Chauncey Billups is charged in a stunning FBI bust alleging he conspired with the mafia in a rigged poker game scheme designed to rip off players he lured into participating. Dan wonders how Chauncey got wrapped up with organized crime in the first place.
David Kopel, Research Director for Independence Institute, joins Dan to discuss the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up a case on whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can own guns.
Supreme Court considers gun ownership for marijuana smokers | AP News
David Kopel, Research Director for Independence Institute, joins Dan to discuss the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up a case on whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can own guns.
Supreme Court considers gun ownership for marijuana smokers | AP News
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Say it ain't so, Chauncey.
Why that's the question, right, That's probably the first word
(00:20):
out of your mouth. I know it was the first
word out of my wife's mouth. Why it was the
first word that popped into my head. Why? Why would
he do it? If he's guilty, presumed innocent, Why would
Chauncey Billups do it? Yeah, we'll talk about the rest
of this game and talk about the others who were indicted,
but we're talking about Chauncey Blankin Billups. We're talking about,
(00:43):
you know, Colorado legend. We're talking about somebody who's done
so much good for this community in so many different ways.
I mean, you know, hey, the entertainment value of being
a great athlete, GWCU now gets, etc. That's fun stuff.
But he's done a lot, a lot of great charity
work for the community, seem to really have his heart
(01:03):
in this whole community. So why would he do it?
Love your thought. I'm sure you've been thinking about this
since you heard the news three H three seven one
three A two five five the number text d A
N five seven seven three nine. And you know, on
this show, we pride ourselves on adding value. And I've
been a practicing lawyer now for forty one years, so
I actually go in and I do things like read
(01:25):
the indictment, so I will want to share with you
some interesting takeaways. And I read verbatim from portions of
the indictment itself, particularly that you know, referring to to
Chauncey Billups, and some of it makes interesting reading, right,
I mean, everybody says the same thing. This is like
a Hollywood movie. They said it during the presser this morning,
(01:46):
and I watched much of the presser. But I'll tell
you one thing and listen. If they don't have to
put that much in an indictment, write this charging document,
but there can be an awful lot of evidence, an
awful lot of on the part of Chauncey Billups that's
not in the indictment itself. I'm just telling you the
indictment document itself doesn't have much about Chauncey Billups and
(02:09):
I'll tell you what is in there. What it does
have is pretty bad, right if you're part of organizing,
you know, this kind of fraudulent, illgal scheme to defraud
people's at a poker game, and you're on the quote
cheating team as the DOJ describes it, and you know
about this entire elaborate system that's been set up to
(02:33):
cheat the marks, and you are responsible for attracting the
marks to the game. Yeah, that's bad enough in and
of itself. All I'm telling you is, if you read
the indictment document itself, it doesn't have that much about
Chauncey Billups as compared to a lot of these other defendants,
enough that you know he's not coaching the Trailblazers anymore
(02:53):
and he's in real trouble, you bet. But just wanted
to get that out on the table because you do
have much more about some of these other defendants in
the indictment. And keep it in mind, we have a
couple of different indictments going We have the poker game
fraud indictment and that whole scheme, and then separately we
have what was going on in the NBA. There's some
(03:15):
crossover in terms of NBA figures, with the most famous
obviously being Chauncey Billips, who is accused of helping attract
marks attract victims into this fraudulent poker game three at
three seven one, three eight, two five five text d
An five seven seven thirty nine. Much more on the
agenda today, as we'll have the icon himself. David Koppa,
(03:38):
one of the most knowledgeable Second Amendment experts in America,
will join us at four forty five or thereabouts to
talk more where we've were continuing to deep dive this very,
very important case now before the US Supreme Court on
whether regular marijuana users can be deprived of their Second
Amendment right to bear arms. So David Cope at four
(04:00):
forty five on that you won't want to miss it.
And I love this text right out of the gate today.
I will find time to get to it at some
point because the whole issue is so fun to me,
and it's so valuable for America because it's exposing you know,
lefties more and more and more as just having truly
lost their minds. Dan, I guess I don't understand why
(04:20):
the American people didn't get to say as the modifications
of the People's House aka the White House. Texter, thank
you for writing. You did get to say it was
on November fourth, and who you elected presidents? So, but
I do want to dive deeper into that entire conversation
as the East Wing. It appears the entire East Wing
is being demolished in order to put up the ballroom,
(04:44):
and I'm sure some great surrounding structures and we'll play
some of that fun fund sound from the left. But
all I can say is, like for a king, Jefferies
and others who are claiming this is the end of
the Republic, improves that, you know, Trump, this is why
I thought the American Revolution and all that other stuff.
I'd like to ask them, Ryan, can you get came
(05:04):
Jeffreys on? So I can ask him? Have you been
to the East Wing? Right? Have you been to the
East Wing? If you've been to the East Wing, then
you wouldn't be upset about this. I mean, the White House. Listen, it's,
you know, other than our cathedrals, it's the most important
structure in America, right because it is our White House.
(05:25):
But if you're talking about the structure itself, there is
nothing particularly impressive about the East Wing listen. I think
you could be in the in a bathroom at the
White House. You could be in the garbage closet at
the White House, and it would be very impressive just
because it's the White House. All I'm saying is there's
nothing particularly impressive about the East Wing. And from everything
(05:49):
I've heard, what President Trump is doing is going to
be a tremendous improvement that's going to benefit every president
for the next two or three one hundred years. Can
you imagine ryan a building like the White House doesn't
have a ballroom. I mean, you've got kind of some
standard holiday inns that have a more impressive ballroom than
(06:10):
the White House has. It's such a great point.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
And when I was covering the Cotton Bowl down in
Dallas at the Omni Hotel, that we were staying in
a tremendous facility. And I can only imagine when Donald
Trump has all these properties across the entire world and
what he's been able to design himself, and he's got
a pretty top nine designer working on this project, it's
going to be magnificent.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Oh yeah, yeah, Like that Trump Hotel DC was until
they had to sell it, right because they had those
branding charges. He still made a ton of money on it. No,
the White House needs to have a grand ballroom. I mean,
this is the center of power on the planet, and
you invite in all of these people for these state
dinners and these big important meetings and everything else, and
(06:54):
you got to set up tents on the law. No, No,
that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Trump was they can only hold like seventy nine people
come on the east Yeah. Again, it's extraordinarily impressive because
you're in the White House, But the east wing is
not an impressive part of the structure. So this is
going to be a good fix. All right, let's get
back to the hot topic of the day.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
You talk about water cooler conversation everywhere, and it's the
water cooler isn't as big a deal now that everybody
has their own big water bottles like yours, right, I mean,
they're the size of the water jug itself on the
water cooler. But a Texter starts us Dan if true
about Chauncey and others, very disappointing. These athletes and coaches
make so much more money than the average person, Why
(07:40):
do they feel the need to make even more money unethically?
That from Alexa Alexa as always cuts right to the
heart of it. And what I told my wife this
morning anyway, and I can't remember if she bought my
theory or not, is is this just comes back to
the reality that the only thing on this planet that's
last and is going to give ultimate fulfillment is a
(08:03):
person's relationship with God. And I'm not trying to get
you know, all preaching. I'm just talking about reality. Chauncey
Billups has everything the guys made. He made at least
one hundred million or more in his NBA career. If
he was playing now, it'd be three or four hundred million.
He plenty of money from every other sources. So if
he's guilty of this, why does he do it right?
(08:25):
And I think it's like so many people, because I
think the world outside of this indictment, everything I've seen
and heard about Chauncey Phillips, I've thought very, very highly
of him. But you see an awful lot of people
who are in a position to have everything right and
then they're still unfulfilled. Why are they unfulfilled now? Because
the ultimate fulfillment isn't going to come from all that stuff,
(08:47):
And you know, just human nature. Always chasing the next high,
and I don't mean drug high. Always chasing the next rush,
the next challenge, the next excitement. Now maybe that was
it here for Chauncey Billups, but Holy Kyle, I really
worry about Chauncey Billups because we're all going to fall
at some time in our life, right And from everything
(09:09):
I've seen of Chauncey Billups, there's so much in the
plus categories, so much he's done for society everything else.
I worry for him right now because when you're involved
in a scheme like this, if the charges are true
and you're luring people into a rigged poker game, let's
just say, your life insurance company is probably not very
(09:31):
happy with you. I mean, I think if the charges
are true, he's probably in real danger, particularly given the
characters that he's alleged to have been associating with.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Then it's four of the five major crime families of
New York. I mean, I'm talking historically speaking here. He
might be safer in prison than being on the LAMB
as an informant for the FBI against them OUTFA.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
And we'll come back to our calls and text and
start in that note, and I'll get into the indictment
document itself as I rea this indictment and understand it.
Chauncey Billups is accused of being on the side of
the crime families, that the crime families were involved in
setting up these rigged games. You know, that involved all
this sophisticated technology so you could see what cards the
(10:17):
Marx had, the victims had, and Chauncey Billups was in
on the technology alerting him and others to what cards
the Marx had. And so Chauncey Billups, according to the allegation,
it's only an allegation, would have been on the side
of the mob families that were involved in putting these
rigged games together. Three out three seven, one, three eight,
(10:38):
two five five the number update. David Kuppel's going to
join us at four thirty six. You won't want to
miss that. You're on the Dankapla Show.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Ledge roles in both schemes, this alleged illegal gambling operation
hustled unwitting victims out of tens of millions of dollars
and created a financial pipeline for LaCOSA Nostra to help
fund and facilitate their organized criminal activity. Victims were attracted
(11:15):
to play alongside well known professional athletes and coaches like
Chauncey Billups, only to be unknowingly deceived through rigged shuffling
machines fixing the odds in their favor. As alleged and
as you just heard from the US Attorney's office, this
alleged scheme retaboc across the nation, exploiting the notoriety of
(11:39):
some and the wallets of many to fund the Italian
crime families.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Wow here in New York. If true, why would Chauncey
Billups be involved in this? Would love your theory?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Quick question Dan for you and the listeners.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
How much less bad would this be if it was
simply a straight up off the books mafia run poker game,
but it was on the level and the participants had
a chance of winning, rather than it being rigged. Chauncey
knowing it was rigged and then luring these marks in
to get.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Had that's a whole different deal, right, I think? I
mean still the association. If a jar of Chauncey Billups
in the crime families, yeah, then that leads to all
sorts of other issues right, such as why was there
some other reason that Billups felt he had to help
out the crime families? Here if the allegations are true. Again,
when you read the indictment itself, and I'll quote from
(12:31):
it verbatim in a bit, it's pretty thin when it
comes to Chauncey Billups. Damning but thin. So not trying
to say they don't have the goods on them or
anything like that. But it's not like you see, you know,
five or ten different events involving Chauncey Billups described in
the indictment one obviously one too many, but I think
many more facts to come. Text or Dan, who is
(12:53):
Chauncey Billups betting on? What is this the basketball story? Mafia? Sorry,
I guess I just assume everybody knows the story. That's
my bad. But Chauncey Billups, Colorado, a sports hero and
a great contributor to charitable endeavors in Colorado, accused now
of aligning with multiple crime families Italian crime families out
of New York to cheat people in high dollar card
(13:17):
games and cheat through the use of advanced technology. Dan
Phillips is my old neighbor. I didn't know him personally,
but I think of Pete Rose Billups is not charged
with cheating in any way, shape or form in basketball.
There's a whole separate indictment. It's a different document, even
though they were both announced today dealing with basketball players
accused of engaging and cheating in the game of basketball,
(13:42):
largely by affecting statistics. Say they take themselves out of
a game early, tell their associates they're going to take
themselves out of the game early so that they have
fewer points and rebounds and assist in the game. And
then people go out and bet before the game that
they'll have less points and rebounds and assist or they'd
normally be expected to day. Al Right, point shaving, which
(14:04):
was the scandal that Henry Hill was involved and the
main character portrayed by Rayliota in Goodfellas.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
He got to some Boston college players.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
And so let's say that Blazers were favored by five
and a half over the Nuggets, and Chauncey was told, look,
you can't you can't win by more than five, all right,
and then you got to make sure that you shave
that number down, right, But.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
No such allegation again, Well, Chauncey here in connection with
anything on the basketball side, right, But then this brings
you back to the question of if guilty, why would
he be associating with the crime families. Stephen A. Smith
has a theory as to who's behind all this.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
Big night for the NBA when Beyonda put on a
show that has now been smethed because we're talking about
this story. Okay, Remember Trump has a long, long history
connected to the world of sports because he had those casinos.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Way do you think folks will come in half the time?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the culture.
When people want to want to go to a casino,
when people want to gamble, when people want to party,
or whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
This was his kind of connection to that.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Why am I glad you here, Monica, because don't be
surprised that the w NBA.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Is next on his list. So steven A believing this
is all about Trump trying to get back at the NBA.
I think steven A's had some very lucid, courageous kind
of thoughts lately, but I think off the deep end
on this one. Rick and Thornton, you're on the Dan caplis,
she'll welcome. Hello, Rick, how's Rick? Ricky Ricardo? How you doing?
(15:38):
My friend? There's somebody there. There's somebody there. He's on
a drive. Shipper's call for help sounds a little like
in and Out. I know it might be. We can
only hope you will never find more impressive employees overall
than you will at either my law firm or in
in and Out, and of course this radio station. But
how does in and Out do it? I want to
(16:00):
take Rick's call because it looks like his question was
going to be, Hey, Dan, how do you define habitual
marijuana user for the purposes of this Supreme Court case
that we'll be talking with David Koppel about at four
thirty six, Because again, the issue before the Supreme Court
as of two days ago is, you know, can the
federal government deprive somebody or the state government of their
(16:20):
Second Amendment rights because they're a regular marijuana user. So,
to answer Rick's question, the way the case law is
defining habitual marijuana user is a regular marijuana user. And
the argument of the Trump administration to the US Supreme
Court in support of a federal statute that says you
(16:40):
cannot possess a gun if you're a regular user of
any legal substance, controlled substance to be more precise. You know,
the argument of the administration is that puts you in
a more dangerous category, including more dangerous to police, and
then they provide medical support, legal support, etc. They tie
it to the nation's history and tradition, going back to
(17:03):
the founding of depriving quote drunkards was the legal term
for alcoholics of their right to bear arms. So that's
the administration's argument. David Koppel, who's one of the top
Second Amendment experts in America, will join us at four
point thirty six for his take on that. So, Rick,
thank you for the call. Sorry you couldn't stay with us.
Good question that you have, and that goes to the
(17:25):
heart of what the US Supreme Court is going to
be looking at, which is wait a second. You know,
the Federal Court judge and the Federal Court of Appeals
down there called the Circuit Court had both said, now,
you can't take somebody's two A rights away because they're
a regular user. You've got to show that they were
impaired at the time. And that's the issue before the
(17:46):
Supreme Court. And where will the Supreme Court come down
on it. Normally you think, and I'm anxious to get
David's taken a minute or two actually in six and
a half minutes. Normally you think the US Supreme Court
does not take this case unless they're going to overturn
the trial court and the appellate court and support the
administration's position. But I'm not sure it's that clear cut
(18:10):
here at all. So major issue obviously for Colorado, where
so many people that are now so many more people
are now consuming marijuana regularly because it's legal at the
state level but still illegal at the federal level. So
should somebody lose their Second Amendment right such a vital,
profound important right over regular marijuana use. You're on the
(18:31):
Dan Caplis Show, David Coppel.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Next, you're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
No lack of creativity there behind the glass. Nobody does
it like Ryan Schuling, and when it comes to Second
Amendment and so many other things, just nobody better in
America than David Koppel, research director at the Independence Institute,
and so much more. David, a true Colorado treasure. Welcome
back to the show, my friend.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Dan, that was a nice introduction, well so well deserved.
And you know, I've been sitting around wondering. I mean,
you're still a young buck in his prime. But fifty
or one hundred years from now, when you've gone, you're gone.
Who's going to take your place? Because I mean, I
don't see who's ready to step into this role. But
in any case, David's the man when it comes to
(19:21):
two A and so much more. I have been dying
to get your take, my friend, when it comes to
this case the US Supreme Court just took on. And
I'm sure you know so much more about it than
I do. But for the audience, a quick overview. This
is a case where this guy Ali Don Yellhamani, a
dual citizen of US and Pakistan, tied to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, very serious terrorism figure. When the FBI rated
(19:45):
his place, they found a whole bunch of marijuana and cocaine,
and he admitted he used marijuana every other day, and
he had a glock and some other firearms, and so
they charged him with the legal possession of a firearm
because under nine twenty two G. Three, you can't be
possessing a firearm. You know, when you're an unlawful user
(20:05):
of a controlled substance. So that's my kind of quick
lay impression of the case, David. But what do you
make of this?
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Well, I thank you you described it accurately. And the
information about his his ties to Iran and his support
for terrorism, those were made at a at a bond here,
so they're they're allegations by the government. You know, haven't
been proven in a court of law, but I wouldn't
(20:34):
be surprised if they could be proven. And so he's
a terrible person and shouldn't even have been in this
country in the first place, let alone walking three. But
the case here is not about all that. It's as
you said, the Volume eighteen of the United States Code,
(20:58):
Section nine two G creates nine categories of people who
can't possess farms and ammunition. And exactly what you said
if you quoted the statute if you're a addict or
a habitual an addict, or a user of controlled substances,
(21:20):
unlawfully of controlled substances, and the after the United States
Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol
Association Versus Bruin, which essentially said that that thing in
the Second Amendment about keeping bare arms that the bear
part actually means something, and so states can't prohibit the
(21:44):
general public from giving from carrying farms for lawful protection,
although they can't have a fair licensing system like Colorado
mostly does. And since then, the but the court also said,
you've decide Second Amendment cases based on the original meaning
(22:04):
and not based on the judges analysis of his own
policy beliefs. You look to history and tradition and the
original meaning. And since the bruined decision, five of the
US Circuit courts of Appeals and including the tenth which
covers Colorado, have issue decisions on Section nine twenty two
(22:28):
G three, and they have been conflicted. There's a real
circuit split out there. And this is an important case
because there's G three. Section really gets a there's a
lot of federal prosecution under that.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And Hunter Biden ran a foull of that, didn't he
I don't remember all the details of that criminal prostitution.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Well, yeah, he was actually arguing in court as well
that it's un constitutional under the Second Amendment, although he
had a harder case because he was, by his admission,
an addict, which is different from the user, you know,
and sometimes for for addictions, substance addictions, it changes the
(23:14):
person's personality and behavior even when they're not intoxicated at
the moment, and that that would certainly be true with
Hunter Biden, you know, and this ridiculous thing of having
buying the gun, having them then throwing it in the trash,
in the garbage, and it gets found and he tries
to blame the thing on some hypothetical illegal alien.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
It's David Koppel, our guests from the Independence Institute and
so much more. Now, uh, David, at the end of
the day, what do you think the Supreme Court is
going to do? Do you think the Scrape Court is
going to say it is constitutional to deprive somebody of
two A rights just because they were a regular user,
even though there may not be any evidence of actual impairment,
(23:59):
you know at the time.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
Right exactly, Like yeah, And that's that's what the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals and which covers Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and the Third Circuit as well, and some of the
other circus have said to some degree. Is you know,
there's there's certainly a history of our farms laws saying
(24:23):
if you've got a gun store and somebody shows up
at the store drunk, don't sell them a gun, you know,
wait till it's sober up, and sell them a gun
the next day. And likewise, if you're drunk, don't be
carrying a gun around in public, for example, and were
for that matter, if you're any habitual drunkard, we don't
want you in the militia. But those are all None
(24:46):
of those things made it illegal just to have a
gun because you drink. You know, if if you you know,
you wanted to have some whiskey and beer on Saturday
night and then go hunting completely sober on Monday, that
was always fine. And that's the the challenge the government
has UH in this case is the fairly thin uh
(25:08):
historical record in support of this, and try to do
is they tried to change the subject and say, well,
you could, you know, and some colonial or early American laws,
if somebody was a habitual drunkard, you could, you could
actually have them locked up. And they say, well, if
you can lock them up, that's an even more severe
(25:30):
restriction on their liberty than not having a gun. And
so therefore depriving them of the gun is all right. Uh.
But even that habitual drunkard by definition they're they're always
feeling seriously intoxicated and has two beers every night with dinner,
(25:50):
is not a habitual drunkard. And this statute is far
more all encompassing, uh than people who are you know,
hardcore all the time or very frequent users. You know,
if you use, if you use medical marijuana twice a week,
by the federal government's interpretation, in complete compliance with state law,
(26:15):
they can still lock you up for five years.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
What do you think the Supreme Court does with the case.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
I'd say the initial thought is that, as in a
case called the United States versus Raheemi decided recently, which
involved the prohibition under nine two G eight of somebody
who's under a current domestic violence restraining order, the court said, oh,
(26:43):
that's okay because when the order was issued, the judge
made an individualized determination about that individual, including Raheemi himself,
who was at least equally as bad as this guy Shamani.
But that was okay because there was the individualized determination.
But some courts are staying fine, the individualized determination is great,
(27:08):
but you can't just say, you know, because somebody smokes
marijuana for arthritis and has a gun on her bedside
drawer that that should be a federal felony.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Yeah, yeah, No, it's going to be remarkable to watch us.
We'll talk about her a lot more as we get closer. Hey,
quick question, You've written too many books for me to
be able to read them all here. Do you have
a favorite? Right now somebody who has to grab one
of your books? Which should it be?
Speaker 6 (27:40):
I'll give you two choices.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
One is.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
The fast one, because it's a book. It's a book
in a series that's meant to be read, you know,
in one citty it's called The Truth about Gun Control,
and that was published in twenty thirteen. But it's not
mainly about, you know, the issues of that moment, more
about broader points and including the real danger to society
(28:04):
when a government has a monopoly of force. So that's
that'st easy and cheap, and you can be satisfied in
a single night. On the other hand, if you want
a more enduring relationship with the book, some people might
be interested in something called the morality of self defense
and military action the Judeo Christian perspective, and that starts
(28:27):
with the Book of Genesis and goes all the way
up to the president in the history of Jeneo Christianity
and the different views that Jews and Christians over the
years have had on whether it's permissible to use defensive force,
either at the individual level or to protect someone you're
(28:48):
responsible for, or to help defend your community or nation.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Like Alexander Hambleton. I mean, you never stop writing, which
is a good thing for all of us. David, appreciate
the time today, my friend, Thank you.
Speaker 6 (29:02):
Thanks again.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
That is that David Koppel, research director at the Independence Institute.
Brilliant cat and I would suggest reading everything he's written.
You're on the Dan Capler Show.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
And now back to the Dan Tapler Show podcast.
Speaker 6 (29:15):
Because when you've.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
Got all of these protests that have been going out
there and people that have been protesting against him and
what have you, this man is coming.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
He's coming, and I've been saying.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
It for a long time, and to me, this is
the latest nugget of evidence that we're talking about right here.
That's not to question the legitimacy of the case.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
We don't know.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
We're all sitting up here with saying that we don't know.
But anybody that has been around him, anybody that has
talked to him, anybody that has seen his reactions from
the sports leagues and the positions that.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
People have taken.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
They are not surprised at what's going on today?
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Is Stephen A wait a second, my friend. Uh, this
investigation started under by Most of this investigation was completed
under Biden. So how do you make this a Trump thing? Now?
I understand the timing, which is, well, it's not actually
opening night for the NBA, but very beginning of the season.
(30:15):
Maybe somebody could come up with the theory that, you know,
Trump was, you know, just poking the NBA. And let's
face it, you probably vast majority of people associated with
the NBA have probably been anti Trump. Probably, But again,
this investigation started under Biden. And when you go in
and read the indictment as I have, I don't think
(30:37):
they're making all this stuff up. I mean, the indictment
itself is pretty remarkable. And I'll get into the details
in a couple of minutes. Three or three someone three, eight, two, five,
five the number. Really want to get your take on
why Chauncey Phillips would do it. If he's guilty as
charged of associating with major New York crime families to
(30:57):
lure big shots into rigged poker games. Why would he
do that? But what do you think is behind that?
And I started the show by saying, listen, until this
indictment today, my impression of Chauncey Billups has been one
thousand percent positive, including a lot of really great charitable
work in Colorado. So why would somebody who's been so
(31:20):
good in so many ways get involved in that? If
if this allegation is true three h three seveone three
eight two five five, And very much appreciate David Coppel
joining us a couple of minutes ago to talk about
this hugely important case the US Supreme Court just took
where they will decide whether this law that allows a
federal government to take away Second Amendment rights for regular
(31:43):
marijuana use is constitutional. So getting your take on that.
So you're going to see a mix of text and
calls on this, but welcome both three O three seven
one three eight two five five takes d an five
seven seven three nine. We can walk in chew gum
around here. Even at the same time, Danareck, I meant
David Cokppel to fill in for you when you are
out next time. What a good suggestion. We need to
(32:04):
add David to the list and then hope that he
will do it. Dan, how do you want Scotis to
rule on this case? Great question. I want Scotis to
say that somebody should not lose their Second Amendment rights
just because they are a regular marijuana user. I think
our Second Amendment rights are too important and profound to
(32:26):
have an entire category of people deprived of their Second
Amendment rights because they happen to be a regular marijuana user,
particularly in states where it's legal at a state level.
Now you know me. I think that legalized marijuana has
been a horrible scourge which has done horrific things to Colorado,
and legalization needs to be reversed. But here we're talking
(32:49):
about a fundamental constitutional right, the personal right to bear arms,
to defend your family, to defend your home, and I
don't think the government should be able to strip you
of that right just because you're regularly using a substance
that happens to be legal in your state. Now, I
expect and I hope, the Supreme Court will carve out
(33:13):
an ability for the government to deprive people of their
rights if regular use in an individualized case, is causing
somebody to be extraordinarily dangerous to law enforcement, to others, etc.
But I think that has to be an individualized case
(33:33):
rather than an entire category of people. I mean, as
a Texter pointed out, and I've talked about a thousand
times on air, there is no doubt out there now
the connection between heavy marijuana use and mass shootings. Doesn't
mean heavy marijuana user is going to commit a mass shooting.
But if you look at the mass shooters, large majority
of them have been heavy marijuana users. So we as
(33:57):
a society, as a matter of responsibility, need to be
looking at that connection and doing everything we can constitutionally
do to recognize that reality among others and deal with it.
But no, I do not think the US. I do
not think the comment should be able to take away
a fundamental right because somebody in a state where it's
(34:20):
legal on a state level is a regular marijuana user.
But I'd love your take on a three or three
someone three A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. A Texter says, Dan, you pointed
out multiple times the dangerous connection of marijuana and mass shooters.
Maybe their firearms should be taken away. Heck, yes, if
you can identify particular individuals, that's the distinction between a
(34:43):
categorical denial and individuals individuals who are you know, say
you had identify the Harrison Cleebold though they couldn't legally
possess anyway right at their age. But yeah, but no,
I don't think on that basis we can and be
denying entire categories of people. That connection is one big
(35:06):
reason why we shouldn't have legalized marijuana. You know, let's
start there. There are so many different reasons we should
not have legalized marijuana. And the fact that a large
percentage of the people committing mass shootings, you know, are
people who are having marijuana users, and many of them younger,
(35:27):
just one of many, many important reasons we should not
have legalized marijuana. But the Second Amendment, right, it's fundamental
and it shouldn't be deprived for this. You're on the
Dan Capitol Show.
This is Dan Caples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Say it ain't so, Chauncey.
Why that's the question, right, That's probably the first word
(00:20):
out of your mouth. I know it was the first
word out of my wife's mouth. Why it was the
first word that popped into my head. Why? Why would
he do it? If he's guilty, presumed innocent, Why would
Chauncey Billups do it? Yeah, we'll talk about the rest
of this game and talk about the others who were indicted,
but we're talking about Chauncey Blankin Billups. We're talking about,
(00:43):
you know, Colorado legend. We're talking about somebody who's done
so much good for this community in so many different ways.
I mean, you know, hey, the entertainment value of being
a great athlete, GWCU now gets, etc. That's fun stuff.
But he's done a lot, a lot of great charity
work for the community, seem to really have his heart
(01:03):
in this whole community. So why would he do it?
Love your thought. I'm sure you've been thinking about this
since you heard the news three H three seven one
three A two five five the number text d A
N five seven seven three nine. And you know, on
this show, we pride ourselves on adding value. And I've
been a practicing lawyer now for forty one years, so
I actually go in and I do things like read
(01:25):
the indictment, so I will want to share with you
some interesting takeaways. And I read verbatim from portions of
the indictment itself, particularly that you know, referring to to
Chauncey Billups, and some of it makes interesting reading, right,
I mean, everybody says the same thing. This is like
a Hollywood movie. They said it during the presser this morning,
(01:46):
and I watched much of the presser. But I'll tell
you one thing and listen. If they don't have to
put that much in an indictment, write this charging document,
but there can be an awful lot of evidence, an
awful lot of on the part of Chauncey Billups that's
not in the indictment itself. I'm just telling you the
indictment document itself doesn't have much about Chauncey Billups and
(02:09):
I'll tell you what is in there. What it does
have is pretty bad, right if you're part of organizing,
you know, this kind of fraudulent, illgal scheme to defraud
people's at a poker game, and you're on the quote
cheating team as the DOJ describes it, and you know
about this entire elaborate system that's been set up to
(02:33):
cheat the marks, and you are responsible for attracting the
marks to the game. Yeah, that's bad enough in and
of itself. All I'm telling you is, if you read
the indictment document itself, it doesn't have that much about
Chauncey Billups as compared to a lot of these other defendants,
enough that you know he's not coaching the Trailblazers anymore
(02:53):
and he's in real trouble, you bet. But just wanted
to get that out on the table because you do
have much more about some of these other defendants in
the indictment. And keep it in mind, we have a
couple of different indictments going We have the poker game
fraud indictment and that whole scheme, and then separately we
have what was going on in the NBA. There's some
(03:15):
crossover in terms of NBA figures, with the most famous
obviously being Chauncey Billips, who is accused of helping attract
marks attract victims into this fraudulent poker game three at
three seven one, three eight, two five five text d
An five seven seven thirty nine. Much more on the
agenda today, as we'll have the icon himself. David Koppa,
(03:38):
one of the most knowledgeable Second Amendment experts in America,
will join us at four forty five or thereabouts to
talk more where we've were continuing to deep dive this very,
very important case now before the US Supreme Court on
whether regular marijuana users can be deprived of their Second
Amendment right to bear arms. So David Cope at four
(04:00):
forty five on that you won't want to miss it.
And I love this text right out of the gate today.
I will find time to get to it at some
point because the whole issue is so fun to me,
and it's so valuable for America because it's exposing you know,
lefties more and more and more as just having truly
lost their minds. Dan, I guess I don't understand why
(04:20):
the American people didn't get to say as the modifications
of the People's House aka the White House. Texter, thank
you for writing. You did get to say it was
on November fourth, and who you elected presidents? So, but
I do want to dive deeper into that entire conversation
as the East Wing. It appears the entire East Wing
is being demolished in order to put up the ballroom,
(04:44):
and I'm sure some great surrounding structures and we'll play
some of that fun fund sound from the left. But
all I can say is, like for a king, Jefferies
and others who are claiming this is the end of
the Republic, improves that, you know, Trump, this is why
I thought the American Revolution and all that other stuff.
I'd like to ask them, Ryan, can you get came
(05:04):
Jeffreys on? So I can ask him? Have you been
to the East Wing? Right? Have you been to the
East Wing? If you've been to the East Wing, then
you wouldn't be upset about this. I mean, the White House. Listen, it's,
you know, other than our cathedrals, it's the most important
structure in America, right because it is our White House.
(05:25):
But if you're talking about the structure itself, there is
nothing particularly impressive about the East Wing listen. I think
you could be in the in a bathroom at the
White House. You could be in the garbage closet at
the White House, and it would be very impressive just
because it's the White House. All I'm saying is there's
nothing particularly impressive about the East Wing. And from everything
(05:49):
I've heard, what President Trump is doing is going to
be a tremendous improvement that's going to benefit every president
for the next two or three one hundred years. Can
you imagine ryan a building like the White House doesn't
have a ballroom. I mean, you've got kind of some
standard holiday inns that have a more impressive ballroom than
(06:10):
the White House has. It's such a great point.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
And when I was covering the Cotton Bowl down in
Dallas at the Omni Hotel, that we were staying in
a tremendous facility. And I can only imagine when Donald
Trump has all these properties across the entire world and
what he's been able to design himself, and he's got
a pretty top nine designer working on this project, it's
going to be magnificent.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Oh yeah, yeah, Like that Trump Hotel DC was until
they had to sell it, right because they had those
branding charges. He still made a ton of money on it. No,
the White House needs to have a grand ballroom. I mean,
this is the center of power on the planet, and
you invite in all of these people for these state
dinners and these big important meetings and everything else, and
(06:54):
you got to set up tents on the law. No, No,
that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Trump was they can only hold like seventy nine people
come on the east Yeah. Again, it's extraordinarily impressive because
you're in the White House, But the east wing is
not an impressive part of the structure. So this is
going to be a good fix. All right, let's get
back to the hot topic of the day.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
You talk about water cooler conversation everywhere, and it's the
water cooler isn't as big a deal now that everybody
has their own big water bottles like yours, right, I mean,
they're the size of the water jug itself on the
water cooler. But a Texter starts us Dan if true
about Chauncey and others, very disappointing. These athletes and coaches
make so much more money than the average person, Why
(07:40):
do they feel the need to make even more money unethically?
That from Alexa Alexa as always cuts right to the
heart of it. And what I told my wife this
morning anyway, and I can't remember if she bought my
theory or not, is is this just comes back to
the reality that the only thing on this planet that's
last and is going to give ultimate fulfillment is a
(08:03):
person's relationship with God. And I'm not trying to get
you know, all preaching. I'm just talking about reality. Chauncey
Billups has everything the guys made. He made at least
one hundred million or more in his NBA career. If
he was playing now, it'd be three or four hundred million.
He plenty of money from every other sources. So if
he's guilty of this, why does he do it right?
(08:25):
And I think it's like so many people, because I
think the world outside of this indictment, everything I've seen
and heard about Chauncey Phillips, I've thought very, very highly
of him. But you see an awful lot of people
who are in a position to have everything right and
then they're still unfulfilled. Why are they unfulfilled now? Because
the ultimate fulfillment isn't going to come from all that stuff,
(08:47):
And you know, just human nature. Always chasing the next high,
and I don't mean drug high. Always chasing the next rush,
the next challenge, the next excitement. Now maybe that was
it here for Chauncey Billups, but Holy Kyle, I really
worry about Chauncey Billups because we're all going to fall
at some time in our life, right And from everything
(09:09):
I've seen of Chauncey Billups, there's so much in the
plus categories, so much he's done for society everything else.
I worry for him right now because when you're involved
in a scheme like this, if the charges are true
and you're luring people into a rigged poker game, let's
just say, your life insurance company is probably not very
(09:31):
happy with you. I mean, I think if the charges
are true, he's probably in real danger, particularly given the
characters that he's alleged to have been associating with.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Then it's four of the five major crime families of
New York. I mean, I'm talking historically speaking here. He
might be safer in prison than being on the LAMB
as an informant for the FBI against them OUTFA.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
And we'll come back to our calls and text and
start in that note, and I'll get into the indictment
document itself as I rea this indictment and understand it.
Chauncey Billups is accused of being on the side of
the crime families, that the crime families were involved in
setting up these rigged games. You know, that involved all
this sophisticated technology so you could see what cards the
(10:17):
Marx had, the victims had, and Chauncey Billups was in
on the technology alerting him and others to what cards
the Marx had. And so Chauncey Billups, according to the allegation,
it's only an allegation, would have been on the side
of the mob families that were involved in putting these
rigged games together. Three out three seven, one, three eight,
(10:38):
two five five the number update. David Kuppel's going to
join us at four thirty six. You won't want to
miss that. You're on the Dankapla Show.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Ledge roles in both schemes, this alleged illegal gambling operation
hustled unwitting victims out of tens of millions of dollars
and created a financial pipeline for LaCOSA Nostra to help
fund and facilitate their organized criminal activity. Victims were attracted
(11:15):
to play alongside well known professional athletes and coaches like
Chauncey Billups, only to be unknowingly deceived through rigged shuffling
machines fixing the odds in their favor. As alleged and
as you just heard from the US Attorney's office, this
alleged scheme retaboc across the nation, exploiting the notoriety of
(11:39):
some and the wallets of many to fund the Italian
crime families.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Wow here in New York. If true, why would Chauncey
Billups be involved in this? Would love your theory?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Quick question Dan for you and the listeners.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
How much less bad would this be if it was
simply a straight up off the books mafia run poker game,
but it was on the level and the participants had
a chance of winning, rather than it being rigged. Chauncey
knowing it was rigged and then luring these marks in
to get.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Had that's a whole different deal, right, I think? I
mean still the association. If a jar of Chauncey Billups
in the crime families, yeah, then that leads to all
sorts of other issues right, such as why was there
some other reason that Billups felt he had to help
out the crime families? Here if the allegations are true. Again,
when you read the indictment itself, and I'll quote from
(12:31):
it verbatim in a bit, it's pretty thin when it
comes to Chauncey Billups. Damning but thin. So not trying
to say they don't have the goods on them or
anything like that. But it's not like you see, you know,
five or ten different events involving Chauncey Billups described in
the indictment one obviously one too many, but I think
many more facts to come. Text or Dan, who is
(12:53):
Chauncey Billups betting on? What is this the basketball story? Mafia? Sorry,
I guess I just assume everybody knows the story. That's
my bad. But Chauncey Billups, Colorado, a sports hero and
a great contributor to charitable endeavors in Colorado, accused now
of aligning with multiple crime families Italian crime families out
of New York to cheat people in high dollar card
(13:17):
games and cheat through the use of advanced technology. Dan
Phillips is my old neighbor. I didn't know him personally,
but I think of Pete Rose Billups is not charged
with cheating in any way, shape or form in basketball.
There's a whole separate indictment. It's a different document, even
though they were both announced today dealing with basketball players
accused of engaging and cheating in the game of basketball,
(13:42):
largely by affecting statistics. Say they take themselves out of
a game early, tell their associates they're going to take
themselves out of the game early so that they have
fewer points and rebounds and assist in the game. And
then people go out and bet before the game that
they'll have less points and rebounds and assist or they'd
normally be expected to day. Al Right, point shaving, which
(14:04):
was the scandal that Henry Hill was involved and the
main character portrayed by Rayliota in Goodfellas.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
He got to some Boston college players.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
And so let's say that Blazers were favored by five
and a half over the Nuggets, and Chauncey was told, look,
you can't you can't win by more than five, all right,
and then you got to make sure that you shave
that number down, right, But.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
No such allegation again, Well, Chauncey here in connection with
anything on the basketball side, right, But then this brings
you back to the question of if guilty, why would
he be associating with the crime families. Stephen A. Smith
has a theory as to who's behind all this.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
Big night for the NBA when Beyonda put on a
show that has now been smethed because we're talking about
this story. Okay, Remember Trump has a long, long history
connected to the world of sports because he had those casinos.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Way do you think folks will come in half the time?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about the culture.
When people want to want to go to a casino,
when people want to gamble, when people want to party,
or whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
This was his kind of connection to that.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Why am I glad you here, Monica, because don't be
surprised that the w NBA.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Is next on his list. So steven A believing this
is all about Trump trying to get back at the NBA.
I think steven A's had some very lucid, courageous kind
of thoughts lately, but I think off the deep end
on this one. Rick and Thornton, you're on the Dan caplis,
she'll welcome. Hello, Rick, how's Rick? Ricky Ricardo? How you doing?
(15:38):
My friend? There's somebody there. There's somebody there. He's on
a drive. Shipper's call for help sounds a little like
in and Out. I know it might be. We can
only hope you will never find more impressive employees overall
than you will at either my law firm or in
in and Out, and of course this radio station. But
how does in and Out do it? I want to
(16:00):
take Rick's call because it looks like his question was
going to be, Hey, Dan, how do you define habitual
marijuana user for the purposes of this Supreme Court case
that we'll be talking with David Koppel about at four
thirty six, Because again, the issue before the Supreme Court
as of two days ago is, you know, can the
federal government deprive somebody or the state government of their
(16:20):
Second Amendment rights because they're a regular marijuana user. So,
to answer Rick's question, the way the case law is
defining habitual marijuana user is a regular marijuana user. And
the argument of the Trump administration to the US Supreme
Court in support of a federal statute that says you
(16:40):
cannot possess a gun if you're a regular user of
any legal substance, controlled substance to be more precise. You know,
the argument of the administration is that puts you in
a more dangerous category, including more dangerous to police, and
then they provide medical support, legal support, etc. They tie
it to the nation's history and tradition, going back to
(17:03):
the founding of depriving quote drunkards was the legal term
for alcoholics of their right to bear arms. So that's
the administration's argument. David Koppel, who's one of the top
Second Amendment experts in America, will join us at four
point thirty six for his take on that. So, Rick,
thank you for the call. Sorry you couldn't stay with us.
Good question that you have, and that goes to the
(17:25):
heart of what the US Supreme Court is going to
be looking at, which is wait a second. You know,
the Federal Court judge and the Federal Court of Appeals
down there called the Circuit Court had both said, now,
you can't take somebody's two A rights away because they're
a regular user. You've got to show that they were
impaired at the time. And that's the issue before the
(17:46):
Supreme Court. And where will the Supreme Court come down
on it. Normally you think, and I'm anxious to get
David's taken a minute or two actually in six and
a half minutes. Normally you think the US Supreme Court
does not take this case unless they're going to overturn
the trial court and the appellate court and support the
administration's position. But I'm not sure it's that clear cut
(18:10):
here at all. So major issue obviously for Colorado, where
so many people that are now so many more people
are now consuming marijuana regularly because it's legal at the
state level but still illegal at the federal level. So
should somebody lose their Second Amendment right such a vital,
profound important right over regular marijuana use. You're on the
(18:31):
Dan Caplis Show, David Coppel.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Next, you're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
No lack of creativity there behind the glass. Nobody does
it like Ryan Schuling, and when it comes to Second
Amendment and so many other things, just nobody better in
America than David Koppel, research director at the Independence Institute,
and so much more. David, a true Colorado treasure. Welcome
back to the show, my friend.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Dan, that was a nice introduction, well so well deserved.
And you know, I've been sitting around wondering. I mean,
you're still a young buck in his prime. But fifty
or one hundred years from now, when you've gone, you're gone.
Who's going to take your place? Because I mean, I
don't see who's ready to step into this role. But
in any case, David's the man when it comes to
(19:21):
two A and so much more. I have been dying
to get your take, my friend, when it comes to
this case the US Supreme Court just took on. And
I'm sure you know so much more about it than
I do. But for the audience, a quick overview. This
is a case where this guy Ali Don Yellhamani, a
dual citizen of US and Pakistan, tied to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, very serious terrorism figure. When the FBI rated
(19:45):
his place, they found a whole bunch of marijuana and cocaine,
and he admitted he used marijuana every other day, and
he had a glock and some other firearms, and so
they charged him with the legal possession of a firearm
because under nine twenty two G. Three, you can't be
possessing a firearm. You know, when you're an unlawful user
(20:05):
of a controlled substance. So that's my kind of quick
lay impression of the case, David. But what do you
make of this?
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Well, I thank you you described it accurately. And the
information about his his ties to Iran and his support
for terrorism, those were made at a at a bond here,
so they're they're allegations by the government. You know, haven't
been proven in a court of law, but I wouldn't
(20:34):
be surprised if they could be proven. And so he's
a terrible person and shouldn't even have been in this
country in the first place, let alone walking three. But
the case here is not about all that. It's as
you said, the Volume eighteen of the United States Code,
(20:58):
Section nine two G creates nine categories of people who
can't possess farms and ammunition. And exactly what you said
if you quoted the statute if you're a addict or
a habitual an addict, or a user of controlled substances,
(21:20):
unlawfully of controlled substances, and the after the United States
Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol
Association Versus Bruin, which essentially said that that thing in
the Second Amendment about keeping bare arms that the bear
part actually means something, and so states can't prohibit the
(21:44):
general public from giving from carrying farms for lawful protection,
although they can't have a fair licensing system like Colorado
mostly does. And since then, the but the court also said,
you've decide Second Amendment cases based on the original meaning
(22:04):
and not based on the judges analysis of his own
policy beliefs. You look to history and tradition and the
original meaning. And since the bruined decision, five of the
US Circuit courts of Appeals and including the tenth which
covers Colorado, have issue decisions on Section nine twenty two
(22:28):
G three, and they have been conflicted. There's a real
circuit split out there. And this is an important case
because there's G three. Section really gets a there's a
lot of federal prosecution under that.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And Hunter Biden ran a foull of that, didn't he
I don't remember all the details of that criminal prostitution.
Speaker 6 (22:52):
Well, yeah, he was actually arguing in court as well
that it's un constitutional under the Second Amendment, although he
had a harder case because he was, by his admission,
an addict, which is different from the user, you know,
and sometimes for for addictions, substance addictions, it changes the
(23:14):
person's personality and behavior even when they're not intoxicated at
the moment, and that that would certainly be true with
Hunter Biden, you know, and this ridiculous thing of having
buying the gun, having them then throwing it in the trash,
in the garbage, and it gets found and he tries
to blame the thing on some hypothetical illegal alien.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
It's David Koppel, our guests from the Independence Institute and
so much more. Now, uh, David, at the end of
the day, what do you think the Supreme Court is
going to do? Do you think the Scrape Court is
going to say it is constitutional to deprive somebody of
two A rights just because they were a regular user,
even though there may not be any evidence of actual impairment,
(23:59):
you know at the time.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
Right exactly, Like yeah, And that's that's what the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals and which covers Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and the Third Circuit as well, and some of the
other circus have said to some degree. Is you know,
there's there's certainly a history of our farms laws saying
(24:23):
if you've got a gun store and somebody shows up
at the store drunk, don't sell them a gun, you know,
wait till it's sober up, and sell them a gun
the next day. And likewise, if you're drunk, don't be
carrying a gun around in public, for example, and were
for that matter, if you're any habitual drunkard, we don't
want you in the militia. But those are all None
(24:46):
of those things made it illegal just to have a
gun because you drink. You know, if if you you know,
you wanted to have some whiskey and beer on Saturday
night and then go hunting completely sober on Monday, that
was always fine. And that's the the challenge the government
has UH in this case is the fairly thin uh
(25:08):
historical record in support of this, and try to do
is they tried to change the subject and say, well,
you could, you know, and some colonial or early American laws,
if somebody was a habitual drunkard, you could, you could
actually have them locked up. And they say, well, if
you can lock them up, that's an even more severe
(25:30):
restriction on their liberty than not having a gun. And
so therefore depriving them of the gun is all right. Uh.
But even that habitual drunkard by definition they're they're always
feeling seriously intoxicated and has two beers every night with dinner,
(25:50):
is not a habitual drunkard. And this statute is far
more all encompassing, uh than people who are you know,
hardcore all the time or very frequent users. You know,
if you use, if you use medical marijuana twice a week,
by the federal government's interpretation, in complete compliance with state law,
(26:15):
they can still lock you up for five years.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
What do you think the Supreme Court does with the case.
Speaker 6 (26:22):
I'd say the initial thought is that, as in a
case called the United States versus Raheemi decided recently, which
involved the prohibition under nine two G eight of somebody
who's under a current domestic violence restraining order, the court said, oh,
(26:43):
that's okay because when the order was issued, the judge
made an individualized determination about that individual, including Raheemi himself,
who was at least equally as bad as this guy Shamani.
But that was okay because there was the individualized determination.
But some courts are staying fine, the individualized determination is great,
(27:08):
but you can't just say, you know, because somebody smokes
marijuana for arthritis and has a gun on her bedside
drawer that that should be a federal felony.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Yeah, yeah, No, it's going to be remarkable to watch us.
We'll talk about her a lot more as we get closer. Hey,
quick question, You've written too many books for me to
be able to read them all here. Do you have
a favorite? Right now somebody who has to grab one
of your books? Which should it be?
Speaker 6 (27:40):
I'll give you two choices.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
One is.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
The fast one, because it's a book. It's a book
in a series that's meant to be read, you know,
in one citty it's called The Truth about Gun Control,
and that was published in twenty thirteen. But it's not
mainly about, you know, the issues of that moment, more
about broader points and including the real danger to society
(28:04):
when a government has a monopoly of force. So that's
that'st easy and cheap, and you can be satisfied in
a single night. On the other hand, if you want
a more enduring relationship with the book, some people might
be interested in something called the morality of self defense
and military action the Judeo Christian perspective, and that starts
(28:27):
with the Book of Genesis and goes all the way
up to the president in the history of Jeneo Christianity
and the different views that Jews and Christians over the
years have had on whether it's permissible to use defensive force,
either at the individual level or to protect someone you're
(28:48):
responsible for, or to help defend your community or nation.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Like Alexander Hambleton. I mean, you never stop writing, which
is a good thing for all of us. David, appreciate
the time today, my friend, Thank you.
Speaker 6 (29:02):
Thanks again.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
That is that David Koppel, research director at the Independence Institute.
Brilliant cat and I would suggest reading everything he's written.
You're on the Dan Capler Show.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
And now back to the Dan Tapler Show podcast.
Speaker 6 (29:15):
Because when you've.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
Got all of these protests that have been going out
there and people that have been protesting against him and
what have you, this man is coming.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
He's coming, and I've been saying.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
It for a long time, and to me, this is
the latest nugget of evidence that we're talking about right here.
That's not to question the legitimacy of the case.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
We don't know.
Speaker 5 (29:36):
We're all sitting up here with saying that we don't know.
But anybody that has been around him, anybody that has
talked to him, anybody that has seen his reactions from
the sports leagues and the positions that.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
People have taken.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
They are not surprised at what's going on today?
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Is Stephen A wait a second, my friend. Uh, this
investigation started under by Most of this investigation was completed
under Biden. So how do you make this a Trump thing? Now?
I understand the timing, which is, well, it's not actually
opening night for the NBA, but very beginning of the season.
(30:15):
Maybe somebody could come up with the theory that, you know,
Trump was, you know, just poking the NBA. And let's
face it, you probably vast majority of people associated with
the NBA have probably been anti Trump. Probably, But again,
this investigation started under Biden. And when you go in
and read the indictment as I have, I don't think
(30:37):
they're making all this stuff up. I mean, the indictment
itself is pretty remarkable. And I'll get into the details
in a couple of minutes. Three or three someone three, eight, two, five,
five the number. Really want to get your take on
why Chauncey Phillips would do it. If he's guilty as
charged of associating with major New York crime families to
(30:57):
lure big shots into rigged poker games. Why would he
do that? But what do you think is behind that?
And I started the show by saying, listen, until this
indictment today, my impression of Chauncey Billups has been one
thousand percent positive, including a lot of really great charitable
work in Colorado. So why would somebody who's been so
(31:20):
good in so many ways get involved in that? If
if this allegation is true three h three seveone three
eight two five five, And very much appreciate David Coppel
joining us a couple of minutes ago to talk about
this hugely important case the US Supreme Court just took
where they will decide whether this law that allows a
federal government to take away Second Amendment rights for regular
(31:43):
marijuana use is constitutional. So getting your take on that.
So you're going to see a mix of text and
calls on this, but welcome both three O three seven
one three eight two five five takes d an five
seven seven three nine. We can walk in chew gum
around here. Even at the same time, Danareck, I meant
David Cokppel to fill in for you when you are
out next time. What a good suggestion. We need to
(32:04):
add David to the list and then hope that he
will do it. Dan, how do you want Scotis to
rule on this case? Great question. I want Scotis to
say that somebody should not lose their Second Amendment rights
just because they are a regular marijuana user. I think
our Second Amendment rights are too important and profound to
(32:26):
have an entire category of people deprived of their Second
Amendment rights because they happen to be a regular marijuana user,
particularly in states where it's legal at a state level.
Now you know me. I think that legalized marijuana has
been a horrible scourge which has done horrific things to Colorado,
and legalization needs to be reversed. But here we're talking
(32:49):
about a fundamental constitutional right, the personal right to bear arms,
to defend your family, to defend your home, and I
don't think the government should be able to strip you
of that right just because you're regularly using a substance
that happens to be legal in your state. Now, I
expect and I hope, the Supreme Court will carve out
(33:13):
an ability for the government to deprive people of their
rights if regular use in an individualized case, is causing
somebody to be extraordinarily dangerous to law enforcement, to others, etc.
But I think that has to be an individualized case
(33:33):
rather than an entire category of people. I mean, as
a Texter pointed out, and I've talked about a thousand
times on air, there is no doubt out there now
the connection between heavy marijuana use and mass shootings. Doesn't
mean heavy marijuana user is going to commit a mass shooting.
But if you look at the mass shooters, large majority
of them have been heavy marijuana users. So we as
(33:57):
a society, as a matter of responsibility, need to be
looking at that connection and doing everything we can constitutionally
do to recognize that reality among others and deal with it.
But no, I do not think the US. I do
not think the comment should be able to take away
a fundamental right because somebody in a state where it's
(34:20):
legal on a state level is a regular marijuana user.
But I'd love your take on a three or three
someone three A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. A Texter says, Dan, you pointed
out multiple times the dangerous connection of marijuana and mass shooters.
Maybe their firearms should be taken away. Heck, yes, if
you can identify particular individuals, that's the distinction between a
(34:43):
categorical denial and individuals individuals who are you know, say
you had identify the Harrison Cleebold though they couldn't legally
possess anyway right at their age. But yeah, but no,
I don't think on that basis we can and be
denying entire categories of people. That connection is one big
(35:06):
reason why we shouldn't have legalized marijuana. You know, let's
start there. There are so many different reasons we should
not have legalized marijuana. And the fact that a large
percentage of the people committing mass shootings, you know, are
people who are having marijuana users, and many of them younger,
(35:27):
just one of many, many important reasons we should not
have legalized marijuana. But the Second Amendment, right, it's fundamental
and it shouldn't be deprived for this. You're on the
Dan Capitol Show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.