October 22, 2025 • 35 mins
The Supreme Court of the United States has taken up a case regarding the gun rights for 'habitual marijuana users,' as Dan discusses whether or not the 2nd amendment should be subject to review for those exhibiting chronic THC consumption.
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. Perfect day to
fight for the American way. I guess they all are right,
but today absolutely pristine, ideal fall day.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Glad you're here. Three oh three seven.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
One three eight two five five the number. I feel
I'm wasting my breath to say it, because obviously the
world's moved on, right. I mean, I started doing this
about thirty years ago and used to be all callers
and I love that. Call me a throwback, but I
love the give and take. But I understand across America
if not, the world talk radio has changed and most
people taxed. And you know, I'll adapt d a N
(00:47):
five seven seven three nine. If you prefer to text,
all I'd ask though, is that you please try to
limit it to a sentence or so, and then if
you need multiple texts, that's great. But just the pace
of the show that helps a lot. And there is
so much to cover today. One of the most interesting
US Supreme Court cases in year shaping up and obviously
(01:08):
has a lot to do with us here in Colorado.
In the case is HARMANI Htma and I usv. Hamiani,
and it's a case we're going to deep dive this.
You are going to be the smartest galer guy in
the room, whatever room you go into other than the
US Supreme Court for the oral argument when it comes
to this case. And everybody's going to want to hear
what you have to say, because, hey, this is a
(01:30):
case about whether whether the federal government can take away
your Second Amendment or right to bear arms if you
are an habitual marijuana user. And the case arises not
out of Colorado but out of Texas. And I'll get
into the details, which I think you'll find fascinating, and
you'll be one of the few people to know, right
because everybody just works off the headlines. Can you possess
(01:52):
a gun if you're a marijuana user? But you're going
to find this fascinating night, you know. And I read
a lot of cases right up and practicing law now
forty two years as of next week, and so I
read a lot of cases. This is one of the
most interesting cases I've ever read, and obviously hits home,
not for young Ryan Shuling, who would never go near
(02:14):
that evil weed we're talking about, Yeah, should a marijuana user?
Should a marijuana user be able to possess a firearm?
Now it gets into some more detail than that, of course,
but that's the headline that you're seeing out there.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
So can't wait to deep dive the case with you.
I'll do it.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Early in this show, and then we'll have some guests
along the way and tomorrow as well, because this obviously
has enormous ramifications for people in the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
And when it comes to our Second.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Amendment right, you know, one of the absolute most essential
rights we have under the Constitution under constant attack from
the left. You know the fact that the Trump administration
is gone to the US Supreme Court and said, hey,
second Amendment right, one of the most important rights we have,
should rarely be infringed on, but it needs to be
(03:04):
infringed on here. Needs to be infringed on here because
habitual marijuana users present a special danger and therefore should
not be allowed to possess firearms. So that's the position
of the Trump administration before the US Supreme Court, and
we will get into that in great detail, but so
much more on the agenda I've got to get to
(03:25):
with you today, and that is some will be short,
some will be longer. But this issue of women at
high levels of politics right now, the Democratic Party having
a very very public debate nationally over female candidates for
the presidency. You've got some of the parties saying, oh, America,
(03:46):
it's so sexist, it's not ready for that. We're going
to keep losing if we keep running women. Yeah, if
you keep running the same women you've been running, you're
going to lose, because when it comes to presidency, Americans
care about merit first. But it does bring us to
the issue of why Colorado hasn't had a woman governor
or senator. So I'm anxious to get your take on that.
(04:07):
Three or three seven, one, three eight two five five
tags d an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Hey, when it comes to merit, right, it's a no brainer.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
It goes without saying, so I'll say it that, Yeah, Colorado,
there have been countless women who were more than qualified
to be a governor or US senator from the state
of Colorado and would have done a much better job
than the guys. Right, that's obvious, same thing US, same
thing the United States presidency. There's no question of qualification
(04:34):
of women in general to be great presidents of the
United States. The issue has been with the qualifications of
Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
But I do want a zero.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
In on Colorado because it's such a fun topic, it's
so interesting, and it just exposes the left here in
the state right as the total liars and hypocrites that
they are. Hey, while we're talking about that, I've got
to throw this in from Al Sharpton, because you're starting
to hear this a lot now, you know, as an
excuse for Kamala Harris getting thumped and Hillary Clinton losing
(05:06):
a race that everybody, I think except me and maybe
President Trump himself, thought that she would win.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Here is El Sherpton.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
I think that, you know, I grew up having to
deal with this in black politics, and I was youth
director when I was seventeen. I couldn't vote with Shirley Chisholm.
And see it even in black politicalship. And I think
that there is a toxic masculinity that they try and
appeal to. And I think that in the case of
(05:36):
New Jersey and Virginia, they have to go around and
really work on that. And Reverend Botley, who heads out
Nashal Action Network in New Jersey, would tell me they
needed to really work hard because black men were some
of whom Donald Trump targeted against Kamala Harris. So I
think you can't take anything for granted and.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
You can't dismiss it.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
There is some of misogyny that is in the electorate
that needs.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
To bet al Sherpton hammering black men, right, So, stereotyping
black men as being misogynistic, Yeah, first, wrong, and great
move there.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
That's that's really going to help your cause.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
What he's referring to is Abigail Spenberger, who is the
Democrat candidate for governor in Virginia, probably going to win
that race.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I hope she doesn't. She's had a very big lead.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
That lead is narrowing, and as the lead narrows, you know,
the left is trying to say, what's misogyny. I guess
they missed the fact that our opponent is also a
woman who happens to be a black woman as well.
So remarkable stuff. But there is still a chance. There
is still a chance that the Republican can win that race.
(06:46):
In Virginia because yeah, the Democratic candidate now has come
out in favor of boys and girls sports and says
that those who are opposed to boys and girls sports
are fearmongers, et cetera. So if there's one way to
blow a race that you're supposed to win, yeah, come
out in favor of boys and girls sports. I'm guessing
(07:07):
Ryan that Ebigail was not paying much attention on November fourth,
or maybe for the month and a half prior to
November fourth, when all of those fantastic ads you know,
we're running and America responded very well to the pitch that, hey,
this election is about do you want boys and girls'
bathrooms and men and women's showers? And most saying people
(07:29):
say no.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
She's having a really difficult time answering that question on
that issue. And I'm talking from like friendly media outlets.
Most notably, I think in the sound that you had
me gather, she was doing a sit down interview with
Katie Curic. He's no conservative, but on this issue, all
she does is spin, gets into like a Kamala Harris
word salad, tries to filibuster her way out of it,
(07:52):
but she says nothing that gives you any assurance that
she's looking out for girls and.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Women quite the opposite, right.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
And the reason I mentioned it here because what do
we care about governor and Virginia?
Speaker 5 (08:01):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:01):
The reason I mentioned it here is I'm really hoping
whoever our GOP candidates for governor and Senator are in Colorado,
that they go hard on this issue, hard on this
issue because they're lefty opponents. You know, if you just
pin them down they're lefty opponents, they are going to say, yeah,
they're all four, you know that the boys in the
(08:22):
women's bathrooms and showers and the men in the women's
bathrooms and showers and sports. And the Left's going to
be all for that. And so I think it's so
important on a couple levels. First, the girls and women
of Colorado deserve better than having men and boys in
their bathroom, showers and sports.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
And second, it.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Reveals so much about who Michael Bennett is, Phil Wiser
is ideologically, John Hickenlooper is it just it reveals so
much about how crazy far left they really are, and
how out of touch they are just on just basic
values and principles and morals, how out of touch they
(08:59):
are with most coloradin's from both parties, right, because who
in the right mind could say, oh, yeah, man, you
should be able to go into the girl's bathroom or
shower only.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
That's nut job stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Three at three seven one three eight two five five
text d A N five seven seven three nine. I
have to tell you it's so very grateful if you
get a chance to check out my Twitter or his,
which many more people to Sashian jose Is, you know,
one of the top Catholic influencers in the world, and
I follow him every day on acts. A lot of
people follow them on Instagram. And so Sunday Amy and
(09:34):
I we went out. We're playing around to golf for
having a great time. My phone blows up and I'm thinking, oh, oh,
what's happened? So you know, I ignored it, of course, until.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
We got off the course.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Ryan, it's I've been working on that trial. It's the
first eighteen holes I played all summer. Oh wow, And
I love golf. I'm not good, but I love it.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
I'm an addict.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
First eighteen holes I played all summer was last. So
I didn't look at my phone and I get off
the course and it turns out this remarkable man, Sasha
Jse tweeted about me, and it's like that's like Martians
Landing kind of stuff. I follow him every day. He
doesn't tweet about people like me, you know, and so
(10:19):
nobody's so it was just a remarkable, surreal experience. I
couldn't even believe it, but of course I reposted it
on my Twitter.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
So but thank you to Sasha Jose.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He was so very kind and just talking about the
law practice and some things we've accomplished and commitment to
the Catholic faith. And believe me, I'm a work in
progress there. But thank you to Sasha Jose. And you
should follow him really no matter where you are, you
could be anywhere on the religious belief scale.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Whatever he is.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
He's a fascinating guy who does a lot of great reporting.
Sashin Jose at Sashin three oh three seven one three
eight two five five text d A N five seven
seventh through nine one week go back. We are doing
the deep dive on this big US Supreme Court case
Coloraden's who habitually use marijuana?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Are you about to lose your gun rights? Should you?
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
And now back to the Dan kapla show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
On Morning Joe.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
It really is incredible when you have Abigail Spanberg or
Mikey Cheryl, her background, all the different jobs that she
has held in the military, and also like Elissa Slockin.
I mean, my god, these women are incredible. And to them,
I would say, fight, fight, fight, because.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
We need them. Yeah, we need them and leading And Mikey.
Speaker 8 (11:44):
Is like, she's doing a ton of interview.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
You know when I talked to that when I was
in the car, you know, was this car she had
gone from interview to interview to talk to talk to
But you know you still see the anxiety.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Yeah, so they're lamenting, Hey, all the sexism out there,
it's so hard for a few candidates to win, etc.
They don't seem to be willing to take a look at,
you know, the fatal flaws in their candidate's ideologies, etc.
Has nothing to do with gender. Now, unfortunately that dem
will probably still win in Virginia. She had a really
big lead that's dropping like a rock, but probably not
(12:19):
fast enough.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The GOP candidate out there is fantastic win.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Some earl sears who's the lieutenant governor right now? But
she has a lot of ground to make up in
a hurry. Well, let's hope and pray she does. Certainly,
the fact her opponent now has strongly come out in
favor of letting boys and girls locker rooms and showers
and sports.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Hopefully the boost that wins some will need to win
that race.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
But the Colorado piece a but why do you think
Colorado's never had a female governor or senator? Why do
you think the Colorado Democratic Party has not made that happen.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Anyway, let me get to a couple of texts that's
set up.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Well, this really important and fascinating topic we're about to
get into. Which is the case the US Supreme Court
yesterday decided to take. Which is can the federal government
say to Colorado's who habitually use marijuana, you lose your
two A rights. That's what the US Supreme Court is
(13:17):
about to decide. Case actually arises out of Texas, but
it's the same idea, and it's all about marijuana.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Because you see a lot of headlines about.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
This case where they talk about, you know, when they
busted this guy, they found cocaine too, and things like that.
Now Supreme Court has made it clear this case is.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
All about marijuana.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Whether the federal government can take away somebody's Second Amendment
rights if they are a habitual marijuana user. So that
is the issue in front of the US Supreme Court.
I do want to get to a couple of techs
that help frame this as you now become the smartest
person in pretty much any room about this case. Dan,
(13:56):
How do you justify your crusade for marijuana prohibition but
not for alcohol?
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Really easy? And that is first, I live in the
real world. Right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Alcohol is here to stay. There's no question about that.
And there are other differences, but it's here to stay.
That's not going to change marijuana. We are not stuck
with this yet. We are at the day will come
when we probably are, but we are not stuck with
this yet.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
This is still a decision.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
That states are making state to state, and some states
have said no when they've looked at all the carnage
and all the harms caused in places like Colorado. So no,
it's still possible to save the kids and save everybody
else from this craziness of legalized Krakawana. Let's see, there
were a couple of others here, Dan, Alcoholics present a
(14:46):
special danger when possessing firearms, should we take away their
Second Amendment rights as well? Texter, What a truly brilliant
question you ask, because that very issue is now being
focused on by the US Supreme Court. You know why
because when the Trump administration went to the US Supreme
Court and said, hey, please take this case on because we,
(15:10):
the Trump Administration, believe that habitual marijuana users should lose
their Second Amendment rights during the time they're habitual marijuana users.
The argument that Trump administration made, among others, to the
US Supreme Court that convinced the court to take this
case is comparing it to the long history and tradition
(15:34):
of laws in America that are quote, drunkards from possessing firearms.
So it's fascinating. I hope you dive in and read
these briefs for yourself. When I have some time, I'll
make sure to get them posted. But yeah, so the
Trump administration is saying, hey, US Supreme Court, second Amendment
(15:54):
rights are absolutely fundamental and critical and essential to an
order society.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
We should not impose on.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Second Amendment rights excepting very rare circumstances. But says the administration,
this is one of those rare circumstances, because we have
to be able to keep guns away from dangerous people.
And there are certain categories, says the Administration, of dangerous
people that guns should be kept away from, and one
(16:25):
of those categories is habitual users of illegal drugs, and
that the Administration argues to the Supreme Court, this kind
of restriction is consistent with our nation's history and tradition.
Because what the US Supreme Court has said in a
bunch of different opinions is, well, you cannot be infringing
(16:48):
on the Second Amendment, right, this fundamental right. You cannot
be infringing unless that restriction is consistent with our nation's
history and tradition of firearms restrictions. So if you're trying
to push a firearm restriction, you've got to be a historian.
You've got to be able to go back and find out, hey,
(17:10):
you know, at the time, at the time of the
Second Amendment, at the time of ratification, and then again
following the Civil War, what did the people understand the
Second Amendment to say, what kind of restrictions on firearm
possession did the people back then permit? And that makes sense, right,
(17:31):
because the US Supreme Court would want to say, whoa, Hey,
if the people you know who wrote and passed the
Second Amendment and then ratified it, if those people believe
certain types of firearms restrictions were appropriate, well then they're
appropriate now.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
And so what the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Is saying, Look back then, when they approved all this,
they routinely restricted firearm possession by alcohol. Not only did
they deny and they called them drunkards at the time.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's the actual legal terminology.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Not only did they deny drunkards firearm possession, they threw
them in jail and they put them in insane asylums.
So that's what the Trump administration is arguing. Hey, it's
part of our nation's history and tradition that when it
comes to firearm possession you can restrict possession of firearms
by dangerous categories of people. And your honors, says the
(18:30):
Trump administration of the Supreme Court, habitual users of marijuana
present a special danger and should not be entitled to
possess firearms.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
And then you know what happened.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The US Supreme Court decided to take the case, which
strongly suggests they're going to side with the administration.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
What do you think about this? You're on the Dan
Capla Ship.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
You know, if it wasn't for that song, you and
I probably never meet.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Neither of us are here then, because when I originally
interviewed for this position was for this position to be
in this.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
Chair as executive producer for The Dan Kapli.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Show and its original iteration anyway, Yeah, back in November
twenty eighteen, and this song is what prompted you.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
It was inspirational for you to come out here. Yeah,
I'll never forget. I was competing for the Evans Scholarship.
If you've ever seen Caddyshack, at sist tremendous scholarship program
where they send deserving caddies to college and you have
to be middle income or lower than that to qualify.
It's a beautiful thing. And I'm told the movie Caddyshack
(19:42):
is based on the same scholarship. And so I'm competing
for the scholarship and I'm thinking about, you know, what
school within the program to apply for, and as I
remember it, Ryan could be false memory syndrome, but I
have this very vivid memory of hearing this song and
thinking I want to go to Colorado does so I'm
not even sure the song was out then, but that
(20:02):
is my memory. So that's why I think I applied
to Colorado. Thank god I did. Man every single day here,
I've appreciated being here. Texter says, damn, this case must
have liberal minds doing some amazing mental gymnastics. Do they
back marijuana or gun rights? It should say marijuana or
(20:23):
limiting gun rights? Right, I just saw liberal head explode.
Thank you, Texter. What we're talking about is this enormous
case the US Supreme Court yesterday decided to take. They'll
decide it next year, and it's usv. HARMANI. And this
is a case where you have this guy in Texas arrested,
(20:44):
charged by the Feds after an FBI raid with violating USC.
Nine two sub section G three. Don't write that down
if you're driving. But this is a really big deal
this part of the law, because this is the part
of the federal law that lists out a bunch of
(21:05):
reasons you can prohibit somebody from possessing a firearm. And
you've had the US Supreme Court itself say that this
particular section of the law nine twenty two G three
has done more to protect than any other section of
(21:26):
the Firearms Code, and so under nine twenty two G three,
the law prohibits the possession of firearms. I'm going to
read to the verbatim by a person who is an
unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Okay,
(21:46):
So if somebody is an unlawful user of a controlled substance,
they violate federal last they possess a firearm. If somebody
is addicted to any controlled substance, they violate federal law
when they possess a firearm. Now, what has happened is
(22:11):
that the courts, through court cases, have refined that language
a little bit, and the courts have defined unlawful user
of a controlled substance substance to mean a habitual user.
So there's been a bit of a narrowing there. But anyway,
it all comes down to if somebody's a habitual user
(22:35):
of unlawful drugs, do they forfeit their Second Amendment right?
And this particular case of Harmani has to do with
marijuana and marijuana only nothing else.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
It's not about cocaine, it's not about math. It's about marijuana.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
And the Supreme Court says that specifically in taking this case.
So let me give you a little background on the case,
because I think you'll find it fascinating. And again, there's
going to be so much talk about this case wherever
you are, wherever you go, backyard, barbecue stuff, et cetera.
Because as as the actual oral argument approaches before the
US Supreme Court, we could well end up with the
(23:15):
situation where any habitual user of marijuana in Colorado is
violating federal law when they possess a firearm. Do you
want to see that result or the opposite three oh
three seven one three eight two five five takes d
an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
But here's the background.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
I think you'll find it amazing because right now, of course,
people are thinking, Wow, we've got so many habitual users
of marijuana in Colorado. Would it apply to everybody? Well,
the way this question has been framed for the court,
it would. But understand the background of this particular defendant,
because all you hear is US v.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Hamani Htma and I.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
But it's Us v. Ali Danyal Hamani. Now mister Haman
at the time of his arrest was a dual citizen
of the US and Pakistan. He had been tied by
the FBI to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In fact, he
went to Iran to celebrate the life of Solomani a
(24:16):
month after Solomani was killed by an American drone. His mother,
mister Hamani's mother, prayed he would become a martyr like Solomani.
His brother attended a university in Iran with links to terrorism.
The defendant himself said he would not tell authorities if
he knew a terrorist attack was imminent. And the defendant
(24:38):
was a drug dealer who uses illegal drugs, and text
messages said he was addicted to certain drugs, didn't mention marijuana.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Here's the deal.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
FBI gets onto this guy, they raid his house and
they find cocaine and marijuana, and the defendant and told
the FBI he uses marijuana every other day.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
So that's the basis.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
That's the evidence for the Feds charging him with being
a habitual or regular user of marijuana, because that's what
the law requires. You've got to prove somebody he's a
habitual user of a controlled substance under federal law to
take away their gun right. So they charge him with
this felony of illegal gun possession, and you're probably thinking
(25:28):
right now, back to that Hunter Biden example, right of
violating federal law while possessing the firearm while being an addict.
So anyway, that's the case down in Texas. Now here's
where it takes another interesting twist, and it tells you
something about the US Supreme Court taking this case. So
(25:49):
what happens in Texas. Well, here you've got this guy.
Obviously a lot of reason to be concerned. This is
a very very dangerous cat. You got this guy, and
the federal court down in Texas dismisses this charge. It
dismisses the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. And the
(26:09):
federal court says, no, no, it's unconstitutional to take away
somebody's two way rights for being an habitual user of
marijuana unless they were impaired at the time they were
impaired at the time of possession. And the circuit court,
(26:29):
the federal appellate court backed up the trial court and held, no,
it'd be unconstitutional to deprive somebody of their Second Amendment
rights just for being an habitual marijuana user unless you
can show that they were actually impaired at the time
they were possessing or impaired at the time they were using.
So that's where the Texas Federal Court and appellet court
(26:52):
for that circuit landed.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
And here's another twist.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
The US attorney down there did not oppose the dismissal.
Now there were some other reasons for that, but didn't
oppose the dismissal. So under those circumstances, it would normally
be considered really unusual if the US Supreme Court would
take the case. There also, arguably is not a lot
of disagreement between the federal appellate courts around the country,
(27:22):
the circuits around the country.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
But the Supreme Court took the case.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
They took the case, and so what most of us
would read from the outside is that, hey, they probably
only took that case under those unusual circumstances because they
intend to overturn the trial court and the circuit and
they intend to say, no, this is constitutional, that you
(27:50):
can constitutionally deprive somebody of their Second Amendment right during
that time period their habitual user. Because part of the
argument of the prosecut is, hey, your runner justices, a
person can get their Second Amendment rights back simply by
obeying the law and deciding that they will no longer
(28:11):
be an habitual user of marijuana. So that's the quick
background on it. But I'd love to come back. I'll
take text and calls. I want to get your take
on this. This is the Trump administration that asked the
US Supreme Court to take this case and to endorse
this restriction on Second Amendment rights. Do you agree with
the Trump administration here? Do you think people should lose
(28:34):
their two A rights while they are habitual users of marijuana?
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Or do you disagree?
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Three or three seOne three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (28:48):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 8 (28:51):
James Carrville, you know what we do would collaborate us right,
and I think as corporations. My fantasy dream is that
this nightmare ends in twenty twenty nine, and I think
we ought to have radical thing. I think they all
are to have the head shaven. They should be put
(29:12):
in orange pajamas and the speak march down Pennsylvania Avenue
and the public should be invited to spit out them.
The universities, the corporations, the law firms, all of these
collaborators should be shaved, pajamined and spit out.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Now that's James Carville. So listen to that and tell
me I'm wrong in my theory.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
I can't prove it, but my theory that, hey, this
is no king's business. Why is it named that way?
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Well, because what's been the one justification in American history
for a violent revolution the presence of a king and
what are they really up to? Again, theory can't prove
it as fact, but unfortunately, I think we're going to
see this unfold.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And that is last weekend.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
That was just a rehearsal the mechanics of being able
to get large numbers of people out to very specifically
chosen locations in a hurry, because I think ultimately, you
know that the big money people on the left behind
all this. I think they see what's happening. They're losing
power in America politically, but they can overrun certain areas
(30:15):
with large numbers of people, like they've tried to do
in la before Trump called in the Marines, you know,
like they've doing right now in Portland, in Chicago, where
they can claim certain major metropolitan areas as their own.
And yeah, they'll take federal money. But the Feds won't
be able to enforce any law that the locals don't
want them to enforce. I personally believe that's the overall
(30:36):
game plan. And then you hear people like Carville talking
like that. But and if you think that theory is awfill,
ask yourselves why did they do it? Then there's no
obvious political point. They didn't move the needle on anything.
They spent millions and thousands and thousands of hours. And
why the name no kings, which is kind of goofy
to begin with, why that name?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Unless it's my theory.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Anyway, getting your reaction to this case, the US Supreme
Court just decided to take that. I've done the deep
dive on today. So you're now the smartest person in
any room on this except Supreme Court when they have
the oral argument, and the big issue before the court
is can you deprive habitual marijuana users of their Second
(31:21):
Amendment right to possess a weapon? Let's start with Ed
in or around Canyon City or on the dan kaplis.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
You'll welcome ed Hi, dan Bell. I don't have any
answers for this subject, because I mean, I've been I'm
an avid shooter. I go to the range. And I've
been around people, and I don't think that if you drink,
you should be around guns. But to deprive someone of
their second Amendment right now, the reason that they want
(31:48):
to deprive them of their right is because of their
mental capacity, because they've been drinking. Is that? Why?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
What a great point? My friend?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Let me quote to you from the brief that the
Supreme Court relied on when they decided yesterday to take
this case. And the argument that Trump administration laid out
is if somebody is a habitual marijuana user, they pose
a special danger while.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Possessing a weapon.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
And they cited drug induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Ability, and mood.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Marijuana alters perception of time, decreases short term memory, impairs
perception and motor skills, and larger amounts induces panic attacks,
paranoid thoughts, hallucinations, and that habitual users of marijuana pose
additional danger to police.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Well, if that's the case, do they deprive people with
down syndrome autism of their of their second memorized or
the right to vote? I mean, their capacity is quite slow,
it's not normal, So I mean they're starting to open
up a red flag. So to speak. So if you
(32:59):
take they can actually say, hey, well you have a
mental problem, you're on ZENX. We're gonna and tell you
either get off zenex or straighten up. We're gonna take
away your guns too.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
And you know what's so fascinating is the logic behind
this and behind this law and behind court decisions on
this law is do you have categories of people who,
based upon certain impairments or conditions, pose a special danger?
So ed all of the interesting questions you raised would
(33:35):
come back to that analysis. Now, what the Trump administration
is arguing to the Supreme Court is, hey, Supreme Court,
look at all the evidence you have on this category
of folks, and look at the Supreme Court history regarding
this category of folks being habitual drug users, and you
can see it has been the common experience and tradition
(33:56):
in America that people in this category do pose a
special danger. That's the argument of the Trump administration. And
then to the caller's point, a bunch of Texters points
they do base it on the nation's history of severely
restricting a gun possession by what the law used to
(34:16):
call quote drunkards and commonly known doun as alcoholics. And
there is a long history in this nation going back
to the ratification of the Second Amendment of not allowing
alcoholics to have guns and works.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
I mean, they used to throw them in asylums.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So the Trump administration citing that precedent, and then it's
interesting because they then go through the history that will
wait a second. You know, the Founders didn't envision, and
they didn't envision after the Civil War. They didn't envision
legalized drugs. They didn't envision widespread illegal drugs. That kind
of problem was not yet a big deal in America.
(34:56):
Didn't become a big deal in America until early twentieth
cent and then you started to see these laws come
into effect in the twenties and thirties against possessing illegal drugs.
But yeah, the Trump administration says, we need to base
this on the laws that go back to the very
beginning restricting gun possession by alcoholics.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
So what do you think of that logic?
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Are you happy the Trump administration has successfully taken this
case to the US Supreme Court now and I think
fair to anticipate they're going to win on this. Now,
how the Supreme Court would ultimately shape it, I want
to talk with you about that.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
After the break as well.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
But do you agree or disagree with the Trump administration
pursuing this.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
You're on the Dan Capital 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. Perfect day to
fight for the American way. I guess they all are right,
but today absolutely pristine, ideal fall day.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Glad you're here. Three oh three seven.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
One three eight two five five the number. I feel
I'm wasting my breath to say it, because obviously the
world's moved on, right. I mean, I started doing this
about thirty years ago and used to be all callers
and I love that. Call me a throwback, but I
love the give and take. But I understand across America
if not, the world talk radio has changed and most
people taxed. And you know, I'll adapt d a N
(00:47):
five seven seven three nine. If you prefer to text,
all I'd ask though, is that you please try to
limit it to a sentence or so, and then if
you need multiple texts, that's great. But just the pace
of the show that helps a lot. And there is
so much to cover today. One of the most interesting
US Supreme Court cases in year shaping up and obviously
(01:08):
has a lot to do with us here in Colorado.
In the case is HARMANI Htma and I usv. Hamiani,
and it's a case we're going to deep dive this.
You are going to be the smartest galer guy in
the room, whatever room you go into other than the
US Supreme Court for the oral argument when it comes
to this case. And everybody's going to want to hear
what you have to say, because, hey, this is a
(01:30):
case about whether whether the federal government can take away
your Second Amendment or right to bear arms if you
are an habitual marijuana user. And the case arises not
out of Colorado but out of Texas. And I'll get
into the details, which I think you'll find fascinating, and
you'll be one of the few people to know, right
because everybody just works off the headlines. Can you possess
(01:52):
a gun if you're a marijuana user? But you're going
to find this fascinating night, you know. And I read
a lot of cases right up and practicing law now
forty two years as of next week, and so I
read a lot of cases. This is one of the
most interesting cases I've ever read, and obviously hits home,
not for young Ryan Shuling, who would never go near
(02:14):
that evil weed we're talking about, Yeah, should a marijuana user?
Should a marijuana user be able to possess a firearm?
Now it gets into some more detail than that, of course,
but that's the headline that you're seeing out there.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
So can't wait to deep dive the case with you.
I'll do it.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Early in this show, and then we'll have some guests
along the way and tomorrow as well, because this obviously
has enormous ramifications for people in the state of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
And when it comes to our Second.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Amendment right, you know, one of the absolute most essential
rights we have under the Constitution under constant attack from
the left. You know the fact that the Trump administration
is gone to the US Supreme Court and said, hey,
second Amendment right, one of the most important rights we have,
should rarely be infringed on, but it needs to be
(03:04):
infringed on here. Needs to be infringed on here because
habitual marijuana users present a special danger and therefore should
not be allowed to possess firearms. So that's the position
of the Trump administration before the US Supreme Court, and
we will get into that in great detail, but so
much more on the agenda I've got to get to
(03:25):
with you today, and that is some will be short,
some will be longer. But this issue of women at
high levels of politics right now, the Democratic Party having
a very very public debate nationally over female candidates for
the presidency. You've got some of the parties saying, oh, America,
(03:46):
it's so sexist, it's not ready for that. We're going
to keep losing if we keep running women. Yeah, if
you keep running the same women you've been running, you're
going to lose, because when it comes to presidency, Americans
care about merit first. But it does bring us to
the issue of why Colorado hasn't had a woman governor
or senator. So I'm anxious to get your take on that.
(04:07):
Three or three seven, one, three eight two five five
tags d an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Hey, when it comes to merit, right, it's a no brainer.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
It goes without saying, so I'll say it that, Yeah, Colorado,
there have been countless women who were more than qualified
to be a governor or US senator from the state
of Colorado and would have done a much better job
than the guys. Right, that's obvious, same thing US, same
thing the United States presidency. There's no question of qualification
(04:34):
of women in general to be great presidents of the
United States. The issue has been with the qualifications of
Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
But I do want a zero.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
In on Colorado because it's such a fun topic, it's
so interesting, and it just exposes the left here in
the state right as the total liars and hypocrites that
they are. Hey, while we're talking about that, I've got
to throw this in from Al Sharpton, because you're starting
to hear this a lot now, you know, as an
excuse for Kamala Harris getting thumped and Hillary Clinton losing
(05:06):
a race that everybody, I think except me and maybe
President Trump himself, thought that she would win.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Here is El Sherpton.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
I think that, you know, I grew up having to
deal with this in black politics, and I was youth
director when I was seventeen. I couldn't vote with Shirley Chisholm.
And see it even in black politicalship. And I think
that there is a toxic masculinity that they try and
appeal to. And I think that in the case of
(05:36):
New Jersey and Virginia, they have to go around and
really work on that. And Reverend Botley, who heads out
Nashal Action Network in New Jersey, would tell me they
needed to really work hard because black men were some
of whom Donald Trump targeted against Kamala Harris. So I
think you can't take anything for granted and.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
You can't dismiss it.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
There is some of misogyny that is in the electorate
that needs.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
To bet al Sherpton hammering black men, right, So, stereotyping
black men as being misogynistic, Yeah, first, wrong, and great
move there.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
That's that's really going to help your cause.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
What he's referring to is Abigail Spenberger, who is the
Democrat candidate for governor in Virginia, probably going to win
that race.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I hope she doesn't. She's had a very big lead.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
That lead is narrowing, and as the lead narrows, you know,
the left is trying to say, what's misogyny. I guess
they missed the fact that our opponent is also a
woman who happens to be a black woman as well.
So remarkable stuff. But there is still a chance. There
is still a chance that the Republican can win that race.
(06:46):
In Virginia because yeah, the Democratic candidate now has come
out in favor of boys and girls sports and says
that those who are opposed to boys and girls sports
are fearmongers, et cetera. So if there's one way to
blow a race that you're supposed to win, yeah, come
out in favor of boys and girls sports. I'm guessing
(07:07):
Ryan that Ebigail was not paying much attention on November fourth,
or maybe for the month and a half prior to
November fourth, when all of those fantastic ads you know,
we're running and America responded very well to the pitch that, hey,
this election is about do you want boys and girls'
bathrooms and men and women's showers? And most saying people
(07:29):
say no.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
She's having a really difficult time answering that question on
that issue. And I'm talking from like friendly media outlets.
Most notably, I think in the sound that you had
me gather, she was doing a sit down interview with
Katie Curic. He's no conservative, but on this issue, all
she does is spin, gets into like a Kamala Harris
word salad, tries to filibuster her way out of it,
(07:52):
but she says nothing that gives you any assurance that
she's looking out for girls and.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Women quite the opposite, right.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
And the reason I mentioned it here because what do
we care about governor and Virginia?
Speaker 5 (08:01):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:01):
The reason I mentioned it here is I'm really hoping
whoever our GOP candidates for governor and Senator are in Colorado,
that they go hard on this issue, hard on this
issue because they're lefty opponents. You know, if you just
pin them down they're lefty opponents, they are going to say, yeah,
they're all four, you know that the boys in the
(08:22):
women's bathrooms and showers and the men in the women's
bathrooms and showers and sports. And the Left's going to
be all for that. And so I think it's so
important on a couple levels. First, the girls and women
of Colorado deserve better than having men and boys in
their bathroom, showers and sports.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
And second, it.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Reveals so much about who Michael Bennett is, Phil Wiser
is ideologically, John Hickenlooper is it just it reveals so
much about how crazy far left they really are, and
how out of touch they are just on just basic
values and principles and morals, how out of touch they
(08:59):
are with most coloradin's from both parties, right, because who
in the right mind could say, oh, yeah, man, you
should be able to go into the girl's bathroom or
shower only.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
That's nut job stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Three at three seven one three eight two five five
text d A N five seven seven three nine. I
have to tell you it's so very grateful if you
get a chance to check out my Twitter or his,
which many more people to Sashian jose Is, you know,
one of the top Catholic influencers in the world, and
I follow him every day on acts. A lot of
people follow them on Instagram. And so Sunday Amy and
(09:34):
I we went out. We're playing around to golf for
having a great time. My phone blows up and I'm thinking, oh, oh,
what's happened? So you know, I ignored it, of course, until.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
We got off the course.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Ryan, it's I've been working on that trial. It's the
first eighteen holes I played all summer. Oh wow, And
I love golf. I'm not good, but I love it.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
I'm an addict.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
First eighteen holes I played all summer was last. So
I didn't look at my phone and I get off
the course and it turns out this remarkable man, Sasha
Jse tweeted about me, and it's like that's like Martians
Landing kind of stuff. I follow him every day. He
doesn't tweet about people like me, you know, and so
(10:19):
nobody's so it was just a remarkable, surreal experience. I
couldn't even believe it, but of course I reposted it
on my Twitter.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
So but thank you to Sasha Jose.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He was so very kind and just talking about the
law practice and some things we've accomplished and commitment to
the Catholic faith. And believe me, I'm a work in
progress there. But thank you to Sasha Jose. And you
should follow him really no matter where you are, you
could be anywhere on the religious belief scale.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Whatever he is.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
He's a fascinating guy who does a lot of great reporting.
Sashin Jose at Sashin three oh three seven one three
eight two five five text d A N five seven
seventh through nine one week go back. We are doing
the deep dive on this big US Supreme Court case
Coloraden's who habitually use marijuana?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Are you about to lose your gun rights? Should you?
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (11:14):
And now back to the Dan kapla show podcast.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
On Morning Joe.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
It really is incredible when you have Abigail Spanberg or
Mikey Cheryl, her background, all the different jobs that she
has held in the military, and also like Elissa Slockin.
I mean, my god, these women are incredible. And to them,
I would say, fight, fight, fight, because.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
We need them. Yeah, we need them and leading And Mikey.
Speaker 8 (11:44):
Is like, she's doing a ton of interview.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
You know when I talked to that when I was
in the car, you know, was this car she had
gone from interview to interview to talk to talk to
But you know you still see the anxiety.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Yeah, so they're lamenting, Hey, all the sexism out there,
it's so hard for a few candidates to win, etc.
They don't seem to be willing to take a look at,
you know, the fatal flaws in their candidate's ideologies, etc.
Has nothing to do with gender. Now, unfortunately that dem
will probably still win in Virginia. She had a really
big lead that's dropping like a rock, but probably not
(12:19):
fast enough.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
The GOP candidate out there is fantastic win.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Some earl sears who's the lieutenant governor right now? But
she has a lot of ground to make up in
a hurry. Well, let's hope and pray she does. Certainly,
the fact her opponent now has strongly come out in
favor of letting boys and girls locker rooms and showers
and sports.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Hopefully the boost that wins some will need to win
that race.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
But the Colorado piece a but why do you think
Colorado's never had a female governor or senator? Why do
you think the Colorado Democratic Party has not made that happen.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Anyway, let me get to a couple of texts that's
set up.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Well, this really important and fascinating topic we're about to
get into. Which is the case the US Supreme Court
yesterday decided to take. Which is can the federal government
say to Colorado's who habitually use marijuana, you lose your
two A rights. That's what the US Supreme Court is
(13:17):
about to decide. Case actually arises out of Texas, but
it's the same idea, and it's all about marijuana.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Because you see a lot of headlines about.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
This case where they talk about, you know, when they
busted this guy, they found cocaine too, and things like that.
Now Supreme Court has made it clear this case is.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
All about marijuana.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Whether the federal government can take away somebody's Second Amendment
rights if they are a habitual marijuana user. So that
is the issue in front of the US Supreme Court.
I do want to get to a couple of techs
that help frame this as you now become the smartest
person in pretty much any room about this case. Dan,
(13:56):
How do you justify your crusade for marijuana prohibition but
not for alcohol?
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Really easy? And that is first, I live in the
real world. Right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Alcohol is here to stay. There's no question about that.
And there are other differences, but it's here to stay.
That's not going to change marijuana. We are not stuck
with this yet. We are at the day will come
when we probably are, but we are not stuck with
this yet.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
This is still a decision.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
That states are making state to state, and some states
have said no when they've looked at all the carnage
and all the harms caused in places like Colorado. So no,
it's still possible to save the kids and save everybody
else from this craziness of legalized Krakawana. Let's see, there
were a couple of others here, Dan, Alcoholics present a
(14:46):
special danger when possessing firearms, should we take away their
Second Amendment rights as well? Texter, What a truly brilliant
question you ask, because that very issue is now being
focused on by the US Supreme Court. You know why
because when the Trump administration went to the US Supreme
Court and said, hey, please take this case on because we,
(15:10):
the Trump Administration, believe that habitual marijuana users should lose
their Second Amendment rights during the time they're habitual marijuana users.
The argument that Trump administration made, among others, to the
US Supreme Court that convinced the court to take this
case is comparing it to the long history and tradition
(15:34):
of laws in America that are quote, drunkards from possessing firearms.
So it's fascinating. I hope you dive in and read
these briefs for yourself. When I have some time, I'll
make sure to get them posted. But yeah, so the
Trump administration is saying, hey, US Supreme Court, second Amendment
(15:54):
rights are absolutely fundamental and critical and essential to an
order society.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
We should not impose on.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Second Amendment rights excepting very rare circumstances. But says the administration,
this is one of those rare circumstances, because we have
to be able to keep guns away from dangerous people.
And there are certain categories, says the Administration, of dangerous
people that guns should be kept away from, and one
(16:25):
of those categories is habitual users of illegal drugs, and
that the Administration argues to the Supreme Court, this kind
of restriction is consistent with our nation's history and tradition.
Because what the US Supreme Court has said in a
bunch of different opinions is, well, you cannot be infringing
(16:48):
on the Second Amendment, right, this fundamental right. You cannot
be infringing unless that restriction is consistent with our nation's
history and tradition of firearms restrictions. So if you're trying
to push a firearm restriction, you've got to be a historian.
You've got to be able to go back and find out, hey,
(17:10):
you know, at the time, at the time of the
Second Amendment, at the time of ratification, and then again
following the Civil War, what did the people understand the
Second Amendment to say, what kind of restrictions on firearm
possession did the people back then permit? And that makes sense, right,
(17:31):
because the US Supreme Court would want to say, whoa, Hey,
if the people you know who wrote and passed the
Second Amendment and then ratified it, if those people believe
certain types of firearms restrictions were appropriate, well then they're
appropriate now.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
And so what the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Is saying, Look back then, when they approved all this,
they routinely restricted firearm possession by alcohol. Not only did
they deny and they called them drunkards at the time.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
That's the actual legal terminology.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Not only did they deny drunkards firearm possession, they threw
them in jail and they put them in insane asylums.
So that's what the Trump administration is arguing. Hey, it's
part of our nation's history and tradition that when it
comes to firearm possession you can restrict possession of firearms
by dangerous categories of people. And your honors, says the
(18:30):
Trump administration of the Supreme Court, habitual users of marijuana
present a special danger and should not be entitled to
possess firearms.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
And then you know what happened.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
The US Supreme Court decided to take the case, which
strongly suggests they're going to side with the administration.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
What do you think about this? You're on the Dan
Capla Ship.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
You know, if it wasn't for that song, you and
I probably never meet.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Neither of us are here then, because when I originally
interviewed for this position was for this position to be
in this.
Speaker 6 (19:10):
Chair as executive producer for The Dan Kapli.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Show and its original iteration anyway, Yeah, back in November
twenty eighteen, and this song is what prompted you.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
It was inspirational for you to come out here. Yeah,
I'll never forget. I was competing for the Evans Scholarship.
If you've ever seen Caddyshack, at sist tremendous scholarship program
where they send deserving caddies to college and you have
to be middle income or lower than that to qualify.
It's a beautiful thing. And I'm told the movie Caddyshack
(19:42):
is based on the same scholarship. And so I'm competing
for the scholarship and I'm thinking about, you know, what
school within the program to apply for, and as I
remember it, Ryan could be false memory syndrome, but I
have this very vivid memory of hearing this song and
thinking I want to go to Colorado does so I'm
not even sure the song was out then, but that
(20:02):
is my memory. So that's why I think I applied
to Colorado. Thank god I did. Man every single day here,
I've appreciated being here. Texter says, damn, this case must
have liberal minds doing some amazing mental gymnastics. Do they
back marijuana or gun rights? It should say marijuana or
(20:23):
limiting gun rights? Right, I just saw liberal head explode.
Thank you, Texter. What we're talking about is this enormous
case the US Supreme Court yesterday decided to take. They'll
decide it next year, and it's usv. HARMANI. And this
is a case where you have this guy in Texas arrested,
(20:44):
charged by the Feds after an FBI raid with violating USC.
Nine two sub section G three. Don't write that down
if you're driving. But this is a really big deal
this part of the law, because this is the part
of the federal law that lists out a bunch of
(21:05):
reasons you can prohibit somebody from possessing a firearm. And
you've had the US Supreme Court itself say that this
particular section of the law nine twenty two G three
has done more to protect than any other section of
(21:26):
the Firearms Code, and so under nine twenty two G three,
the law prohibits the possession of firearms. I'm going to
read to the verbatim by a person who is an
unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Okay,
(21:46):
So if somebody is an unlawful user of a controlled substance,
they violate federal last they possess a firearm. If somebody
is addicted to any controlled substance, they violate federal law
when they possess a firearm. Now, what has happened is
(22:11):
that the courts, through court cases, have refined that language
a little bit, and the courts have defined unlawful user
of a controlled substance substance to mean a habitual user.
So there's been a bit of a narrowing there. But anyway,
it all comes down to if somebody's a habitual user
(22:35):
of unlawful drugs, do they forfeit their Second Amendment right?
And this particular case of Harmani has to do with
marijuana and marijuana only nothing else.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
It's not about cocaine, it's not about math. It's about marijuana.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
And the Supreme Court says that specifically in taking this case.
So let me give you a little background on the case,
because I think you'll find it fascinating. And again, there's
going to be so much talk about this case wherever
you are, wherever you go, backyard, barbecue stuff, et cetera.
Because as as the actual oral argument approaches before the
US Supreme Court, we could well end up with the
(23:15):
situation where any habitual user of marijuana in Colorado is
violating federal law when they possess a firearm. Do you
want to see that result or the opposite three oh
three seven one three eight two five five takes d
an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
But here's the background.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
I think you'll find it amazing because right now, of course,
people are thinking, Wow, we've got so many habitual users
of marijuana in Colorado. Would it apply to everybody? Well,
the way this question has been framed for the court,
it would. But understand the background of this particular defendant,
because all you hear is US v.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Hamani Htma and I.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
But it's Us v. Ali Danyal Hamani. Now mister Haman
at the time of his arrest was a dual citizen
of the US and Pakistan. He had been tied by
the FBI to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In fact, he
went to Iran to celebrate the life of Solomani a
(24:16):
month after Solomani was killed by an American drone. His mother,
mister Hamani's mother, prayed he would become a martyr like Solomani.
His brother attended a university in Iran with links to terrorism.
The defendant himself said he would not tell authorities if
he knew a terrorist attack was imminent. And the defendant
(24:38):
was a drug dealer who uses illegal drugs, and text
messages said he was addicted to certain drugs, didn't mention marijuana.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Here's the deal.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
FBI gets onto this guy, they raid his house and
they find cocaine and marijuana, and the defendant and told
the FBI he uses marijuana every other day.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
So that's the basis.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
That's the evidence for the Feds charging him with being
a habitual or regular user of marijuana, because that's what
the law requires. You've got to prove somebody he's a
habitual user of a controlled substance under federal law to
take away their gun right. So they charge him with
this felony of illegal gun possession, and you're probably thinking
(25:28):
right now, back to that Hunter Biden example, right of
violating federal law while possessing the firearm while being an addict.
So anyway, that's the case down in Texas. Now here's
where it takes another interesting twist, and it tells you
something about the US Supreme Court taking this case. So
(25:49):
what happens in Texas. Well, here you've got this guy.
Obviously a lot of reason to be concerned. This is
a very very dangerous cat. You got this guy, and
the federal court down in Texas dismisses this charge. It
dismisses the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. And the
(26:09):
federal court says, no, no, it's unconstitutional to take away
somebody's two way rights for being an habitual user of
marijuana unless they were impaired at the time they were
impaired at the time of possession. And the circuit court,
(26:29):
the federal appellate court backed up the trial court and held, no,
it'd be unconstitutional to deprive somebody of their Second Amendment
rights just for being an habitual marijuana user unless you
can show that they were actually impaired at the time
they were possessing or impaired at the time they were using.
So that's where the Texas Federal Court and appellet court
(26:52):
for that circuit landed.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
And here's another twist.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
The US attorney down there did not oppose the dismissal.
Now there were some other reasons for that, but didn't
oppose the dismissal. So under those circumstances, it would normally
be considered really unusual if the US Supreme Court would
take the case. There also, arguably is not a lot
of disagreement between the federal appellate courts around the country,
(27:22):
the circuits around the country.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
But the Supreme Court took the case.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
They took the case, and so what most of us
would read from the outside is that, hey, they probably
only took that case under those unusual circumstances because they
intend to overturn the trial court and the circuit and
they intend to say, no, this is constitutional, that you
(27:50):
can constitutionally deprive somebody of their Second Amendment right during
that time period their habitual user. Because part of the
argument of the prosecut is, hey, your runner justices, a
person can get their Second Amendment rights back simply by
obeying the law and deciding that they will no longer
(28:11):
be an habitual user of marijuana. So that's the quick
background on it. But I'd love to come back. I'll
take text and calls. I want to get your take
on this. This is the Trump administration that asked the
US Supreme Court to take this case and to endorse
this restriction on Second Amendment rights. Do you agree with
the Trump administration here? Do you think people should lose
(28:34):
their two A rights while they are habitual users of marijuana?
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Or do you disagree?
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Three or three seOne three eight two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (28:48):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 8 (28:51):
James Carrville, you know what we do would collaborate us right,
and I think as corporations. My fantasy dream is that
this nightmare ends in twenty twenty nine, and I think
we ought to have radical thing. I think they all
are to have the head shaven. They should be put
(29:12):
in orange pajamas and the speak march down Pennsylvania Avenue
and the public should be invited to spit out them.
The universities, the corporations, the law firms, all of these
collaborators should be shaved, pajamined and spit out.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Now that's James Carville. So listen to that and tell
me I'm wrong in my theory.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
I can't prove it, but my theory that, hey, this
is no king's business. Why is it named that way?
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Well, because what's been the one justification in American history
for a violent revolution the presence of a king and
what are they really up to? Again, theory can't prove
it as fact, but unfortunately, I think we're going to
see this unfold.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And that is last weekend.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
That was just a rehearsal the mechanics of being able
to get large numbers of people out to very specifically
chosen locations in a hurry, because I think ultimately, you
know that the big money people on the left behind
all this. I think they see what's happening. They're losing
power in America politically, but they can overrun certain areas
(30:15):
with large numbers of people, like they've tried to do
in la before Trump called in the Marines, you know,
like they've doing right now in Portland, in Chicago, where
they can claim certain major metropolitan areas as their own.
And yeah, they'll take federal money. But the Feds won't
be able to enforce any law that the locals don't
want them to enforce. I personally believe that's the overall
(30:36):
game plan. And then you hear people like Carville talking
like that. But and if you think that theory is awfill,
ask yourselves why did they do it? Then there's no
obvious political point. They didn't move the needle on anything.
They spent millions and thousands and thousands of hours. And
why the name no kings, which is kind of goofy
to begin with, why that name?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Unless it's my theory.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Anyway, getting your reaction to this case, the US Supreme
Court just decided to take that. I've done the deep
dive on today. So you're now the smartest person in
any room on this except Supreme Court when they have
the oral argument, and the big issue before the court
is can you deprive habitual marijuana users of their Second
(31:21):
Amendment right to possess a weapon? Let's start with Ed
in or around Canyon City or on the dan kaplis.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
You'll welcome ed Hi, dan Bell. I don't have any
answers for this subject, because I mean, I've been I'm
an avid shooter. I go to the range. And I've
been around people, and I don't think that if you drink,
you should be around guns. But to deprive someone of
their second Amendment right now, the reason that they want
(31:48):
to deprive them of their right is because of their
mental capacity, because they've been drinking. Is that? Why?
Speaker 2 (31:54):
What a great point? My friend?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Let me quote to you from the brief that the
Supreme Court relied on when they decided yesterday to take
this case. And the argument that Trump administration laid out
is if somebody is a habitual marijuana user, they pose
a special danger while.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Possessing a weapon.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
And they cited drug induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
Ability, and mood.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Marijuana alters perception of time, decreases short term memory, impairs
perception and motor skills, and larger amounts induces panic attacks,
paranoid thoughts, hallucinations, and that habitual users of marijuana pose
additional danger to police.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
Well, if that's the case, do they deprive people with
down syndrome autism of their of their second memorized or
the right to vote? I mean, their capacity is quite slow,
it's not normal, So I mean they're starting to open
up a red flag. So to speak. So if you
(32:59):
take they can actually say, hey, well you have a
mental problem, you're on ZENX. We're gonna and tell you
either get off zenex or straighten up. We're gonna take
away your guns too.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
And you know what's so fascinating is the logic behind
this and behind this law and behind court decisions on
this law is do you have categories of people who,
based upon certain impairments or conditions, pose a special danger?
So ed all of the interesting questions you raised would
(33:35):
come back to that analysis. Now, what the Trump administration
is arguing to the Supreme Court is, hey, Supreme Court,
look at all the evidence you have on this category
of folks, and look at the Supreme Court history regarding
this category of folks being habitual drug users, and you
can see it has been the common experience and tradition
(33:56):
in America that people in this category do pose a
special danger. That's the argument of the Trump administration. And
then to the caller's point, a bunch of Texters points
they do base it on the nation's history of severely
restricting a gun possession by what the law used to
(34:16):
call quote drunkards and commonly known doun as alcoholics. And
there is a long history in this nation going back
to the ratification of the Second Amendment of not allowing
alcoholics to have guns and works.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
I mean, they used to throw them in asylums.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
So the Trump administration citing that precedent, and then it's
interesting because they then go through the history that will
wait a second. You know, the Founders didn't envision, and
they didn't envision after the Civil War. They didn't envision
legalized drugs. They didn't envision widespread illegal drugs. That kind
of problem was not yet a big deal in America.
(34:56):
Didn't become a big deal in America until early twentieth
cent and then you started to see these laws come
into effect in the twenties and thirties against possessing illegal drugs.
But yeah, the Trump administration says, we need to base
this on the laws that go back to the very
beginning restricting gun possession by alcoholics.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
So what do you think of that logic?
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Are you happy the Trump administration has successfully taken this
case to the US Supreme Court now and I think
fair to anticipate they're going to win on this. Now,
how the Supreme Court would ultimately shape it, I want
to talk with you about that.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
After the break as well.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
But do you agree or disagree with the Trump administration
pursuing this.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
You're on the Dan Capital 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.