Trump’s NABJ Appearance, Deepfake Election Content & Ammo Vending Machines

ICYMI: Hour One of ‘Later, with Mo’Kelly’ Presents – Thoughts on Former President Donald Trump’s hostile interview at the National Association of Black Journalists AND Gov. Newsom’s vows to crack down on deepfake election content…PLUS – A different look at Dallas based company American Rounds’, plans to install more ammo vending machines in other states, including California - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app

Episode Transcript

(00:22):
Mister mo' kelly here k IF.I am six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app and the news took adifferent turn today. I thought it was
just going to be a normal newsday and then all of a sudden,
all hell broke loose once again.I'm talking about former President Trump going to
Chicago for the NABJ convention. Fulldisclosure. I'm a member of NABJS,

(00:43):
the National Association of Black Journalists.They have a convention every single year.
It's usually this time in the summer. And what it's comprised of is you
have journalists from all around the country. You have people who are media professionals
and they will go to the convention. You have the top companies, the
top news agencies, top inner companies, and it's a big I wouldn't say
it's a job fair, but it'sa place that you can find a job.

(01:04):
You can take your real you cantake your art portfolio, you can
take any of your assets that youcan show to these professionals. Sometimes they
are hiring agents and you could possiblyget a job. You get greater exposure.
I've gone on a number of occasions, so I know what NABJ looks
like in a convention sense. It'slike it's a convention. You have panels

(01:26):
and you have all sorts of forms. Learn how to do this, learn
how to do that better, youknow, get a better, high paying
job. Typical convention, and it'snot uncommon that they would have political figures
elected officials speak during the convention,especially during an election year. This though,
was very controversial. There were alot of people within NABJ who voiced

(01:49):
opposition to hearing from former President Trumpcome to the convention and speak me personally.
I have to give former President Trumpcredit for this. I think it's
important for all elected officials to goout and seek votes, to go to
the community and actually make their casebefore voters. You have to. If

(02:12):
you want someone's vote, you haveto earn their vote. You just can't
talk on TV. You can't necessarilyphone in a conversation, you can't appear
virtually. You actually have to showup. So credit to former President Trump
to actually going to Chicago and showingup. But that doesn't mean that whatever
you say is okay after you showup. When former President Trump showed up,

(02:35):
I think everyone knew it would nothave been an easy conversation. It
would not have been a comfortable conversation. There were going to be some very
pointed and direct questions. What Iwanted to know was whether he was showing
up to just have a fight,or whether he was showing up trying to
actually change people's minds, trying toactually gain votes and also build his larger
coalition and constituency, or was itjust going to be more of the same.

(03:00):
Here is the first question and answerto former President Trump at NABJ earlier
today. I want to start byaddressing the elephant in the room, sir.
A lot of people did not thinkit was appropriate for you to be
here today. You have pushed falseclaims about some of your rivals, from
Nicki Haley to former President Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in

(03:23):
the United States, which is nottrue. You have told four congressmen women
of color who were American citizens togo back to where they came from.
You have used words like animal andrabbit to describe black district attorneys. You've
attacked black journalists, calling them aloser, saying the questions that they asked
are quote stupid and racist. You'vehad dinner with the white supremacists at your
Marlogua resort. So my question,sir, now that you are asking black

(03:46):
supporters to vote for you, whyshould black voters trust you after you have
used language like that. Well,first of all, I don't think I've
ever been asked a question so insuch a horrible manner. For question,
you don't even say, hello,how are you? Are you with ABC?
Because I think they're a fake newsnetwork, a terrible lovelay. And

(04:10):
I think it's disgraceful that I camehere in good spirit. I love the
black population of this country. I'vedone so much for the black population of
this country, including employment, includingOpportunity Zones with Senator Tim Scott of South
Carolina, which is one of thegreatest programs ever for black workers and black

(04:33):
entrepreneurs. I've done so much.And you know, and I say this,
Historically, black colleges and universities wereout of money. There were stone
call broke, and I saved themand I gave them long term financing and
nobody else was doing it. Ithink it's a very rude introduction. I
don't know exactly why you would dosomething like that. And let me go

(04:57):
a step further. I was invitedhere and I was told old my opponent,
whether it was Biden or Kamala,I was told my opponent was going
to be here. It turned outmy opponent isn't here. You invited me
under false pretense, and then yousaid you can't do it with zoom.
Well you know where's zoom. She'sgoing to do it with zoom, and
she's not coming. And then youwere half an hour a Just so we

(05:19):
understand, I have too much respectfor you to be late. They couldn't
get their equipment working or something waswrong. I think it's a very nasty
question, and I have answered thequestion. I have been the best president
for the black population since Abraham Lincoln. Answer President Johnson's time, the building

(05:39):
rights ack for you to start offa question and answer period, especially when
you're thirty five minutes late because youcouldn't get your equipment to work in such
a hostile manner, I think it'sa disgrace. I'm not going to go
back and forth about the inaccuracies,the fallacies, and the untruths in that
statement. Don't have enough time inthe world. I gave Free Trump credit

(06:00):
for showing up, and I wantevery elected official or candidate to show up.
That's what you're supposed to do.And as a matter of fact,
Vice President Kamala Harris has not shownup, did not show up to NABJ.
She wanted to zoom in and addressthe convention remotely. I don't like
that, and I don't appreciate that, But I don't appreciate what former President

(06:24):
Trump said. If you are therein earnest in an aspirational sense to either
build bridges or build your constituency,then you have to actually extend an open
hand, not a closed fist.And it was clear that he wanted to
box. It was clear that hisintended audience was not in the room.
He was trying to appease people whowere watching who were already Trump supporters,

(06:48):
not actually build a bridge and broadenhis coalition. There's one other clip that
you're going to hear for the nextfew days that maybe the goal was just
to own the news cycle for thenext day or two, and former President
Trump will do that. This willown the news cycle. But he had
some very curious and also untrue statementsregarding Vice President Harris, and I don't

(07:12):
know why he continues to intentionally mispronounceher name it's it's not difficult. It
seems at this point that it isintentional, but it's surrounded how Vice President
Harris supposedly has never claimed that shewas black. This is absolutely untrue,
and I can give you evidence tothat. But here is what actually was
said unedited in the convention. Today, some of your own supporters, including

(07:35):
Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeledVice President Kamala Harris, who was the
first black and Asian American woman toserve as vice president and be on a
major party ticket, as a DEIhire? Is that acceptable language to you?
And will you tell those Republicans andthose supporters to stop it? How
do you how do you define DEEI? Go ahead? How do you define

(07:57):
diversity? Equity inclusion? Okay,yeah, go ahead? What definition?
Give me? That is? Thatis? Give me a definition? Then
would you give me a definition ofit? Give me a definition. They're
am asking you a you have todefine it. Define the define it from
me? If you I just definedit, sir, Do you believe that
Vice President Kamala Harris is only onthe ticket because she is a black woman?
Well, I can say now,I think it's maybe a little bit

(08:18):
different. So I'm knowner a longtime, indirectly, not directly very much,
and she was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian
heritage. I didn't know she wasblack until a number of years ago when
she happened to turn black. Andnow she wants to be known as black.
So I don't know is she Indianor is she she is always black?

(08:41):
College I respect either one, butshe obviously doesn't because she was Indian
all the way and then all ofa sudden, she made a turn and
she went she became a black.I think somebody should look into that too.
When you ask a continue in avery hostile, nasty town, it's
a direct question, sir, doyou believe that Vice President Kamala Harris is
a DEI higher at someone I'll reallyjug out. I mean, I really

(09:05):
don't know. Could be okay,Just as a point of clarification, Vice
President Harris forever reason. I don'tknow why this is an issue, and
I don't know why former President Trumptried to distort actual history. Vice President
Harris has always presented herself as ablack woman and also a South Asian woman.
I first met her in two thousandand six, when I was a

(09:28):
radio producer for Tavis Smiley and hewas producing this event called State of the
Black Union. You may remember it. It was on c SPAN every single
year. In two thousand and six, she was one of the panelists.
Let me say it again, Stateof the Black Union. It's a black
roundtable. They're talking about black issues, YadA YadA, YadA, blah blah
blah. But I was also aradio producer for the audio of that confab.

(09:50):
Now, I want you to listento this audio. The wiz,
the uses and the proclamation that sheis an African American woman. And I
don't know why it's an issue,but if you can bear with the quality
of the audio, it's not great. But I just want you to hear
definitively, this is not an issue. It's not even a question up for

(10:11):
debate. Our community suffer because ourbabies hear the gunfire every night. So
the seven year old has post traumaticstress disorder and cannot go to school the
next day and learn. The criminaljustice system is not working for us.
What I think we have failed todo as a community, however, is
own this issue of law enforcement.We talk about these statistics in the continent

(10:33):
always it is unfair, it's morallyincorrect. Maybe we have learned that from
the church. It is morally incorrect, but nobody cares about that. You
can look at Katrina. Nobody caresabout the fact that we've got a bunch
of young black men in prison.That argument is not working. What I
suggest we do as African Americans isown this issue in law enforcement and then
define it in the way that worksfor us. Did you hear that the

(10:56):
I we African Americans, we doas African working. What I suggest we
do as African Americans is own thisissue in law enforcement and then define it
in the way that works for us. Let me just say this as a
coda to the conversation today. FormerPresident Trump again deserves credit for showing up.
All candidates should show up. ButI don't think he changed any minds.

(11:20):
I don't think that he opened anyinroads. I don't think he gained
any voters. I don't know thathe gained any traction. I don't think
the NABJ was better served by thisform. I don't think anyone gained anything
at all. But if it wasabout just owning the news cycle, if
it was about being combative, onceagain in front of the quote unquote of

(11:41):
lamestream media or somehow castigating journalists onceagain as part of his larger platform than
I guess mission accomplished. But Ibelieve a presidential candidate should be above the
fray. I believe a presidential candidateshould exhibit decency, dignity, and quorum
that was not on display. You'relistening to later with Moe Kelly on demand

(12:05):
from KFI AM six forty. Andif you didn't know, I often remark
how I'm not a real good personwhen it comes to fly. I begrudgingly
get on a plane. I'm nota nervous flower, but I'm uncomfortable.
It's not something that I like todo. But I like to travel.
So it's one of those things whereI just have to grin and bear it.

(12:28):
And I know all the stats.I know it is the safest way
to travel. When you're talking aboutthe number of flights which take off the
land each day and the infrequency ofthe fatalities, you know, it's not
often that a plane ends up inthe side of a mountain or in the
ocean. I get all that,and then people will respond to me also

(12:50):
saying, hey, you know,you're more likely to die in an automobile
accident, and statistically that's true.In fact, in LA, it's very
true. So I try to reconcilethose two things, and I came across
the story that LA is on pacefor more than three hundred traffic deaths this

(13:13):
year, and to put that inperspective, back in twenty seventeen, there
was only one hundred and thirty onetwenty eighteen, one hundred and twenty five,
and we think, well, whatabout during the pandemic. I know,
great question. I had the samequestion myself. Twenty nineteen was one
hundred and twenty six, and youwould think that there'd be a large drop

(13:33):
off in twenty twenty because there werefewer places for us to go. It
wasn't like we were going to themovies. It wasn't like we were going
to the nightclub or to the bars, going to the restaurants in the way
that we were normally. Yeah,we could pick up some food to go
food, but we weren't driving likewe usually were. I mean, I
know this because I had to driveto come to the studio, and there

(13:56):
was never a bad day for traffic, never, not during the pandemic.
Why because there were fewer cars onthe road, And maybe you might say
that because of that, people weredriving unnecessarily dangerously faster than normal. But
in twenty nineteen we had one hundredand twenty six traffic fatalities, and I

(14:18):
think this is La City, notLa County. In twenty twenty twenty to
one hundred and fourteen fatalities, soonly a drop off of twelve during the
height of the pandemic. Twenty twentyone one hundred and fifty two higher than
pre pandemic twenty twenty two, onehundred and sixty eight, twenty twenty three,

(14:46):
last year one hundred and seventy four. Can you see this trend?
And so far in twenty twenty fourand we're only knocking on the door of
August. We still got August,September, October, no and December.
We have a good five full months. We already have one hundred and seventy

(15:07):
traffic deaths. We had one hundredand seventy four all last year. We
have one hundred and seventy right now, and we're on our way to three
hundred. I think about this,if only because I don't have a real
long commute, but long enough wherestuff could happen. I don't actively think
about it, but it's something thatI I don't think about it as much

(15:31):
as when I'm flying, but it'ssomething that I'm starting to think about more
and more. And I've talked aboutthis with Mark and also Tawala. There's
some idiots out there who are drivingwith such reckless abandoned. There are people
who speed, and there are peoplewho are just dangerous with the weaving in
and out of traffic, the tailgating, doing the things like they're watching a

(15:54):
fast and furious movie. And it'snot how well you think you can drive,
about the other people who may notbe able to see you or react
to you in time. I thinkthese people think they get to respawn if
they get in the crash. That'sthe only explanation for this, because they
drive like Kamakazis. I drive fast, I admit that. Is that a

(16:14):
contradiction maybe, But I'm not theone who's weaving in and out and doing
all this insane stuff that is justreally putting a lot of other people in
danger, and for what a carlength or two I mean at most,
it seems nuts to me. WhatI notice most about this report, MO,
and it's interesting that you glossed overit. Not a single incident related

(16:38):
to vehicular death this year, Yes, associate, here we go, here
we go. Ireless vehicles, nota single one. There isn't a single
report of a driverless vehicle fatality inthis report. These are all cars driven
by people. This is Let's alsotalk about sample size. Where you have
I don't know, millions and millionsof cars every single day and you have

(17:02):
a handful of way mos if wehad a handful of cars with just drivers.
I hear you, But this isLA. This is an LA specific
survey. Where is WAIMO rolled outLA specifically. So I'm saying, so
LA LA sample size matters size.I hear you, sample size. But

(17:26):
to the fourth, up to thispoint, there is no self driving car
fatality. Okay, let's go backto the issue of flying. If I
were to tell you that, hey, we had a whole five hundred and
seventy five flights today and none ofthem crashed, and then we're also going
to look at the five hundred thousandother flights over the past I don't know.

(17:51):
I'm just making this up mathematically.Over the past two or three years,
we're not talking about the same thing. Are any of the flights flown
by autopilot alone self driving planes?It still goes back to sample size.
If we have as many cars oras many trips which are comparable to drivers

(18:15):
in automobiles, then I think wecan have a better sense. If most
of the cars out there were autonomous, then we get a better sense of
whether they are overall safer and theyare better for people taking us all around
the city, or is it justthey're good on a very limited basis,
a very small basis, and thissample size. They even break it down

(18:37):
within the last six months and alsoMay and June where there were still smaller
sample size or smaller window nineteen fatalitiesstill none driverless vehicle. I hear you,
I hear your sample size. Ihear you, and they actually detail
that in this report. I justwant to make sure that we're telling the
whole story that's not being told.We like to look further than what's being

(19:02):
reported. It's almost like you're saying, hey, no one died from anthrax
this year, Well, how howanthrax is not out there? Right?
Are you sure? I mean,it's reporting on what I'm just saying.
It has to do with sample size, and it has to do with availability.
It has to do with with withthe ubiquitous nature of it. That
is why I want to make surewe keep our eyes on this story.

(19:25):
I see this is a plant story. No it's not. No, you
don't this so you could make yourkakamami remark about autonomous vehicles. I'm just
saying, I just wanted to makesure dying. I wanted to make sure
that you saw that there are noautonomous vehicles listed in this report. Check
his bank account. Check it.He's getting paid under the table, no

(19:47):
doubt, no doubt. It's Laterwith mo Kelly. If I Am six
forty one Live Everywhere the iHeartRadio app, you're listening to Later with mo Kelly
on demand from KFI AM six fortywith mo Kelly six Live Everywhere on the

(20:07):
iHeartRadio app. Governor Newsom has saidpublicly that he vows to support bills that
cracked down on deep fake election content. I saw the story and I said,
oh, I want a piece ofthis one. You may remember on
Monday, Newsom reposted a news headlinethat said Elon Musk had posted an altered

(20:30):
campaign ad of Vice President Harris,and it appeared to use an AI generated
voiceover from her, so it soundedlike her, it looked like her,
and it was very close to alegitimate campaign ad. Governor Newsom wrote on
social media that quote manipulating a voicein an ad like this one should be

(20:52):
illegal. Close quote, oh,I should say, and he went on
to say, I'll be signing abill in a matter of weeks to make
sure it is. US responded bysaying, quote, parody is legal in
America. Close quote. Let's getinto this. This is a great example
of words have meanings, and let'sbe clear on what we're discussing. A

(21:15):
parody is something which is done forcomedic since and it is recognizable as such.
Let me give you an example.Weird Al Yankovic did the song eat
It, which is a parody ofMichael Jackson's beat It. We all know
that Weird Al Yankovic obviously was doingit for comedic purposes, and no reasonable

(21:40):
person would have thought that that wasMichael Jackson singing eat It, or Michael
Jackson was performing that song in anyway no reasonable person And also weird Al
Yankovic did not use Michael Jackson's voice. He didn't use Michael Jackson's face,
he didn't use Michael Jackson's body inany way. That's why it was a

(22:07):
parody. And also, and alsomost importantly, he got permission from Michael
Jackson to use it because it wasintellectual property which was copyrighted. When you
talk about campaign ads, it hasto be clear that it's actual actually for
the purpose of parody, and it'snot for deception. There's a difference there.
If you're trying to reasonably confuse peopleor deceive people, then it's no

(22:33):
longer a parody. If you hadKamala Harris dancing around like those jib Jab
videos. You know, we allhad those jib jab videos that once upon
a time, and there's music inthe background and you're making fun, that
is a legitimate parody. But ifyou're trying to pass something off as passable,
as plausible, as seemingly coming fromthe actual person, and you're using

(22:55):
their name and their likeness, andI'm telling you because Donald Trump will tell
you you the same name, imageand likeness is a real thing. And
I'm sure Donald Trump has has copyrightedhis name, image and likeness. In
other words, you just can't puthis face on a T shirt and try
to sell it. You can't usehis voice and something that you're trying to

(23:17):
sell or distribute without permission, Especiallywhen you're talking about other political figures or
elected officials, it has to beyou have to get either permission or it
has to be clear that it's aparody and not actually coming from the person.
When we're talking about deep fake,aish generated videos, those are created

(23:40):
expressly for the purpose of deceiving people, for the purpose of tricking people,
for the purpose of having you believethat the person in that video actually said
that or actually did that, whenneither is true. So that doesn't make
it a parody. A lot ofus is correct. Parody is legal in

(24:02):
America, But what is going onwith deep fake ais that depending on the
circumstance, it could very easily beproven that it's illegal and not in the
spirit of a parody. And there'salso something else, and it's something that
I've talked about. I know MarkRonner, as a news advocate, has

(24:22):
talked about when you're talking about elections, where you're talking about dissemination of information,
accuracy is important, and if youhave something which is specifically out there
to deceive people or have you believeuntrue things about a person. Then we
are undermining our own elections. Weare undermining our own democracy. We are

(24:45):
taking our own country to a placewhere it will be on the verge of
ruin nation, where if it's openseason on, we can make videos of
people saying anything and everything and noneof it being true and also being legal.
You have to see that sl slope. You have to recognize the unintended
and also the intended consequences of that. Now, we may think it's all

(25:07):
fun and games until it's a personthat you happen to like or support.
We need regulation on this stuff fast. There is no way you can stretch
the definition of free speech to includethis kind of manipulation and fakery. Well,
you can't stretch free speech, andyou can't stretch parody. I mean,
all free speech is regulated. Thereare limits to free speech, absolutely,

(25:30):
and there are limits to parody.And that's why I don't understand people
used these terms not understanding what theymean. Every freedom and right that we
have in the Constitution has an associatedboundary with it, every single one.
There are no unconstrained rights and freedomsarticulated in the Constitution. Yeah, and

(25:51):
then when you throw Elon Musk intothe mix, you know, you add
an order of magnitude of confusion toeverything because his standards are so inconsistently applied.
Mister free speech champion there on Xslash Twitter appears only to be for
free speech of people he agrees with. I mean, look at the things
that he'll tolerate and won't tolerate.He'll tolerate Andrew Tate calling somebody the N

(26:12):
word on Twitter, but he won'ttolerate a simple group like what was it
dudes for Harris? He kills whitedudes for her, White dudes for Harris.
He's apt their entire account yesterday.I don't know if it's been changed
or reinstated. It has been reinstated, just for the record, all right,
But you see my point, whichis that the standards are inconsistent and

(26:33):
when you when you put somebody withway too much power over the public square
like Musket, into the mix,it's nothing to chaos. Well, let
me just say this this own thatthis particular video is not even within the
guidelines and acceptable parameters on X forhim to post it was in violations of

(26:55):
his own terms of service on hisown site. Yes, exactly, But
you got to remember, this isthe guy who held a poll on Twitter
asking if he should step down,and when the answer came back or resounding
yes, he just kind of forgotabout it. I don't take him seriously
as far as what he says.I take him seriously as far as what
he does. I take him seriouslyfor the content that he may post,

(27:18):
which can be dangerous. I takehim seriously when he may post content which
can be termed as election manipulation.Honestly, and that's what we're talking about
when we're talking about deep fakes andAI for the purpose of deceiving. Now,
he may find it funny, butthat doesn't make it parody. No,
you're one hundred percent right. Whenyou can't tell if it's real or

(27:41):
not, that is not just parody, right, you can't. Going back
to my last analogy before we goto break, if we're aal Yankovic put
out a song called Eat It usingMichael Jackson's voice, Michael Jackson's face,
and Michael Jackson's body and tried topass it off as Michael jacks and actually
sang the song eat it. Weall know that wouldn't be legal. Oh,

(28:06):
Michael Jackson would have sued weird Alinto homelessness. Are you kidding me?
That's all I'm saying. It's Laterwith Mo Kelly caf I AM six
forty. We're live everywhere on theiHeartRadio app. You're listening to Later with
Moe Kelly on demand from KFI AMsix forty. And yesterday I was talking
about how I think I see theworld differently than other people, talking about

(28:27):
whether I was like someone who's onthe spectrum as an adult, I look
at the news differently than other people. I know I do. I don't
look at it and see the samethings as other people. And this is
another story that I think people aremissing it. I think they're really missing
something. You know that company behindthe Ammo vending machines, and it was

(28:48):
a big deal. It's like,oh my gosh, selling Ammo in vending
machines. It may spread the otherstates. Well, yeah, it's gonna
spread the other stats. It maycome to California. Well, of course
it's gonna come to California. NumberOne, the United States is a gun
culture. Okay, so if there'sa proliferation of guns. Hello, there's
going to be a proliferation of AMMOif we want it to make it easier

(29:10):
for people to get guns. What'sthe logical next step. We're going to
make it easier for people to getAMMO. But I've not heard anyone say
what I'm about to tell you,And this is why I think people have
missed the main point of this story. But let me just give you the
basics so you know what's going on, and then I'll give you some analysis.
American Rounds, based in Dallas,says it has plans to install more

(29:34):
AMMO vending machines in other states,specifically out west, including California. Now
there aren't any specific locations yet,they're just saying, hey, we're coming
to California. The company debuted ismachines earlier this month at eight stores,
including some in Texas, Alabama,and Oklahoma. And the machines use an
identification scanner and facial recognition software toverify the purchaser's age and our quick and

(30:00):
easy to use as a computer tablet. All right, not trying to get
into the gun debate. I'm goingto tell you what has not been discussed
some years ago, I was ona federal grand jury, and we saw
all these sorts of crimes, obviouslyfederal crimes of everything from child porn to
mail fraud to a larsity anything,interstate crime, drugs, immigration, anything

(30:29):
which will qualify as federal crimes.What I didn't know going in and learned
since that if you purchase ammunition inone place and it's used across state lines,
it's a federal crime, assuming thatyou commit a federal crime. If
you purchase ammo which was manufactured inone state and it's used in the commission

(30:57):
of a crime in another state,that's also a federal crime and to catch
federal charges. What I've yet tohear anyone say is if you buy ammo
here in these vending machines, dependingon where they're manufactured, and it's used
in the commission of a crime,you could unwittingly and unknowingly be slapped with

(31:25):
federal charges. The only reason Iknow that is because I sat on a
federal grand jury for four fricking months, listening to some ten to twenty cases
each Tuesday for four months, andthat was a recurring case. That's how
the Feds would get people time andtime again, they would have ammo which

(31:45):
was purchased in one place or manufacturedin one place, and then they would
commit a crime in the Central Districtof California. That was the jurisdiction that
I was sitting on the grand juryfor and they would get him, get
him or her or them on federalcharge as it relates to firearms or AMMO.
And I've yet to hear anyone talkabout this, because it matters where

(32:07):
the AMMO would be made, itmatters where it would be sold, and
it matters where you would be usedin a commission of a crime or something
in which you could be charged.This is the story. I think that
it's not being discussed as much asit should, the unintended consequences of where
you buy your ammunition, where it'smade, and then how you can get

(32:30):
caught up in a trick bag,because if it's used here or there in
a certain way, you could belooking at federal charges as opposed to the
AMMO that you know that's made inCalifornia. You're purchasing it in California and
it's not necessarily being distributed in aninterstate manner. That's what I think there's
going to be more discussion of lateron, when we find out more about

(32:53):
these vending machines, how they're makingthe AMMO available, and where the AMMO
was coming from. It's later withMo Kelly caf I AM six forty.
We are live everywhere on the iHeartRadioapp. The news has been updated trick
to refresh. K s I andk os t h D two, Los
Angeles, Orange County. Live everywhereon the I Heart Radio app