6-3-25 - 8am - SCOTUS AR-15 & The Second Amendment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Morning boys.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Hey Mike, well done, because you took the words right
out of my brain. Why is it always on the
victim to do everything possible to de escalate a situation?
Why is it on us to run away from somebody
threatening us?

Speaker 1 (00:17):
We were all raised.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
In a time where you can't always walk away from
a conflict. Sometimes you're going to have to fight. So
why blame the victim? Have a great day?

Speaker 1 (00:31):
You know, because I'm a smart ass, I'm tempted to
take the very beginning of his comment, and well, of
course I took it because I'm brilliant, and I took
it right out of course, of course, So why are
you shocked by this? But I don't want to do
that because you actually it's it's even worse than what

(00:55):
you're thinking. Or maybe you're thinking it, but you didn't.
You didn't take it to the next level. And the
next level that I want to take it to is this.
This this constant shift of everything to law abiding citizens
and not allowing or permitting us to take actions. Is

(01:15):
the result of this overgrowth of government and this idea
that we and and look, don't get me wrong, I
absolutely believe in civil rights. I believe in due process,
both substantive and procedural. I think you need to do
all of those things. But having said all of that,
we've gone the pendulum has gone so far to the

(01:37):
other side that we can no longer live in a
free and open society. And so if you want to,
if you want to understand, go back to me yesterday's conversation.
You know, I really, I really struggled after yesterday's program
because I and maybe I did, but I came to

(02:00):
the conclusion that I don't care. I have to come
to that conclusion a lot about a lot of the
things that I talked about, saying that I just don't
care because it's just how I feel and it's how
important I think it is. So the conversation I had
yesterday which lasted three hours, about the decline of Western civilization,

(02:25):
what you just said is an example of that decline
of Western civilization. That's a real life example. And this
text message that I have because I've got to follow
on from guber number zero four to three to three,
that I want to share with you, which again exemplifies
or really puts a fine point on this idea that

(02:51):
it's always us and I'm sick of it. I'm truly
sick of it. So zero four to three three wrote
back and said this the way I let me back up.
Let's go to the original text message. I live in Greaty.
Just last night, my wife is at a shopping plaza.
My daughter was in the store. My wife was sitting

(03:12):
in the car with the window up. A thug with
a tattooed face and the head came up to her
car and was asking for money. My wife shook her
head no. Then the thug put his face on the window,
looking in the car. Now, let's just stop right there
for a moment for me, not because I'm a scaredy cat,
but because I understand human nature. That's an aggressive move.

(03:36):
That is a threatening move. That's an indication that I'm
trying to intimidate you by putting my face on your
car window and getting fake. You know, only the glasses
separating us. I'm trying to intimidate you. You won't give
me money, I'm going to put my face on your window.

(03:57):
Then he raised his jacket, exposing a gun and actually
tapped his gun in a threatening manner. This was in
broad daylight. So now I want you to think about that.
Your daughter's inside. You're a mother, you're obviously concerned for yourself.

(04:20):
But now you're worried. Oh my gosh, what if my
daughter comes out? Why this is going on? Then what
if he's shown a gun, he's tapped his gun. Look
that I have? Oh really, look that I have? Kaboom, Yeah,
that's what I have. Now. The problem with all of

(04:40):
that is, unless you've got surveillance footage, unless you've got witnesses,
it's all now depended upon a prosecutor, and that they
could very easily decide that you were in your car,

(05:01):
you had the window up, you could have driven off,
you could, you could have gotten out of that situation,
and instead you chose to blow the guy away. Yes
I did, you know, mister prosecutor. But he had his
face against the window, he was tapping his gun. For
all I know, he was going to pull the gun
and either break into my car or shoot me. So
I took defensive action to protect myself, which I think

(05:24):
would be absolutely reasonable. But we've reached the point in
Western civilization where that's not reasonable, and that's what pisses
me off. Now. The follow up text Mike, the way
I understand she screamed in the car. People in a
little Caesar's witnessed what was going on. They came out

(05:44):
of the store. In the meantime, my daughter came out.
My wife sped away. She called me. She did not
want to call the cops, which made me mad, because
we have to get these gum off our streets. Can
I get a hallelujah? Can I get an amen of?
Eventually the cops did get called by my son. They

(06:05):
contacted my wife and said they were going to review
the surveillance footage. So at least there is some surveillance footage.
I'm thankful her and my daughter got away unharmed, except
for being really shook up. Excuse me, but what's to
say the next person won't be so lucky? What's to

(06:26):
say the fact that your wife just happened to be lucky?
Now that scumbag, that scumbag, for all we know, is
continuing to do the same thing. Now without denigrating the
greedy police department, do you really think they're out there

(06:48):
looking or will it just be one of those things where, oh,
we have a bolo be on the lookout for, you know,
some guy tattooed faced blah, blah blah. You know he
was intimidating a woman in a parking lot and blah blah.
And so you just have they just happened to see him.
They're not actively looking. And in fact, for all we know,

(07:10):
if he's homeless, he's moved on to to uh who knows,
He's moved on to Firestone, he's moved on to Longmond,
He's moved on, you know somewhere else's Fort Collins, who
knows where he is. To pull the same thing again. Now,
am I advocating for him to be killed. No, I'm

(07:31):
not advocating necessarily to be killed. But you think about
that situation. Now, go back to the Oklahoma law that
I ascribed to you earlier. What that guy did is
brandishing because he wasn't threatened, he didn't have a fear
for his life. He was the one invoking the fear

(07:55):
in this guy's spouse. He was the crow. He is
the criminal, and even under the new Oklahoma law, what
he did would still be unlawful. But had she had
a weapon in her car, she could have pulled the weapon,

(08:18):
didn't have to shoot, but could have pointed the gun
at him. And knowing most people like that he probably
would have turned and run because, oh my god, here's
a crazy woman in a car with a gun. I
really don't want to get in a shootout. But no,

(08:39):
not in our society anymore, not at all. So between
her screaming, you don't say whether or not you say
your wife sped away. I'd like to I'd like to know, now,
when your wife screamed, did he run off or did
he continue to try to intimidate her as she was

(08:59):
speeding away in the car. It's just it's just freaking
unbelievable to me. And then you go back to the
Supreme Court case Snope versus Brown. Now, I don't know,
and I don't care how many AR fifteens you own,
or if you even own an AR fifteen. But Kavanaugh
is right. There are probably some twenty or thirty million

(09:20):
AR fifteens, which means they are in common usage in
this country. Ten percent of the population owns an AR fifteen,
or roughly thereabout. It's clear, and forget that it's a
freaking AR fifteen. It's a semi automatic long gun that

(09:44):
shoots either five five six or two two three, a
common caliber that's commonly used. It's not a weapon of war.
Does it look like one? Yes? Is no? But that's
the mantra that the left will tell you. So now

(10:06):
we have out of the Fourth Circuit a decision that
upholds a ban on an AR fifteen, and the Supreme Court,
for lack of any testicles, doesn't take the case up.
Oh we want to. According to Kavanaugh, we went away
because there's a few other circuits that are dealing with this.
So maybe we can deal with it in this term

(10:28):
or maybe the next term. In other words, maybe we'll
deal with it. Let's just take the next term, so
we'll deal with it two years from now, and then
the decision will take oh maybe a year, so we
might have a decision in twenty twenty eight for a
ban that exists in twenty twenty five. We just can't

(10:52):
do this anymore. We just can't keep doing it anymore.
People's lives are in danger, and the people's lives who
are in danger our most are predominantly the innocent, the
law abiding. And it's the criminals they're getting away with everything.
The protesters, the anti Semites that are using molotov cocktails.

(11:19):
By the way, somebody raised an interesting question once he
was denied the background check to purchase whatever. I don't
have any information about what he was trying to purchase,
but he gets denied. Now, let's stop and think about
how everybody wants the federal government to just run everything.

(11:41):
So the federal government sets up the next system. He
gets denied because he's not the US that is that
shouldn't shouldn't that cause in some database somewhere, a little pen,
a little flag. Oh, we have a guy in Colorado

(12:03):
Springs that was here on a Now I want you
to think through this for a second. He came here
on a tourist visa, which means he went into an embassy.
I assume he came from Egypt, so because he's Egyptian.
So let's just make that assumption for the sake of
the argument. So he goes to the American embassy in

(12:26):
Cairo or to a consulate office somewhere in Egypt, and
he applies for a tourist visa. So he sits down
with an employee of the State Department. What's the purpose
of your visit? I want to I want to tour
the country. I okay, what's your itinerary? What cities are
you going to? I want to visit New York. And

(12:46):
then I'm thinking about making a trip to Los Angeles,
and I've heard that Colorado Springs is really nice. I'd
like to see Pike's Peak. I'd like to go there
and see the Garden of the Gods or something. And
then okay, so how long are you going to stay? Well,
you know, this tourist visas I think good for I
think it's good for ninety days. I may be wrong
about that, but whatever, it's good for. Okay. So, uh,

(13:06):
do you have your tickets? Yes? Do you know where
you're gonna stay? Yes? Okay, so tell me where you're staying.
Blah blah blah. So he's coming here as a tourist.
Now when he gets here he applies for asylum, that
alone should have raised a red flag. You're not, which

(13:27):
is which is also why we should require if you
want to seek asylum, you seek asylum in either the
country that you're seeking asylum from or a country other
than the United States, because if you get denied asylum,
then you can stay in the If you went from

(13:48):
Egypt to Kuwait, then you can stay in Kuwait. Not
our problem, because we're not getting brand, not granting you asylum.
But when he when he applied for asylum, and god,
then was there nobody any was there, no bureaucrat anywhere
that looked around and said, wait a minute, he applied

(14:09):
for asylum, but he's here on a tourist visa, and
the tourist visa, according to our data base, is expired.
So he's overstayed his visa u CBP dirt bag number
two six five, last known address, Go pick him up,
get him deported. Of course we didn't do that because

(14:32):
the f and bureaucracy is too huge, too wieldy, doesn't
care and quite frankly wants them to get the asylum. Then,
so you got a guy on a tourist visa, overstayed
the visa, then he applies for asylum, then he goes
to buy a firearm and gets denied.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
And that didn't set off a little peing somewhere. That
didn't raise a flag somewhere. The point is for everyone
who clamors all the time for the federal government to
step in and fix this or fix that? Are you
freaking kidding me? Are you? You must be some kind

(15:15):
of stupid because the federal government doesn't seem to be
able to do anything right except take care of criminals
or illegal aliens. And I know Trump's trying to fix that.
But you think about to see if I can swerve

(15:35):
back into the discussion about the Supreme Court case. You
think it's going to be difficult to deport twenty or
thirty million illegal aliens? What happens when you try to
confiscate twenty or thirty banned ar fifteens. I'm not trying

(15:56):
to be mister macho. I'm trying to be mister practical.
Who's going to be the first person to say, Nope,
I don't have and if you want to come in
my house, you need to have a probable cause search
warrant to come into my home. And even then somebody
somewhere is going to deny entry and they come in

(16:22):
your I mean, what you really think about this? A
law enforcement first of life, I would hope that a
lot of leos would refuse to enforce this. I would
hope that a lot of FBI agents, eight even ATF
agents would refuse to enforce it. But can you imagine

(16:42):
in the United States of America, anybody that has a
law enforcement uniform on or not I don't care. Maybe
they don't have the inform they got, They've they've got credentials,
they've got a badge, and they knock on your door.
Can I help you? Yes, we're here to take your

(17:03):
AR fifteen's they've been banned and the court has not
ruled on that. So we're gonna start enforcing the band
and we're here to take your AR fifteen. Is there
at any point? Is there any point at all in
which anybody says, no, No, you're not Is there everybody?

(17:28):
Everybody says they will. Everybody says, oh, yeah, they're not
gonna take my gun. Really, I don't believe it.

Speaker 3 (17:46):
You can't get to have done at all at any You.

Speaker 4 (17:55):
Want to tell me about that? One said the trends.
I think I pretty much picked up on it. But
the transcript does show in the car Michael, she can't
get to her gun with any or at all eads.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Oh, he said, It depends on the car, because I
can grab mine real quickly.

Speaker 4 (18:17):
When I'm in the car if somebody's already got their
hand on theirs. Oh, but do you think you can
get to yours quicker than they can?

Speaker 1 (18:31):
There been times when I've been approached sitting in a car.
We're already have my hand on my gun. My understanding
with this woman was he walked up and just showed
the gun and then tapped it. Me mean, he's already
got it in his hand. No, I think I be wrong.

(18:52):
He just kind of like pointing to it, like, you know,
tapping the handle, like see what I got, But give
me some money. That was threatened.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
There was this textra zero two two five, I love
your show. Action beats reaction. She should have parked where
she could see him coming and already had her gun
out with when it was apparent he was approaching her.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
I saw that, and I and I thought to myself, Oh,
how do you know when someone's coming or not coming? Right?

Speaker 4 (19:19):
You've got three sixty around you. How you're gonna be
able to spy absolutely everybody coming in your direction?

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Right, and someone's walking one direction sees you pull up
and they decide, oh, there's a there's a mark, I'll
go after that mark instead. So who knows? But again
that that's that's the problem with this whole complex set
of rules we've established. Look, gone went the wild, wild West.

(19:46):
I have to think about that for a minute. Uh,
the the polite societal answer is no. But I do
believe we've made it so complex to exercise a god
given natural right of self defense that in essence, people
are afraid to exercise the right of self defense. And

(20:07):
don't get me wrong, I understand, I think I understand
that if you if you exercise that right of self defense,
even if you've not committed a crime, you're still subject
to a civil lawsuit because well, you just took someone's
life away. Now, yeah, they may have been trying what's

(20:29):
that stupid one we have on the taxpayer relief shot? Well,
understand he was robbing him, but he didn't have to
shoot him. That's the kind of people that will then
go sue you in a wrongful death lawsuit because you well,
we know he was robbing you, but you know you
did have shooting. Oh all right, See if I can't
finish up this Supreme Court case, because I really do

(20:50):
want you to understand the insanity that's going on in
DC right now. So the Supreme Court's denial of sert
in Snope the Brown that's the case from just a
few months ago, really does reveal a fractured bench. So
you got three of the justices openly dissenting a fourth Kavanaugh.

(21:14):
This signaling in openness to you know, hey, we probably
should review this. I just don't want to do it
right now. So to kind of reset, the case challenges
Maryland's ban on AR fifteen rifles under the Second Amendment.
That follows the Fourth Circuit's ruling that AR fifteen's fall

(21:36):
outside constitutional protection. Now that alone, I can't believe that
that's what I'm saying. But that's the Court's decision that
in AR fifteen is not protected by the Second Amendment.
Some explain to me how that works. Now. Granted I've
not because I've been focusing so much on the Supreme
Court in show prep, I had not read the Fourth

(21:58):
Circuit opinion. Maybe I'll try to do that today and
tell you what the reasoning was for the Fourth Circuit's decision.
But Justice Thomas was the author of the primary descent.
He wanted to hear the case, and he was arguing
that the Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with DC versus Heller.

(22:19):
That's the two thousand and eight case that held that
there is an individual right to keep in bear arms. Gee, really,
let's see a well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of free state. The right to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. You. I say that all

(22:42):
the time, and it seems pretty clear to me. But
then I guess I'm got a sick of mind. And
Thomas also cited New York State Rifle and Pistol Association
versus Bruin. But here are the points that Justice Thomas
was trying to make. First, regarding burden of proof, he

(23:06):
argues that the Fourth Circuit was wrong in requiring the
challengers to prove that AR fifteens are protected by the
Second Amendment, rather than placing the burden on Maryland to
demonstrate some sort of historical precedent for the banning of
an AR fifteen. He's arguing that you've got the burden

(23:28):
of proof completely inverted. It's wrong the government who is
trying to take away the Second Amendment of protections for
an AR fifteen. They've got the burden of proof to
show that under the Second Amendment it is there is
historical precedent for doing so, which obviously there is none.
He also makes a great textual argument, or I should say,

(23:51):
to be more precise, a textual analysis. Justice Thomas argued
that AR fifteens are bearable arms under the Second Amendments
playing text because they're weapons of offense widely owned by civilians.
That's that's an encapulation, encapsulation of the Heller case right there,

(24:19):
weapons of offense widely owned and used by civilians. And
then he analyzed the historical tradition. He said that Maryland's
ban lacks support in historical firearm regulation. And he went
even further and criticized the Fourth Circuit for invert or

(24:40):
for inventing a dangerous and unusual category unsupported by precedent.
I've got to I've got to go read the Fourth
Circuits case.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
How is it?

Speaker 1 (24:57):
How's a AR fifteen in a spacecial category? The only
thing that's different when you take away an AR fifteen's appearance,
it's putting it in really simple vernacular. It's a dear rifle. Yeah,

(25:22):
That's that's all it is. Thomas specifically said that allowing
this kind of band to remain in effect, relegates the
Second Amendment to a second class right. For anybody who's

(25:43):
arguing that Justice Thomas ought to resign so that Trump
can get another appointee on You're out of your freaking mind.
There's no greater justice right now in my opinion, in
Clarence Thomas, I hope he lives to be one hundred

(26:05):
and fifty years old, and I hope he stays on
the court as long as he can. Let's let's go
to Justice Alito and Corses. Now again, they descended, they
voted to grant Cirt, they wanted to hear the case,
and they joined Thomas in his descent. But they didn't

(26:28):
author separate opinions. But their alignment with Justice Thomas suggests
that they have agreement on a misapplication of Bruin. That
the Fourth Circuit's reliance on dangerous and unusual standards that
I just mentioned contradicts Bruin's mandate to evaluate the historical
analogs about how you know the Second Amendment has how

(26:51):
firearms have evolved into common use. AR fifteen clearly meets
that standard. But they also talk about the circuit split
concern the split among the circuits. Lower courts have inconsistently
applied the Bruins standard to assault weapon bands, and they

(27:11):
argued that because you have these different standards, we need
to hear this case so we can finally set a
standard by which if you want to regulate AR fifteens
or any of the guns, here's the standard by what
you've got to do it now. Kavanaugh was pretty interesting

(27:32):
because his statement concurs in denial, yet hints that he
actually would support overturning the ban. For example, when it
comes to common use. As I said earlier, he notes
that AR fifteens are legal in forty one states. They're
owned by somewhere between twenty and thirty million Americans. And

(27:56):
the reason he states that is he's pointing out that
under the Heller's common use standard, this ban in Maryland
is probably unconstitutional, to which I would once again say, then,
why the hell didn't you hear the case future review?

(28:16):
Kevinaugh went on to predict that the Court should impresumably
will address the AR fifteen issues soon, and goes on
to criticize the Fourth Amendment, reasoning as questionable. Well, then
why not settle it now? Why make people suffer under
a ban that likely a majority of the Court's going
to overturn. Why make them suffer under a ban while

(28:37):
you wait for other circuits to make a decision so
they can help inform your decision. Why do you think
you were appointed to be an associate justice of the
US Supreme Court to make decisions. And this gets back
to a part of the court's his oracle reasoning that

(29:01):
drives me crazy, strategic avoidance. He wants the Court to
wait for a case with a stronger procedural posture, such
as a final judgment from a different circuit. No, don't
you have a case. You know, you can write your

(29:25):
opinions however you want. You don't have to wait for
other circuits. So the denial leaves intact Maryland's ban, although
it does to be fair, it signals potential future action
and a potential overturning of the ban because you've got
Thomas lead On Gore such already steadfastly opposing it, and

(29:49):
Kavanaugh hinting at opposing it. But Robertson Barrett's silence pathetic,
absolutely pathetic. So for now, the Fourth Circuit ruling stands
another example of how the federal government our institutions are failures.

Speaker 3 (30:14):
Michael, it sounds like we actually could use some new legislation.
How about if you take somebody's life in an act
of self defense that you are not found to be
criminally liable for, you should be protected from a civil
suit for a wrongful death, thoughts, I would.

Speaker 1 (30:36):
Have a problem with that. I would have a problem
with that at all. So barely a week after we
learned that the Antarctic ice is experiencing a massive I
mean a massive expansion as measured by the satellites from NASA,

(30:59):
scientists at the Universe of Helsinki put out a study.
They got a really great solution to the loss of
Antarctic ice. Bell we have an expansion. So Helsinki has
a study about how to stop the loss. I know,

(31:21):
you make it sense. However you want to make it
sense now? My guess is that these scientists in air
quotes are probably the beneficiaries of a bunch of government grants.
So they spent the summer of twenty twenty three studying
ammonia emissions caused by the poop from penguins at a

(31:44):
coastal site near the Maribillo Base, a permanent year round
research site that's run by Argentina. Okay, so what so far,
so good? Right, wait to hear what the research discovered.
The team measured ammonia concentrations at that coastal site during

(32:06):
the astral summer of twenty twenty three, they found that
penguin colonies, particularly ones containing around sixty thousand of these
adeli penguins, acted as massive sources of gaseous ammonia. Now,
ammonia in the atmosphere is a key ingredient in forming aerosols,

(32:26):
and those particles are essential for creating cloud condensation nuclei,
which allow water vapor to condense and form the clouds.
More clouds can reflect sunlight and reduce surface temperatures, making
this process highly relevant for sea ice retention in climate
regulation in the polar environs. But ammonia has obviously been

(32:51):
for years under represented in climate models. They don't like
to put that in the models when they talk about
how you know the Earth is warming. Well. The study
recorded ammonia levels between January tenth and March twenty of
twenty three, and when the wind blew from the penguin colony,
ammonia concentrations surged more than a thousand times what the

(33:16):
background levels it normally were. And even after the penguins
migrated at the end of February, the soil that was
enriched with laol iguano kept emitting ammonia for weeks and
that surprised the researchers and the data confirmed that these
penguin hotspots around the Antarctic coasts could be releasing ammonia

(33:40):
levels comparable to those found in agricultural fields. Well, I
don't know out here on the Eastern plains during the summer.
But that's not the end of the story.