time that well,
if we're talking about a high capacity magazine ban, then

(33:48):
that's not even covered by the Second Amendment because it's
not a firearm, and only firearms are covered by the
Second Amendment. You hear that argument all the time. Well,
first of all, the Second Amends doesn't talk about firearm.
It talks about arms. The right of the people to
keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. Gun firearms

(34:13):
not in there. And a magazine for a semi automatic
firearm and semi automatics are obviously highly, highly popular and
definitely in common use. Well, they require a magazine to function.
Some they require a magazine to function at all because

(34:34):
they have what we call magazine safeties on them. They
simply won't function less some magazine's inserted, but for others
won't function beyond one shot. So a component of a
firearm that's essential for that firearm to function is part
of what we call arms in this country. Of course,
have ruled on that point, so we can get beyond that.

(34:54):
Next question is are so called high capacity magazines, that is,
those that hold more than ten rounds? Are they commonly
used for lawful purposes here in the United States? Where
does that come from, how does that enter into it?
And what are the other cases before the Supreme Court.
We would like to see rulings on We'll get into
all of that when we come back in our number

(35:14):
two on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (35:19):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the
Second Amendment. And this is the Gun Guy a boom
boom boom.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
Boom bang bang bang bang boom boom, boom boom bang bang.

Speaker 1 (35:44):
Bo Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
And welcome back for our number two The Gun Guy
Show here on ninety three WIBC. We're thrilled here with us.
As I was talking about before the break, there's a
case where a petition for Sushirara that is requested the
Supreme Court to review. The case was just filed yesterday
and this is Duncan versus Bonta, and it's a lawsuit

(36:13):
over California's ban on any magazines that is ammunition storage
device used in semi automatic rifles and pistols and shotguns
for that matter, some shotguns, and it is asking the
Supreme Court to declare a ban on magazines over ten

(36:34):
rounds to be unconstitutional. So what are the legal issues
in this Well, First of all, you go back to
the Heller case, the Supreme Court case in two thousand
and eight, and the Heller case was over Washington DC's
really total ban on handguns the way Washington, DC, and

(36:54):
by the way, Illinois or rather the city of Chicago
had a complete ban on handguns as well, and that
was overturned two years later in twenty ten in the
McDonald's case, but in Heller in Washington, d C. And
this is noteworthy now given what's going on in Washington

(37:16):
where President Trump has nationalized National Guard and otherwise nationalized
law enforcement to a large degree in Washington, d C.
In order to regain control over what has been and
out of control geographic area for a long long time,

(37:38):
with incredibly high rates of carjackings and robberies and whatnot.
And it's come out lately. They've been fudging the numbers
to try to say crime is down, but it looks
to be a problem just anecdotally, the number of people
who simply can't drive through Washington without getting cargas or

(38:00):
robbed or murdered or some combination thereof. But Washington DC
in two thousand and eight, until the Heller decision was
handed down, had a ban on handguns. And the way
they did that is they said, well, you can't own
a firearm at all unless you get a license to
possess that fire This isn't to carry a gun. This

(38:21):
is just to possess a gun at all. And you
can't possess a gun at all in Washington, d C.
Unless the district issues you a license. And oh, by
the way, we don't issue licenses for handguns. There you
go a complete ban on handguns. In addition, any firearm
you did have in your home had to be rendered

(38:44):
completely inoperable by you either being completely locked up or
disassembled such that it could not function. And those two
components of Washington d C. Law went ultimately up to
the Supreme Court in case DC versus Heller, and the
Supreme Court first had to deal with the issue. And

(39:06):
I've mentioned this here on the show before because it's
so incredibly important and we only one I say we that,
as people who actually care about their Second Amendment rights,
we only won on this issue by one vote. This
is a five to four decision on this point, and
by one vote. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second

(39:26):
Amendment's preparatory clause that is, a well regulated militia being
necessary to security of a free state, that that didn't
limit the application of the Second Amendment or the protection
against infringement of the Second Amendment, that it wasn't limited
to those people serving in an active organized government military unit.

(39:51):
Today for you and I, it would be the National Guard.
If you're not in the National Guard, there is no
right to possess a firearm, which, by the way, is
an interesting discussion given that argument as it relates to
what we just finished talking about now our number one,
which is banned on military personnel being able to have

(40:12):
personal firearms on base. That sounds like a law review
article that needs to be written. But by one vote,
the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the reference to
well regulated militia in the Supreme Court in the Second Amendment,
I should say, doesn't limit the application or the protection

(40:37):
of the Second Amendment only to those in the militia
for an organized military unit. But they went on from that,
and that was a foundational issue. We lost that one boom.
Private citizens have no rights protected by the Second Amendment
period and by one vote, Well, you don't think elections

(40:59):
may and who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices. Had
that gone the other way, it'd be a different world
right now, right here in these United States.

Speaker 5 (41:13):
But the.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
Issue of the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment,
as determined in the Heller decision went beyond that. And
they also said, well, we need to consider whether handguns,
which were the subject of the litigation there in that case,
due to Washington, DC's ban on handguns, whether handguns are

(41:39):
even armed protected by the Second Amendment. Because you and
I might disagree, by the way, and I think there's
a very logical legal argument for why this is wrong.
But courts have held in Supreme Court, even within the

(41:59):
Heller Discis vision, held that the Second Amendment does not
necessarily apply to all arms of any kind whatsoever. And
our own beloved President Biden during his term would often say,
the Second Amendment doesn't give you any right to possess

(42:20):
any firearm whatsoever, any arm whatsoever, any weapon whatsoever. Well,
that part the Supreme Court agrees with, unfortunately, But he'd
then go on to say he can't own a canon
or and I forget his other common example of what

(42:40):
you could known. He said, well, you couldn't own a
canon like even the time of the founder, you couldn't
known a cannon. Well, you sure as hell you could.
The hell there were private ships called privateers that had
rows of cannon on them, and local citizenry who wore
the Yes, militia had cannon out the wazoo. But at

(43:01):
any rate, the Supreme Court has said you can't own
any firearms whatsoever. So the issue is if you can't
own any arm or weapon whatsoever the least according to
the Supreme Court, what arms are covered? And whatever arms
are covered, do they include handguns? And then the Heller
decision court came out and said, well, handguns are commonly

(43:24):
used for lawful purposes by United States citizens, and we
think that's the test. Handguns are the overwhelming favorite for
people to carry or possess or even having their home
for self protection. And self protection is part of the rights,
not all, of the motivation for their founders to have
passed the Second Amendment, because we know the reference to

(43:49):
necessary to the security of a free State refers to
the need to protect the citizenry to protect itself from
a trannical gun FN, but certainly personal security and protection
is part of that, as well as putting food on
the table, as part of the inherent right that the

(44:09):
founders were attempting to protect. And so there is a
right to self defense, There is a right to personal protection.
There is a right to defend your family and your home.
And that right extends to those arms commonly used for
lawful purposes in the United States, including those particular purposes,

(44:29):
and handguns fall within that definition or that scope. Okay,
that's great. We went on from there, and by the way,
they rejected the limitation to militia, they rejected the well
regulated part. How many anti gunners have you seen out
there on social media? Well, it says right there, well regulated.

(44:50):
That means lots of laws. That means highly regulated by
the government. And you can't oppose gun control laws when
that's what that's what well regulated means. Supreme Court addressed
that issue, said, no, well regulated, as used at the

(45:11):
time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, simply meant
well functioning, capable of its doing its job. With respect
to the local militia, it was being well trained and
well equipped. Well regulated had nothing to do with regulation

(45:32):
by the government. And wouldn't it be a ridiculous thing
for the Founders to do, to be listing personal liberties
that shall not be infringed by the government. That's what
the Bill of Rights was. That's what the Bill of
Rights is. It's a list of personal liberties that the
Founders thought so important part of the unalienable rights referenced

(45:54):
in a separate document, the Declaration of Independence. They wanted
to list them civically and say these shall be inviolate,
these shall not be infringed. And they listed them. And
wouldn't it be ridiculous for the same people who wanted
to list civil liberties that the government could not infringe

(46:17):
and use well regulated to mean regulated by the government.
It defeats the purpose, the specific publicly announced purpose, declared
purpose of the entire Bill of Rights as added to
the Constitution effect of seventeen ninety one. Here are a

(46:41):
bunch of rights that shall not be infringed by the government. Oh,
by the way, this particular right shall be well regulated
by the government. No, they meant just the opposite, and
the Supreme Court dealt with that. So now let's bring
it back to the pending petition for Cerciarai just filed yesterday. Well,
not well regulated on high capacity magazines. Are they arms, Yes,

(47:07):
they're essential to the function of some of those popular firearms, rifles, pistols,
and shotguns in this country. Are they commonly used for
lawful purposes? Well, of course they are. Yes. There are
still people who carry revolvers. I know many of them,
and I respect them, and I understand the reasons why

(47:29):
they do so. But some automatics are by far the
most popular handguns for people to care. Some automatic rifles
the most popular rifles in America. Shotguns, Yes, I don't
know that I would put semi automatic shotguns necessarily at
the top of the list on most popular actions for

(47:49):
shotguns given over and unders and pump action shotguns and
side by sides, and a number of other actions employed
by chutgun manufacturers. But they're clearly commonly used. They don't
have to be at the top of the list. The
most popular, the most common just have to be commonly
used in shotguns as well. So yes, they're commonly used

(48:12):
for lawful purposes. Well that The only remaining issue then
comes out of the Bruin decision from twenty twenty two
and the test. There is a separate test and this
is is this really clarified? Heller to a large degree,
and gave us a new test to employ. Gave us

(48:34):
the test to employ. When I say us, I mean
the courts determining whether a particular gun control law is
constitutional or not out of the Second Amendment? What is
that test? How does that apply to high capacity magazines
or any of the other issues the Supreme Court is
being asked to take right now into the Second Amendment.
That's what we'll get into when we come back. Right now,

(48:55):
we're taking a break. We will continue to take your
calls as we have throughout the show. Three one seven
ninety three, ninety three three one seven, two nine three
ninety three. This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC in contry.

Speaker 3 (49:21):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So the Bruin decision came
out twenty twenty two, I believe Supreme Court, and this
dealt with New York's restriction on the ability to carry
a handgun outside the home, and so the Court had
to address the issue okay, Well, Heller said, this's the

(49:43):
right to possess a handgun. What about carrying one for
your own protection outside the home? And then separately, how
do we decide what test do we apply? We know
the Second Amendment is not limited to members of the military. Hey,
that's great, we knew that from Heller. We know that

(50:04):
commonly owned and possessed firearms or arms used for lawful
purposes are covered. Okay, But as to any additional restriction,
what's the test that should be employed? And courts all
around the country, especially those that were upholding gun control laws,

(50:27):
a lot of them, were using of sort of a
balancing test. They say, well, is there a compelling state
interest is involved, a compelling government interest in this gun
control law? And then what's the degree of infringement on
a core protection that is afforded by the Second Amendment?

(50:49):
And so, in other words, it was like, well, some
level of infringement is okay, and the level of infringement
is okay in particular cases, even a significant level of
infringement on a constitutional right is okay if there's an
important enough governmental interest involved. And I always hated that test.

(51:14):
I hated that test with a passion of a thousand sons,
because because it's anathetical what the founders were trying to do,
they didn't say the right shall not be infringed unless
the government really really wants to, or because the government
thinks it's really really important, shall not be infringements, shall

(51:37):
not be infringed. And this balancing business, in my mind,
was always flawed. And any court, whether it was an
assault weapon band or any other gun control law, you
want to talk about high capacity magazine anything, courts could
always come out and say, oh, well, yeah, because of
this incredibly important governmental interest, because oh gosh, you know,

(52:02):
we're trying to keep the public safe. What more important
governmental interest is that therefore some level of infringement is
absolutely okay, even a very significant level infringement to some
degrade to the extent you have this really compelling governmental
interest to balance against. And so it was just a
recipe to uphold whatever gun control people wanted to pass,

(52:22):
especially in liberal jurisdictions. So I always hated that test,
and and thankfully the Supreme Court and the Brewin decision
rejected that completely. No, there is no there's no balancing.
We simply look at the text, history and tradition of
the Second Amendment. The text means, what's it saying. What

(52:44):
do the founders mean when they wrote it. That's text
and history and tradition, and there they say, we look
back to the time of the founding and to the
extent that the Bill of Rights also applies to the states.
That is, the states can't infringe your rights protected in
the Bill of Rights. That really came about through the

(53:05):
Fourteenth Amendment. The original Bill of Rights was really written
as a limitation on the federal government. So the state
of Indiana, for instance, could violate the rights set out
in the federal Bill of Rights all it wanted to,
right up until the Fourteenth Amendment passed. By the way,
That's why states passed their own constitutions. That's why Indiana has,

(53:28):
in the context of today's discussion, it has Article one,
Section thirty two. The people shall have the right to
bear arms for the protection of themselves and the state.
It is eloquent. I always say the same thing. It
is elegant in its simplicity, no discussion of militia, just

(53:48):
the people shall have the right to bear arms for
the protection of themselves in the state. Boom, there you go.
That's all we need. But what about the rights set
out in the Federal Bill of Rights. Well, those became
unquote incorporated. That's the term used to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment, and it says exactly that doesn't use

(54:11):
the word incorporated. It says the states may not do
what the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from doing.

Speaker 6 (54:16):
So.

Speaker 3 (54:17):
The Brewing decision said, well, we should look to regulation
the time of the Founding and to some degree to
the time of the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, which
I want to say was eighteen fifty six. I'm sure
somebody will google that for me and correct me if
I'm wrong. And unless there's a history and tradition, a

(54:38):
historical analog, that is that was accepted at the time
of the Founding as reasonable in terms of some kind
of a restriction on keeping in bearing arms. Unless it's
a historical analog, and it doesn't have to be an
exact match, that's been clarified case that actually upheld the

(55:03):
fact that people under a domestic violence order a protection
if they've been found to be a credible threat to
another person, they can be prohibited from possessing firearms. That's
what they were. Ahemi case a couple of years ago
came out and said but in that case, they said, listen,
we don't have to find the exact same law in place.
It doesn't have to be an exact match, but it

(55:26):
has to It has to involve the same issues, It
has to have the same theme, it has to have
the same concept at its core as being dealt with
in the in the law in question and the challenge
to the constitutionality of the law in question. So we
need to find a historical analog or multiple historical analogs

(55:50):
to say that the current law is consistent with the
history and tradition and the regulation under the Second Amendment.
And so it's really interesting to read the cases that
have come down since Braun because they're history lessons and
they talk about what laws were in place in the States.
For instance, a lot of times you look to the

(56:11):
original thirteen States, what laws were in place at the
time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, that people thought,
governments thought, people who knew what rights were sought to
be protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations were thought
to be just fine. For instance, if you were a

(56:32):
particularly dangerous person or a dangerous criminal, a violent criminal.
Could you be disarmed? Well, history and tradition supports the
argument that you can out. A lot of people come out.
They quote the exact language of the Second Amendment and say,
hold on, unless you're in prison. If you're redeemed enough

(56:53):
to be released from prison, you ought to get all
your rights back. Problem you run into under the text,
history and tradition test, which, notwithstanding the words of the
Second Amendment, is the law of the land since the
Brewined decision says, if you can find historical analogs for
the idea that people who commit violent crimes should be

(57:16):
or maybe dispossessed of their firearms, then that's a supportable
law and it's likely to be found to be constitutional.
That's just like when the Rahimi case. This guy, interestingly enough,
and Rahimi again, he was under a domestic violence order
of protection and by all reports was a very bad
guy and had been violent with multiple women. There was

(57:40):
one report where he was he was shoving a woman
into her car in a parking lot and a bystander
protested and Rahimi took his gun out and shot it
in the air. But he was not convicted of any crime.
Arising from that, and he wasn't convicted of a crime
at the time that he was put under a domestic

(58:03):
violence order protection. But in order to have that domestic
violence order protection issued, a judge after a hearing had
to say, I find you to be a credible threat
to this woman. Therefore I'm granting the request for a
protective order. Supreme Court said, we can find historical analogs
to say someone who's found to be a credible threat
to another person can be disarmed legally and upheld the

(58:24):
law for that reason. So how does that test apply
to a whole bunch of cases. In the High Capacity
Magazine case, that is a text history and tradition test
or the people determined to be a credible threat test

(58:47):
not so much a test as that checks a box
to say yes that one passes muster under text, history
and tradition. How does that apply to a whole bunch
of these other cases the Supreme Court is being asked
to review. That becomes very interesting when you look at
the particular issues involved. That's what we'll go into when
we come back a little past bottom of the hour.

(59:07):
We're taking a break. There's this guy Ralford on the
Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
He's the Second Amendment attorney, He's an NRA certified Firearms instructor.
He's the gun Guy. Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
Ed, welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guys
Show on ninety three WIBC. So, I love some of
the cases sprincourts being asked to look at in terms
of how they fit within the test to find by
the bruin Key decision. And let's look at high capacity

(59:51):
magazine bands again. Ten rounds are those commonly used for
lawful purposes? Absolutely? Is there a store analog? You think
at the time of the founding there were laws in
place where state legislatures or Congress up to that point,
Congress hadn't hadn't been formed all that long in terms

(01:00:15):
of its present four but look at the state legislatures,
you think it would have passed loss in the government
could pick some arbitrary limit on the amount of ammunition
you can carry your firearm. It makes no sense. But
it gets even more ridiculous in my mind when you
look at some of the other issues the Supreme Courts

(01:00:37):
being asked to take or will soon be asked to
take the prohibition against eighteen to twenty year olds being
able to buy firearms. In Florida, eighteen to twenty year olds, No,
you can't go in a gun store and buy a gun.
Federal law says you can't buy a handgun unless you're

(01:00:59):
twenty one, but you can buy long guns. Florida, though
after the Parkland shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School
passed the law says you have to be twenty one
to buy a long gun, pistol or excuse me, a
rifle or a shotgun as well. That's being challenged Supreme
Courts being asked to take it. At the time of

(01:01:19):
the founding, there was early on a definition of militia.
It was people seventeen to forty five, able bodied men
seventeen to forty five. Today, the Indiana Constitution also talks
about a militia, talks to people seventeen plus who that's

(01:01:42):
who could just faint in a militia. And is there
some historical analog for a private citizen all the way
down or all the way up to twenty years old
not being able to possess a firearm, because if you
don't let them buy it. That's an infringement on your

(01:02:03):
right to possess it as well. You think it's a
historical analog for that, You think that's going to pass
mustered in the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court, I don't
see that coming. I predicted the Rahemi outcome. The Rahemi
outcome you could say when quote unquote against our Second
Amendment rights. But I predicted it because Rahimi was such

(01:02:27):
an incredibly bad guy and by all reports should have
been convicted of multiple felonies long before the case ever
went up to the Supreme Court, and should have been
prohibited from possessing a firearm having been found to be
a violent felon. But I predicted, based on the fact

(01:02:49):
that he had been found to be a credible thread
to a particular person, that the Rehimi decision was going
to go that way. And that's exactly what it did.
But this Supreme Court, there Rahemi case not was standing.
I don't see them upholding a prohibition against eighteen to
twenty year olds being able to buy a gun. You
go in to the military at eighteen, but you're going

(01:03:10):
you can't come home from being in harm's way in
a foreign land carrying a select fire firearm, operating a tank,
operating a drone, handing handling any number of other sophisticated
weapons developed by this country and given to our our

(01:03:35):
troops to carry in battle. And then you come home
and you can't go in your local gun store and
buy a shotgun. I don't see how in hell that
possibly passes muster one. That gets really more interesting in
my mind. But I still think is a clear win.

(01:03:57):
And and and Amy Cony Barrett actually wrote a descending
opinion when she was on the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals on this issue. I mentioned violent felons, people convicted
a violent crime, determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have
committed violent crimes. But yes, those past the text, history
and tradition test. What about a non violent felony. What

(01:04:21):
if you have and this is the case, what if
you have a felony on your record because you lied
on your application for food stamps. If there's a nonviolent crime,
that's got to be it. I have a client where
we're looking to challenge this exact issue. He ended up

(01:04:47):
pleading to a felony for what amounted to bank fraud,
very similar to what President Trump was convicted of. That is,
he was accused of misrepresenting assets to obtain a loan.
Incredibly nonviolent, about as non violent as it gets. When

(01:05:12):
we come back from this break, let's discuss the federal laws.
Is of the Gun Control Act of nineteen sixty eight
as amended by the Brady Bill in nineteen ninety four,
that if you have any felony conviction that is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, not
that you've got a year in prison, that the maximum

(01:05:34):
penalty for that particular crime is over a year in prison,
which is what most states call a felony. If you
have any felony, including nonviolent, federal law says you cannot
possess viral How does that do? That law part of

(01:05:54):
the Brady Bill and therefore part of the Gun Control
Act in nineteen ninety area sixty eight. How does that
hold up under text, history and tradition. That's all we'll
go into while we wrap up this edition of The
Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
Second to none on this second amendment. This is The
Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (01:06:22):
And welcome back to the final segment here on ninety
three WIBC this edition of The Gun Guy Show, so
nonviolent felons. Here's where I think the Raheemy case actually
is a bit of a benefit. The Rahimi case certainly
does not say that only if you've been determined to

(01:06:43):
be a credible threat against another person can your rights
be stripped from you under the Second Amendment. Doesn't say
that in this particular case, because Raheemi had been determined
to be a credible threat. They said, as to him
and generally for people in his circumstance, the law is constitutional.

(01:07:04):
That is, you can't possess a gun if you're under
domestic violence order protection. But in doing so, they went
through this historical analysis, and they talked a lot about
how the text, not only the text, but the history
and tradition of regulation under the Second Amendment really focused
on people that were dangerous, people that were a threat

(01:07:25):
to the physical safety of others, people that were a
threat to society in a violent context. And while the
decision certainly doesn't say that you have to be determined
to be a threat to someone else, it supports the argument,
in my mind, by inference or otherwise that where you've

(01:07:47):
not done anything that was in any way violent, which
you haven't even threatened violence.

Speaker 1 (01:07:56):
You you.

Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
You entered a transaction in a way that was found
to violate the law. Yes, you lied on your application
for food stamps. Okay, you pled guilty to having exaggerated
your assets to get a loan. How does that make
you violent? It doesn't make you violent. And by the way,

(01:08:19):
what interests does society have is tripping you of your
ability to protect yourself and your family? Does that keep
society safer when you've not done anything violent? You've not
done anything violent period, much less something violent with a gun?
What interest does society have? And say, well, you know,
the maximum penalty for that particular crime for lying on

(01:08:41):
your food stamp application is over a year. So gosh,
society is a better place by stripping you of your
Second Amendment rights, by depriving you of the ability to
possess a fire arm. There's no larger, not logical argument
to support that. And if you sent a poll out there,

(01:09:02):
and this is what you'll hear from the anti gunners
when when this case is pending before the Supreme Court,
and I hope that's sooner than later, you'll hear you know,
there was a poll conducted by MSNBC. I'm just making
this up. This is hypothetical that asked as as ask
our viewers, should felons be allowed to possess firearms? And
it was seventy six percent, no, eighty two percent with

(01:09:25):
some high percentage. That's because you're asking the question the
wrong way. Should people convicted of nonviolent crimes that had
no violent component to them whatsoever, no violence component whatsoever,
be stripped of their Second Amendment freedom? That's the question,
and that question, in my mind, under the text, history

(01:09:45):
and tradition of regulation going back to the time of
the founding or eighteen sixty eight as I was corrected,
means that doesn't pass muster. That's it for this week's show.
Hope you enjoyed it. Hope you come back and remember
always shoot straight and all to be safe.