December 12, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Gun Rights Get the Civil Rights Treatment
Seg 2 – Protecting Second Amendment Rights
Seg 3 – A Thin Blue Win for the GOP?
Seg 4 – SCOTUS Gets Busy on 2A
Seg 2 – Protecting Second Amendment Rights
Seg 3 – A Thin Blue Win for the GOP?
Seg 4 – SCOTUS Gets Busy on 2A
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes helloon.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
To the libertin Nation radio head Coast to Coast on
the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Antheli's on
today's special edition. We are talking civil rights and gun
rights and everything in between. It's going to be quite
the show. Remember Limited Nation radiosponsor by liberty Nation dot Com.
You can access podcast breaking news analysis, the range of
biting and britage shows to what chap type of freedom
and your find us to the Great American Constitution. And
(00:55):
you're here on Liberty Nation radio Head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. I am as every year
hoard with Mark Angelidi's We're very forged to have with
us back in the studio mister Scott de Cassnza Esquire,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs Editor, amongst many other positions. Scott,
great to have you back on the show that you mark.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
It is a pleasure to be back. It's been a minute.
Nice to tell you.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
We really had to get you in for this, Scott,
because December fourth, it's kind of went under the radar.
But by December the fourth, that was a deadline to
have gun rights overseen or become part of, or even
be paid attention to by the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice. And for me, this is a
(01:42):
it raises a number of wonderful and interesting questions. But
before we delve into those, give me your give me
your your reaction to this. It's about time one of
my reactions.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
We'll see if it endures as another of my reactions,
and huzzah as another of my reactions.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
This is a it's very Benjamin Franklin of you.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So one of the things that administrations do.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Is they basically put.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Out their values throughout all the bodies of the federal government.
And some do this more effectively than others, and some
are more interested in doing it through executive order than
others rather than through legislation, for instance, and just in
sort of my lifetime, I'll just deal with that as
an observer of politics. So Bill Clinton, for instance, and
(02:43):
we're talking about gun control, so that's why I'm going
to him. What he did was, with the help of
the CUOMOS, was, for instance, to use the Housing and
Urban Development HUD to kind of use that as a
vehicle to move gun control. Basically, what they were doing
was they were establishing that you couldn't live in public
(03:04):
housing unless you had certain basically gun free zones. And
they were going to basically make gun manufacturers comport their
gun manufacturing to the administration's wants and wishes, which were
notoriously hostile to gun rights. If they didn't want to
be sued, Why would the Housing and Urban Development, whose
(03:26):
mission is to basically see low income people get decent housing,
do this, Well, it's just because it was a full
court press of all the values of the administration, and
the values of the Clinton administration were hostile to gun rights.
I think we haven't seen that on the right, not
nearly as well used as on the left. So with Obama,
(03:48):
you could pick any number of impetuses or policy preferences
and then the full court press. We actually saw one
generation away, the parent company of Libertynation dot Com, for instance,
was discriminated against by the IRS. Lowest learner in the
IRS pulled our returns and discriminated against us because of
our ideas. Now, that was an illegal use of administrative
(04:11):
administration power to effectuate their ends, but there are legal
uses and this, Wow, did I beat around the bush.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
This this only in the best possible way.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Using the mechanism of the Justice Department to see that
Americans fundamental civil rights are respected through the Office of
Civil Rights in the Justice Department is long overdue.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
In this area.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
We've had heller now for how many decades, and really
just many jurisdictions, states and localities discriminating openly against people's
gun rights. And it's appropriate for the federal government when
you know there are only three federal crimes delineated in
the constitutions, piracy, treason on the high season, counterfeiting, and
(04:55):
many of us limited rights limited government activists with liked
us to go back to those three. But if there's
one place that I think we can agree there is
a place for federal intervention is especially when the states
and local governments are discriminating against the people and violating
their fundamental rights. And that's what this office has been
(05:17):
used for in the past, for all manner of things.
And it's great to see that guns hopefully are going
to be you know, very much included in the body
of rights. That they're looking out for protection and to
make sure that Americans' rights are being upheld and when
not to go in there and do something about it.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It's absolutely it's really fascinating, isn't it that the thought
processes that are happening across the country now. So you
have people who claim to be, you know, civil rights
champions when it comes to things like race or gender
or sexuality, and they are a guest that, well, hang on,
here is an enumerated right within the Constitution number two,
(05:59):
I might add on the Bill of Rights there, and
you have, but that's not being receiving the protection as
a civil right. And people don't talk about it in
the language of a civil right, do.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
They, No, not except for usually gun rights activists of course,
of course, who have been desperate to get it included
in that conversation. Because what it's those rights that are respected.
If a right is not defended or prosecuted in this case,
then what good is it? You know, if you have
(06:32):
the right to keep in bare arms, but any county
commissioner or mayor or governor or state can discriminate against
those rights and you have little to no recourse because
of it being a state or local matter, or if
you have to bear the cost of the challenge yourself,
you know, the litigation isn't cheap, then it becomes a
(06:56):
lesser than right. And so what we're talking about here
is at the Department of Justice, under Donald Trump's direction,
will now be handling.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
The Office of Civil Rights.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Under that department will now be handling affrontery to the
right to keep in bare arms by states and localities
as the violation of civil rights. It would be be
the same as if they discriminated against or maybe not
the same in terms of maybe a little more urgency.
I was going to say the same if they openly
said we're not going to hire any black people or
(07:27):
for something like that. But the idea is those are
both civil rights and both need to be protected by
the federal government because local and state governments often trample
on those rights. So that's why we need the federal watchdog,
and it's a great thing to see. I wonder why
Trump didn't do it when he was president of the
first time. Actually, I've been thinking about that, and I
(07:49):
suspect that part of the reason is the New York
War Life from Pistol versus Bruin decision from the Supreme Court, and.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
That that really because up until that case was decided,
there was there hadn't really been any big movement on
the Second Amendment rights until that point, and that was
really for me, that was and for you I'm sure too.
It was really a very bright line ruling that the
rights of gun owens need to be protected and that
(08:20):
people within these locations should be doing their best to
adhere to the constitutional protections afforded. But before that there
wasn't right or maybe well it.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
And I disagree with you Bruin, and I'm not disagreeing
with you with your sayings about Bruin, but I would
just tell you that for a motivated administration, not having
Bruin on the books is no impediment. Heller DC versus Heller.
I'm actually looking right now, and I don't like to
do this, but I'm going to get the get the
(08:53):
name up or the rather the year up here, so
we accurately accord it to two thousand and eight Supreme
Court case. I don't think after Heller you can make
an argument that a motivated administration couldn't add to the
Justice Department's Civil Rights Office a contingent for a gun right.
In fact, the motivated kind of activist type of Justice
(09:17):
Department for gun rights that a lot of gun enthusiasts
and gun rights activists want would have been kind of
turbocharged by that impetus had Trump or any other president
done it, you know, previous to now, but better late
than ever, I suppose, and hopefully it'll actually have some
teeth and they'll do something about it. Part of the
you know, the problem is policy is personnel in this regard.
(09:40):
If they have a pit bull who's talented and has
some freedom and can go after some of these states,
well we'll really see some change, I think, And if not,
then not. I can tell you that without question, the
Office of Civil Rights at the Justice Department can move
mountains when it comes to state and local decision making
and policy. They very often go into states and cities
(10:04):
when there's discrimination, and the discrimination, by the way, need
not be stated discrimination. It can be just as it's
as the effects are. So if there's no policy by
a city to not hire black people, for instance, just
happens that they don't have any on the books, well,
the Office of Civil Rights may go in and say, well,
(10:25):
we believe you're discriminating, and here's what you're going to
do to cure that discrimination. Even absent a court order. Yes,
cities and states are afraid of the litigation because of
the massive power that the Justice Department has to bear
and bring on these cases. So it's kind of funny actually,
if you think about like an individual person fighting the
federal government, that's terribly daunting, right. You may think that
(10:47):
a city or a state would not have that intrepidation,
but they do, and the Office of Civil Rights is
well known for using that to get what they call
consent decrees. And if you ever just are bored and
one some help sleeping, you can google up Justice Department
consent decree with a city and you'll see very often
(11:07):
there are They include things such as like I recently
saw one about overcrowding in a city jail, for instance,
what's your recourse if you're in a city jail and
it's overcrowded the point of violating your civil rights. Well,
if the state court doesn't give you any help, you
may go to the FEDS and they can impose, or
(11:28):
the Justice Department and they can impose by consent. In
other words, they go to a city and they say
you're doing X. We think X is violative of the
civil rights. We're going to do something about it unless
you agree now to do these fourteen things to modify
or cure. And so that happens very often in these
other areas. And if we get a full throw of
(11:48):
defensive gun rights from this office, we can hopefully look
forward to that kind of a defensive gun rights as well.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
We're going to be back with Scott after this short
break discussing just what went actions the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division might be leaping into.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
We'll back in a second.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edge, ladies, and.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
You're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I remain Mark antheladies, and
Scott Deecressenda remains Scott Deecassenda, and we are discussing the
Office of Civil rights within the Justice Department now taking
up gun rights now, we discussed the legality and the
process and the way that's built and through policy and
personnel earlier in the show, and a great reader on this,
(12:41):
by the way, is an article by Lisa kay Dunner
over on the pages of Liberty Nation dot com. Do
please go and check that out. But Scott, I want
to drill down into a couple of things, well two
things really. Number one, when might the Civil Rights Office
get involved? Like what kind of bar that is? And
number two what kind of pushback can it realistically expect?
(13:05):
And I guess as a third question is does this
whole endeavor die with in twenty twenty January nineteenth, twenty
twenty nine, with the end of the Trump presidency. So
let's start with where might the officer cer of rights
get involved here? And one of the main things that
(13:25):
just popped into my mind on this, one of the
bit that's kind of been floating there is there are
places in the country where it is automatically a gun
free zone unless the proprietor of a place puts up
a sign saying guns welcome. Now, isn't that I mean,
would that be somewhere where the office might examine.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
All right, that's the unpack there. So I've said it
before many times to you on this program and elsewhere,
to others and even to you elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Yes, he is that guy at Thanksgiving. He is.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
A decision to prosecute is political. Sure, any decision to
prosecute is a political decision. So you've asked about those
the three questions is that you initially asked me that
The answer is all about the politics of the person
and personnel who are in control of that office, if
they wish to be aggressively enforcing infringements on gun owners
(14:26):
and the right to keeping bear arms and the right
to self defense, which is broader than that and funny
guns are the things that are most often talked about,
but there's quite a bit of fighting in the courts
in this country about non firearm self defense issues like
literally pepper spray for instance. You know, can a person
carry that? There are many places where it's forbidden to
(14:49):
them as shocks that may be for people who live
in places where you can just constitutionally carry and where
adults can put a gun on them their hip and
just walk around, which is increase in this country. There
are still many places where they're notoriously hostile to any
self defense.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Right, So there's Charlie's to England. Yes, they're old that.
It's like, who's in charge of that office.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Is it some lobbyist who isn't terribly interested in moving
moving the ball rather than are and like going along
to get along? Or is it a hard charger, uh,
you know, litigant minded person who sees maybe even time
pressure with Trump's candidacy to really move that office ahead
(15:33):
in the next couple of years. And you know, and
that sort of brings me to the answer to your
your your question about the kind of cases and what
we see, for instance, this sort of affirmative permission requirement.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
So if you can imagine somebody saying like.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
They you can't walk around with a maga hat on
and you walk into a store unless it says maga
hats welcome sign on this store. That's the functional equivalent
of this gun sign. And it's in these areas that
are extra hostile to gun rights, namely New York and yes, Mark,
(16:09):
I certainly do hope that that is the kind of
case that the Office of Civil Rights will go after.
It's one of those things where when you have an
ocean of money to fight one of these cases, you're
way better off than if you're super lean on the budget,
which is how they're often fought through donations and state
gun rights groups that are doing the hard work of
(16:30):
fighting the fight, but also challenged by resources. The federal
government is challenged by many things, but you know they
have that printing press on for any time they want
more dollars, and so if they decide to fight a thing,
you know they're not going to hurt for resources in
that fight.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah, I like that example. Use about that to use
there about if somebody someone will wearing a MAGA cap
of it, it's it's essentially the same as saying you
can only you can't come in this store if you're
wearing a MAGA or you have permissions size, because that's
first Amendment rights and second amendments are just as important,
if not more so. Some people would say then one
enforces the other. And so when you're looking at civil rights,
(17:07):
it really is a civil rights issue because you're protecting
your constitutional rights. And I think that's it's a great example.
And yes, I do hope that all Americans can freely
exercise their constitutional constitutional rights. And it shocks me sometimes
that some rights are given precedents over others.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
If you look also more and I'm not trying to
say anything scandalous about the nature of these rights. All
of our rights are equally precious and the same. But
if you look at the instances, for instance, of racial
discrimination by states and governments against minority populations in the
United States, and then you look at, for instance, discrimination
(17:52):
against the right to keep in bear arms, there's a
lot more work in one of those piles than the other,
I think if we look at even just reported discrimination,
forget about actual So there's plenty of work to do,
and gun owners need to help, and of course all
Americans need to help, because any of those rights that
is comfortably abridged is a lessening of all of them.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
And I guess we've just got twenty seconds left of
this segment, Scott, so I will skip the second question briefly.
The third question was does this live beyond Donald Trump's
time in the Oval office.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
It'll need I think, one more president to keep it going.
It'll be very easy to cancel it all out if
it's the next president that does so. If there's a
whole administration. In between, well, it becomes a little bit
more entrenched, and in this case it could be entrenched
and not to the detriment of Americans liberty like so
many other officers are, but to their benefit. We'll have
(18:48):
to see in time.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Scott Cascentza, thanks very much. We'll see after this shortbreak.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
What was free?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host,
Mark Angela. When we're continue our long form conversation with
Liberty Nations legal affairs editors, man about Tom mister Scott
d Cassendo esquire. Scott, thanks for sticking around now with you.
Earlier in the show, we talked about the Office of
Civil Rights within the Department of Justice being told by
(19:45):
Donald Trump essentially to start going after violation of gun
rights of Americans. This is the right to keep them
bear arms. And on a similar but dissimilar topic, I
want to talk to you about out a theory you
have which I find it's novels fascinating about how Donald
(20:06):
Trump can make inroads for the next if it's a
Republican administration with black Americans, and I think it would
be quite fascinating.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
I think it would be a political win for Trump
and anybody who is on his agenda I guess, or
linked up with him as a candidate. And it's within
the Office of Civil Rights that this could be done.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
You know, there was a Saturday Night Live skit.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
I'm trying to remember how long ago it was, but
with Tom Hanks and he played a maga guy and
it was the similarities between like a maga guy and
a black person in the ghetto who had like certain
views about government, and how they were both skeptical of
government and in similar ways, and how there was commonality there.
And that's not what motivated my thought here, but I
(21:05):
think it's an interesting Scott Cassenza making policy based on
he sees on Saturday Nightlife, just like Joe Biden. You know,
if you pay attention to the sort of limited government types,
the gun rights types, and I do, they are very
skeptical of government power and oftentimes the recipient of abuses
(21:26):
from authorities. We see it all the time in gun
hostile places, where they use the laws to not punish
actual what we would think of as sort of classic
criminality we call common law crimes crimes and violence, but
paperwork crimes designed to trip somebody up, for instance, because
of the hostility to whatever right they're trying to express. Well,
(21:47):
there's also you'll see if you look at social media,
the instances of police abuse, oftentimes in urban areas, are
too numerous to even catalog really, and I'm talking about
(22:08):
sort of standard violations of civil rights that are basically
people getting searched without cause, those kinds of abuses that
it's sort of like the stop and frisk thing if
you think of that. Okay, So stop and frisk was
a way that the Giuliani administration used to basically stop
(22:30):
a bunch of black and brown men without probable cause.
And one of the reasons why they were able to
do so was because they didn't have a sufficient pushback
from the Justice Department. And so what happened was thousands
and thousands and thousands of New Yorkers were set upon
by the police. Now it's a bit of a tricky
(22:51):
situation because Trump, of course enjoys widespread, massive support from
law and order style you know, people who vote with
that as a top of mind.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Uh just uh we just the Biden administration is over.
It was a mistake that he made because he couldn't
complete a full sentence. And then Jen Saki and others
decided to jump in and start saying this is something
that is top of mind to cover up the fact
(23:23):
that Joe Biden couldn't complete a full sentence, and now
everybody's using it, and Thence American ears like a.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
British saying for some reason as well.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Not in the slightest I know, but it does. It
totally does. Sorry, yeah, yeah, with your top of mind.
Uh there. So there's a second.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
People write for people who are motivated by that safety
and security concern Trump has been I think their definite
go to rather than and and it could be rough
to kind of challenge that notion. But as Tim Donner, uh,
the former host of this show likes to say, there's
nothing better than a good cop and nothing worse than
(24:04):
a bad cop. And these police officers that do regularly
violate the civil rights of Americans, they are basically left
to run wild by the Justice Department. Now, I'm not
talking about police officers who shoot and kills them unarmed
person or something like that. That kind of behavior already
receives a significant amount of attention. I'm talking about the
(24:24):
lesser cases that create a culture of police unaccountability and
a kind of gang blue versus them attitude and environment,
which is the case right now, and so many big
cities in America that it's you know, they do not
have a good relationship with the police because of the
(24:46):
lack of accountability, and this is all tied in with
union contracts and the cities. There's a famous instance where
Ed Rendell, the former mayor of Philadelphia, was in an
unguarded moment with a reporter during the time when a
police review investigation came in and he said that he
was going to dismiss the police officer. And he mentioned
(25:09):
to somebody as he was dismissed as saying this that
he knew they were going to be forced to rehire
them because of the union contract. So it was a
political gain. They were playing about bad police behavior, and
that's done. I think that's derrih Gore for political leadership.
In our country, so Trump or another president could put
a stop to that. And I think that this is
(25:31):
one of those areas where there would be crossover the
limited government gun rights types and those our streams that
I kind of swim in regularly, so I have a
finely tuned antenna on what plays there. I think would
be highly welcome of this kind of an impetus, like
(25:52):
more expansion into civil rights and rebuffing police officers imposition
on those rights. You know, I sometimes watch these protest
videos where you'll see police officers shining a bright flashlight
into the cameras of people that are critical of the
(26:13):
police and monitoring them.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's a violation of civil rights.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
They're blinding the people because of them trying to capture
content that's critical of police. But we don't see that
as nobody's making a quote unquote federal case out of
that now, as it were, And that is the thing
I'm arguing for, this kind of full court press for
police officers to respect the civil rights of motorists, pedestrians,
(26:38):
basically all Americans. And the bleeding edge of that imposition
is often in poor places, places where there's sort of
less direct political will expressed through the electorate.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. But the place
is where these violations of civil rights take place, don't
they tend to be higher crime areas where the right Now,
there's obviously never any good excuse for violating someone's rights.
But as you pointed out, this was largely brought to
(27:16):
public attention during marriag Giliani's time. But crime did massively
go down under Giuliani, you know, And so you've got
this huge chunk of law abiding Americans who aren't being
victimized anymore because of that, And.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
You're I think you're I think your cause and effect
analysis is not actually accurate. Just so, just so you're
where I want to place an objection into the record,
Rudolph Giuliani did not lower crime in New York.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Crime yeah down.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
And you look at crime in other cities in America
during that time and you'll find a similar and significant decrease.
I'm not saying that nothing he did had had an impact,
but also I would hasten to add this to the conversation.
If Mark you think that we should have a reduced
(28:10):
standard of Fourth Amendment rights in high crime areas, then
that's something the Constitution can be amended to include you
should have to draft constitutional language that says, in high
crime areas, define however you please, We're gonna have a
reduced standard that they that people aren't free from government
in position into their homes and their private papers and
(28:31):
their persons absent a showing of probable costs, which is
the current requirement. Whether we're in a high crime area
or a low crime area, the Constitution requires that of
law enforcement, and through the incorporation of the Fourth Amendment
against the States, that is something that Supreme Court has
said all police must have against all people. Now, you
(28:52):
seem to be arguing for a different standard because it
maybe had made my positions in Giuliani's.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hang on, Scott, My position here is that you're making
the case that this would be a benefit to either
a Donald Trump campaign obviously he doesn't have another campaign,
but a future Republican administration. What I'm saying is that
there are enough people. So let's say, for example, there's
an inner city, a black or brown people who are
(29:22):
more in tune with Donald Trump or the Republican Party
because of you know, cracking down on the infringements on
civil liberties and Also, there's another subsect of people who
are very limited government enthusiasts who would also like go
for the more Republican candidate because that's a continuation and
(29:44):
it's stopping suppression of civil liberties. What I'm arguing is
that there might be more people who think without these infringements,
crime is going to be worse, more people are going
to die, and therefore I would actually prefer someone who
is strictly law and order, and of course that law
(30:06):
and order is, as you point out, going to be
include violations of civil rights, which is why there should
always be a Civil Rights Office within the Department of
Justice cracking down these But my contention is that there
are probably more people who would rather not be victimized
than have a few people stopped and searched, and I
(30:29):
think the one outweighs the other. That's my position.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I appreciate that I just disagree with you, and I
imagine that the imposition by the police is felt in
these places.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So let's just take.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Baltimore, not too far from from where I am, that
is beset by violence and also beset by police officers
who are completely and totally out of control. If we
look at instances of police abuse. Sure, now there are many, many,
many find police officers, and I mean, look at the
way I have to kind of say that just to
(31:05):
even discuss the issue, like it's preposters that there wouldn't
be with however many I'm sure thousands of people that
are in that organization. But the political realities mean that
those who are not the good officers get to stay
and do so much damage. And the overall thrust of
(31:28):
my argument for a federal change at the federal level,
for any president who wants to pick up those pieces,
I think is they could have enforcement and say they
could steal Ten's line right in the press conference, nothing
better than a good cop, nothing worse than a bad cop.
And what are we going to do about these bad cops? Well,
(31:48):
right now we're not doing much federally about bad cops,
really almost nothing. And I think my argument is, let's
stop with the idea that to go out after bad
cops is to attack police. A more nuanced attack on
it can be seen as booying Americans civil rights, lifting
(32:09):
them up and protecting them. And where will that be
seen and felt the most? I think in the places
where the most political benefit can be. That was the
point of bringing it up, is that it's sort of
a twofer. You get this, you know, gun nuts get
to have you know, more protections, right, and also the
(32:30):
political win. But but for a Donald Trump like candidate,
there's not a whole lot of extra he's going to
get from from the gun nuts in terms of votes, probably,
But if he can turn populations that have historically voted
almost exclusively for Democrats, well then that's a big difference
politically speaking.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It's a good case. It's a good case, and it's
been augured. Well, Counselor. We'll be back with Scutt after
this show. Right down, go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelities.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
And your back on Liberty Nation Radio with me, Mark
Anthony's and Scott dec Senza s squire and we have
been discussing civil rights, civil liberties, the Department of Justice,
and we're gonna round it off with a rather interesting
discussion on the latest cases through Supreme Court pertaining to
gun rights. Scott, what are you going for me?
Speaker 3 (33:30):
Well, I think the most interesting case to be argued
that will be argued before the Supreme Court in this
term is the Hamani case regarding guns, certainly Usonia usv.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Hamani, which is a case that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
It's going to basically when you fill out for all, right,
this is going to take a moment just to delineate.
For for people who have never purchased a gun in
the United States at a federally licensed firearms shop, you
have to fill out a form and you have to
disclose this number of things and make some certifications. For instance,
(34:06):
you have never been adjudicated mentally incompetent or harm others,
that kind of thing. You're not a felon, you're not wanted.
There's just a number of things. You're of age, and
also you're not an unlawful user of basically drugs. Now,
the question is whether or not it's legal to require
(34:26):
an affirmative answer to that, or legal to require that
as a function of being able to own a gun.
We don't have to answer any questions to observe our
fundamental rights in any other capacity. There's no preclearance qualification.
And the thing that's fascinating to me, well, one of
the many things that's fascinating to me about this case
(34:47):
is we have now in a situation in America where
any marijuana use, possession, cultivation, you name. It is a
federal felony, and a felony is the most serious crime
that we can we can delineate in our in our system.
And yet those events are happening legally under state law
(35:09):
all the time, often with state permission and sanctions. So
you have many, many, many thousands and not millions of
people in America who have, for instance, medical marijuana ID
cards or non medical you know, permission cards that let
them purchase marijuana, and then a significant number of those
same persons are going and purchasing firearms and saying they're
(35:30):
not an un lawful user of marijuana. And it only
would take a motivated i think president in concert with
some governor who are both hostile to gun rights to
kind of really light a fire on this claim and
really kind of imprison lots of Americans for it. So
this case may have impact on that, and I find
(35:52):
it a fascinating issue because of it.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
What strikes me that pretty much the first thought that
popped into my head there is there's a and I'm
almost certain this will be one of the thrusts of
the argument when it is heard by the court, is
that there's a difference between an habitual user and somebody
who has used right, and.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
So I believe the statute reads unauthorized or habitual.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Okay, So I think it can be both. So okay,
it habitual or regular.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
It equates unlawful with habitual and or regular use.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
And so this is why I guess it's at the
Supreme Court, right, because there's a lot of difference difference
between state laws. And let's say, for example, it's a
habitual or unlawful use, right.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Mark, I want to just add this. I know we
don't have a ton of time, but there's another component
that's fascinating, which is you could be a habitual user
of marijuana and not use it unlawfully, meaning you could
travel who a false exactly the points that making I
am Yes, you could use it unlawful lawfully in white state.
Well I'm I'm talking about Well presumably then your your
(37:11):
your use would still be unlawful under federal law. What
I mean is it's not illegal if if if human
travel to the moon was capable.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Now uh, and and we had to get right or
just international waters. William F.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Buckley, the Dean of Conservatism, Uh, posthumous Uh he famously
went to international waters with his sailboat to smoke a joint,
so he could say that he never broke the laws
of the United States, uh in consuming marijuana. Now, of
course there was a conspiracy to consume. He knew it
before he left that he was going to be doing it,
so we can quibble about that some other time. But
(37:49):
but so that's a fascinating angle to it too. I
expect that we're going to see some interesting, interesting outcomes
from this case where we may see, uh, people who
we may not consider to be sympathetic to marijuana use
vote that it is unconstitutional to require this, and then
some others who we may think are hostile to gun
(38:09):
rights come out a different way.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
So yeah, it actually uh, I think we might not
get a a big result out of this one way
or the other, because I don't think this is going
to be a bright line ruling one one way or
the other. However, there's going to be some fascinating arguments
coming out of here, and I think that is I'm
(38:34):
right in thinking that it was Justice Alito that took
this on board.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Well, this is a case out of and Justice Alito
typically handles appeal from the third circuit. Okay, but also
sometimes they are subbing in for others, depending on and
I haven't checked before we went to air. But yeah,
but but but let's recall to be granted for the
Supreme Court to hear it, four justices have to agree
(39:01):
so alito, or what another justice may have granted, like
a restraint or a temporary state. But at least four
justices think this is an issue worth spending our time on.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
So and it absolutely is an issue worse, but anything
that impacts and individuals constitutional rights is worth spending time on.
Scott Cassenza, thanks ever so much for joining us on
the show today. I really appreciate it. Yes, thank you, Mark,
And that's all we have time from this week's edition
of Libutination radio head Coast to Coast on the Radio
America Network. I've been your host, Mark Andelin's I'd like
(39:32):
to thank our guest today, Scott Decassnza, and of course
you the audience for taking the time to tune in
and join us. Please remember Libutination does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes helloon.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
To the libertin Nation radio head Coast to Coast on
the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Antheli's on
today's special edition. We are talking civil rights and gun
rights and everything in between. It's going to be quite
the show. Remember Limited Nation radiosponsor by liberty Nation dot Com.
You can access podcast breaking news analysis, the range of
biting and britage shows to what chap type of freedom
and your find us to the Great American Constitution. And
(00:55):
you're here on Liberty Nation radio Head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. I am as every year
hoard with Mark Angelidi's We're very forged to have with
us back in the studio mister Scott de Cassnza Esquire,
Liberty Nations Legal Affairs Editor, amongst many other positions. Scott,
great to have you back on the show that you mark.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
It is a pleasure to be back. It's been a minute.
Nice to tell you.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
We really had to get you in for this, Scott,
because December fourth, it's kind of went under the radar.
But by December the fourth, that was a deadline to
have gun rights overseen or become part of, or even
be paid attention to by the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice. And for me, this is a
(01:42):
it raises a number of wonderful and interesting questions. But
before we delve into those, give me your give me
your your reaction to this. It's about time one of
my reactions.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
We'll see if it endures as another of my reactions,
and huzzah as another of my reactions.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
This is a it's very Benjamin Franklin of you.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
So one of the things that administrations do.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Is they basically put.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Out their values throughout all the bodies of the federal government.
And some do this more effectively than others, and some
are more interested in doing it through executive order than
others rather than through legislation, for instance, and just in
sort of my lifetime, I'll just deal with that as
an observer of politics. So Bill Clinton, for instance, and
(02:43):
we're talking about gun control, so that's why I'm going
to him. What he did was, with the help of
the CUOMOS, was, for instance, to use the Housing and
Urban Development HUD to kind of use that as a
vehicle to move gun control. Basically, what they were doing
was they were establishing that you couldn't live in public
(03:04):
housing unless you had certain basically gun free zones. And
they were going to basically make gun manufacturers comport their
gun manufacturing to the administration's wants and wishes, which were
notoriously hostile to gun rights. If they didn't want to
be sued, Why would the Housing and Urban Development, whose
(03:26):
mission is to basically see low income people get decent housing,
do this, Well, it's just because it was a full
court press of all the values of the administration, and
the values of the Clinton administration were hostile to gun rights.
I think we haven't seen that on the right, not
nearly as well used as on the left. So with Obama,
(03:48):
you could pick any number of impetuses or policy preferences
and then the full court press. We actually saw one
generation away, the parent company of Libertynation dot Com, for instance,
was discriminated against by the IRS. Lowest learner in the
IRS pulled our returns and discriminated against us because of
our ideas. Now, that was an illegal use of administrative
(04:11):
administration power to effectuate their ends, but there are legal
uses and this, Wow, did I beat around the bush.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
This this only in the best possible way.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Using the mechanism of the Justice Department to see that
Americans fundamental civil rights are respected through the Office of
Civil Rights in the Justice Department is long overdue.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
In this area.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
We've had heller now for how many decades, and really
just many jurisdictions, states and localities discriminating openly against people's
gun rights. And it's appropriate for the federal government when
you know there are only three federal crimes delineated in
the constitutions, piracy, treason on the high season, counterfeiting, and
(04:55):
many of us limited rights limited government activists with liked
us to go back to those three. But if there's
one place that I think we can agree there is
a place for federal intervention is especially when the states
and local governments are discriminating against the people and violating
their fundamental rights. And that's what this office has been
(05:17):
used for in the past, for all manner of things.
And it's great to see that guns hopefully are going
to be you know, very much included in the body
of rights. That they're looking out for protection and to
make sure that Americans' rights are being upheld and when
not to go in there and do something about it.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It's absolutely it's really fascinating, isn't it that the thought
processes that are happening across the country now. So you
have people who claim to be, you know, civil rights
champions when it comes to things like race or gender
or sexuality, and they are a guest that, well, hang on,
here is an enumerated right within the Constitution number two,
(05:59):
I might add on the Bill of Rights there, and
you have, but that's not being receiving the protection as
a civil right. And people don't talk about it in
the language of a civil right, do.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
They, No, not except for usually gun rights activists of course,
of course, who have been desperate to get it included
in that conversation. Because what it's those rights that are respected.
If a right is not defended or prosecuted in this case,
then what good is it? You know, if you have
(06:32):
the right to keep in bare arms, but any county
commissioner or mayor or governor or state can discriminate against
those rights and you have little to no recourse because
of it being a state or local matter, or if
you have to bear the cost of the challenge yourself,
you know, the litigation isn't cheap, then it becomes a
(06:56):
lesser than right. And so what we're talking about here
is at the Department of Justice, under Donald Trump's direction,
will now be handling.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
The Office of Civil Rights.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Under that department will now be handling affrontery to the
right to keep in bare arms by states and localities
as the violation of civil rights. It would be be
the same as if they discriminated against or maybe not
the same in terms of maybe a little more urgency.
I was going to say the same if they openly
said we're not going to hire any black people or
(07:27):
for something like that. But the idea is those are
both civil rights and both need to be protected by
the federal government because local and state governments often trample
on those rights. So that's why we need the federal watchdog,
and it's a great thing to see. I wonder why
Trump didn't do it when he was president of the
first time. Actually, I've been thinking about that, and I
(07:49):
suspect that part of the reason is the New York
War Life from Pistol versus Bruin decision from the Supreme Court, and.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
That that really because up until that case was decided,
there was there hadn't really been any big movement on
the Second Amendment rights until that point, and that was
really for me, that was and for you I'm sure too.
It was really a very bright line ruling that the
rights of gun owens need to be protected and that
(08:20):
people within these locations should be doing their best to
adhere to the constitutional protections afforded. But before that there
wasn't right or maybe well it.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
And I disagree with you Bruin, and I'm not disagreeing
with you with your sayings about Bruin, but I would
just tell you that for a motivated administration, not having
Bruin on the books is no impediment. Heller DC versus Heller.
I'm actually looking right now, and I don't like to
do this, but I'm going to get the get the
(08:53):
name up or the rather the year up here, so
we accurately accord it to two thousand and eight Supreme
Court case. I don't think after Heller you can make
an argument that a motivated administration couldn't add to the
Justice Department's Civil Rights Office a contingent for a gun right.
In fact, the motivated kind of activist type of Justice
(09:17):
Department for gun rights that a lot of gun enthusiasts
and gun rights activists want would have been kind of
turbocharged by that impetus had Trump or any other president
done it, you know, previous to now, but better late
than ever, I suppose, and hopefully it'll actually have some
teeth and they'll do something about it. Part of the
you know, the problem is policy is personnel in this regard.
(09:40):
If they have a pit bull who's talented and has
some freedom and can go after some of these states,
well we'll really see some change, I think, And if not,
then not. I can tell you that without question, the
Office of Civil Rights at the Justice Department can move
mountains when it comes to state and local decision making
and policy. They very often go into states and cities
(10:04):
when there's discrimination, and the discrimination, by the way, need
not be stated discrimination. It can be just as it's
as the effects are. So if there's no policy by
a city to not hire black people, for instance, just
happens that they don't have any on the books, well,
the Office of Civil Rights may go in and say, well,
(10:25):
we believe you're discriminating, and here's what you're going to
do to cure that discrimination. Even absent a court order. Yes,
cities and states are afraid of the litigation because of
the massive power that the Justice Department has to bear
and bring on these cases. So it's kind of funny actually,
if you think about like an individual person fighting the
federal government, that's terribly daunting, right. You may think that
(10:47):
a city or a state would not have that intrepidation,
but they do, and the Office of Civil Rights is
well known for using that to get what they call
consent decrees. And if you ever just are bored and
one some help sleeping, you can google up Justice Department
consent decree with a city and you'll see very often
(11:07):
there are They include things such as like I recently
saw one about overcrowding in a city jail, for instance,
what's your recourse if you're in a city jail and
it's overcrowded the point of violating your civil rights. Well,
if the state court doesn't give you any help, you
may go to the FEDS and they can impose, or
(11:28):
the Justice Department and they can impose by consent. In
other words, they go to a city and they say
you're doing X. We think X is violative of the
civil rights. We're going to do something about it unless
you agree now to do these fourteen things to modify
or cure. And so that happens very often in these
other areas. And if we get a full throw of
(11:48):
defensive gun rights from this office, we can hopefully look
forward to that kind of a defensive gun rights as well.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
We're going to be back with Scott after this short
break discussing just what went actions the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division might be leaping into.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
We'll back in a second.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edge, ladies, and.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
You're back on Liberty Nation radio head coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I remain Mark antheladies, and
Scott Deecressenda remains Scott Deecassenda, and we are discussing the
Office of Civil rights within the Justice Department now taking
up gun rights now, we discussed the legality and the
process and the way that's built and through policy and
personnel earlier in the show, and a great reader on this,
(12:41):
by the way, is an article by Lisa kay Dunner
over on the pages of Liberty Nation dot com. Do
please go and check that out. But Scott, I want
to drill down into a couple of things, well two
things really. Number one, when might the Civil Rights Office
get involved? Like what kind of bar that is? And
number two what kind of pushback can it realistically expect?
(13:05):
And I guess as a third question is does this
whole endeavor die with in twenty twenty January nineteenth, twenty
twenty nine, with the end of the Trump presidency. So
let's start with where might the officer cer of rights
get involved here? And one of the main things that
(13:25):
just popped into my mind on this, one of the
bit that's kind of been floating there is there are
places in the country where it is automatically a gun
free zone unless the proprietor of a place puts up
a sign saying guns welcome. Now, isn't that I mean,
would that be somewhere where the office might examine.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
All right, that's the unpack there. So I've said it
before many times to you on this program and elsewhere,
to others and even to you elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Yes, he is that guy at Thanksgiving. He is.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
A decision to prosecute is political. Sure, any decision to
prosecute is a political decision. So you've asked about those
the three questions is that you initially asked me that
The answer is all about the politics of the person
and personnel who are in control of that office, if
they wish to be aggressively enforcing infringements on gun owners
(14:26):
and the right to keeping bear arms and the right
to self defense, which is broader than that and funny
guns are the things that are most often talked about,
but there's quite a bit of fighting in the courts
in this country about non firearm self defense issues like
literally pepper spray for instance. You know, can a person
carry that? There are many places where it's forbidden to
(14:49):
them as shocks that may be for people who live
in places where you can just constitutionally carry and where
adults can put a gun on them their hip and
just walk around, which is increase in this country. There
are still many places where they're notoriously hostile to any
self defense.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Right, So there's Charlie's to England. Yes, they're old that.
It's like, who's in charge of that office.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Is it some lobbyist who isn't terribly interested in moving
moving the ball rather than are and like going along
to get along? Or is it a hard charger, uh,
you know, litigant minded person who sees maybe even time
pressure with Trump's candidacy to really move that office ahead
(15:33):
in the next couple of years. And you know, and
that sort of brings me to the answer to your
your your question about the kind of cases and what
we see, for instance, this sort of affirmative permission requirement.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
So if you can imagine somebody saying like.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
They you can't walk around with a maga hat on
and you walk into a store unless it says maga
hats welcome sign on this store. That's the functional equivalent
of this gun sign. And it's in these areas that
are extra hostile to gun rights, namely New York and yes, Mark,
(16:09):
I certainly do hope that that is the kind of
case that the Office of Civil Rights will go after.
It's one of those things where when you have an
ocean of money to fight one of these cases, you're
way better off than if you're super lean on the budget,
which is how they're often fought through donations and state
gun rights groups that are doing the hard work of
(16:30):
fighting the fight, but also challenged by resources. The federal
government is challenged by many things, but you know they
have that printing press on for any time they want
more dollars, and so if they decide to fight a thing,
you know they're not going to hurt for resources in
that fight.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah, I like that example. Use about that to use
there about if somebody someone will wearing a MAGA cap
of it, it's it's essentially the same as saying you
can only you can't come in this store if you're
wearing a MAGA or you have permissions size, because that's
first Amendment rights and second amendments are just as important,
if not more so. Some people would say then one
enforces the other. And so when you're looking at civil rights,
(17:07):
it really is a civil rights issue because you're protecting
your constitutional rights. And I think that's it's a great example.
And yes, I do hope that all Americans can freely
exercise their constitutional constitutional rights. And it shocks me sometimes
that some rights are given precedents over others.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
If you look also more and I'm not trying to
say anything scandalous about the nature of these rights. All
of our rights are equally precious and the same. But
if you look at the instances, for instance, of racial
discrimination by states and governments against minority populations in the
United States, and then you look at, for instance, discrimination
(17:52):
against the right to keep in bear arms, there's a
lot more work in one of those piles than the other,
I think if we look at even just reported discrimination,
forget about actual So there's plenty of work to do,
and gun owners need to help, and of course all
Americans need to help, because any of those rights that
is comfortably abridged is a lessening of all of them.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
And I guess we've just got twenty seconds left of
this segment, Scott, so I will skip the second question briefly.
The third question was does this live beyond Donald Trump's
time in the Oval office.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
It'll need I think, one more president to keep it going.
It'll be very easy to cancel it all out if
it's the next president that does so. If there's a
whole administration. In between, well, it becomes a little bit
more entrenched, and in this case it could be entrenched
and not to the detriment of Americans liberty like so
many other officers are, but to their benefit. We'll have
(18:48):
to see in time.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Scott Cascentza, thanks very much. We'll see after this shortbreak.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
What was free?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain your host,
Mark Angela. When we're continue our long form conversation with
Liberty Nations legal affairs editors, man about Tom mister Scott
d Cassendo esquire. Scott, thanks for sticking around now with you.
Earlier in the show, we talked about the Office of
Civil Rights within the Department of Justice being told by
(19:45):
Donald Trump essentially to start going after violation of gun
rights of Americans. This is the right to keep them
bear arms. And on a similar but dissimilar topic, I
want to talk to you about out a theory you
have which I find it's novels fascinating about how Donald
(20:06):
Trump can make inroads for the next if it's a
Republican administration with black Americans, and I think it would
be quite fascinating.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
I think it would be a political win for Trump
and anybody who is on his agenda I guess, or
linked up with him as a candidate. And it's within
the Office of Civil Rights that this could be done.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
You know, there was a Saturday Night Live skit.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
I'm trying to remember how long ago it was, but
with Tom Hanks and he played a maga guy and
it was the similarities between like a maga guy and
a black person in the ghetto who had like certain
views about government, and how they were both skeptical of
government and in similar ways, and how there was commonality there.
And that's not what motivated my thought here, but I
(21:05):
think it's an interesting Scott Cassenza making policy based on
he sees on Saturday Nightlife, just like Joe Biden. You know,
if you pay attention to the sort of limited government types,
the gun rights types, and I do, they are very
skeptical of government power and oftentimes the recipient of abuses
(21:26):
from authorities. We see it all the time in gun
hostile places, where they use the laws to not punish
actual what we would think of as sort of classic
criminality we call common law crimes crimes and violence, but
paperwork crimes designed to trip somebody up, for instance, because
of the hostility to whatever right they're trying to express. Well,
(21:47):
there's also you'll see if you look at social media,
the instances of police abuse, oftentimes in urban areas, are
too numerous to even catalog really, and I'm talking about
(22:08):
sort of standard violations of civil rights that are basically
people getting searched without cause, those kinds of abuses that
it's sort of like the stop and frisk thing if
you think of that. Okay, So stop and frisk was
a way that the Giuliani administration used to basically stop
(22:30):
a bunch of black and brown men without probable cause.
And one of the reasons why they were able to
do so was because they didn't have a sufficient pushback
from the Justice Department. And so what happened was thousands
and thousands and thousands of New Yorkers were set upon
by the police. Now it's a bit of a tricky
(22:51):
situation because Trump, of course enjoys widespread, massive support from
law and order style you know, people who vote with
that as a top of mind.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Uh just uh we just the Biden administration is over.
It was a mistake that he made because he couldn't
complete a full sentence. And then Jen Saki and others
decided to jump in and start saying this is something
that is top of mind to cover up the fact
(23:23):
that Joe Biden couldn't complete a full sentence, and now
everybody's using it, and Thence American ears like a.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
British saying for some reason as well.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Not in the slightest I know, but it does. It
totally does. Sorry, yeah, yeah, with your top of mind.
Uh there. So there's a second.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
People write for people who are motivated by that safety
and security concern Trump has been I think their definite
go to rather than and and it could be rough
to kind of challenge that notion. But as Tim Donner, uh,
the former host of this show likes to say, there's
nothing better than a good cop and nothing worse than
(24:04):
a bad cop. And these police officers that do regularly
violate the civil rights of Americans, they are basically left
to run wild by the Justice Department. Now, I'm not
talking about police officers who shoot and kills them unarmed
person or something like that. That kind of behavior already
receives a significant amount of attention. I'm talking about the
(24:24):
lesser cases that create a culture of police unaccountability and
a kind of gang blue versus them attitude and environment,
which is the case right now, and so many big
cities in America that it's you know, they do not
have a good relationship with the police because of the
(24:46):
lack of accountability, and this is all tied in with
union contracts and the cities. There's a famous instance where
Ed Rendell, the former mayor of Philadelphia, was in an
unguarded moment with a reporter during the time when a
police review investigation came in and he said that he
was going to dismiss the police officer. And he mentioned
(25:09):
to somebody as he was dismissed as saying this that
he knew they were going to be forced to rehire
them because of the union contract. So it was a
political gain. They were playing about bad police behavior, and
that's done. I think that's derrih Gore for political leadership.
In our country, so Trump or another president could put
a stop to that. And I think that this is
(25:31):
one of those areas where there would be crossover the
limited government gun rights types and those our streams that
I kind of swim in regularly, so I have a
finely tuned antenna on what plays there. I think would
be highly welcome of this kind of an impetus, like
(25:52):
more expansion into civil rights and rebuffing police officers imposition
on those rights. You know, I sometimes watch these protest
videos where you'll see police officers shining a bright flashlight
into the cameras of people that are critical of the
(26:13):
police and monitoring them.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
That's a violation of civil rights.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
They're blinding the people because of them trying to capture
content that's critical of police. But we don't see that
as nobody's making a quote unquote federal case out of
that now, as it were, And that is the thing
I'm arguing for, this kind of full court press for
police officers to respect the civil rights of motorists, pedestrians,
(26:38):
basically all Americans. And the bleeding edge of that imposition
is often in poor places, places where there's sort of
less direct political will expressed through the electorate.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. But the place
is where these violations of civil rights take place, don't
they tend to be higher crime areas where the right Now,
there's obviously never any good excuse for violating someone's rights.
But as you pointed out, this was largely brought to
(27:16):
public attention during marriag Giliani's time. But crime did massively
go down under Giuliani, you know, And so you've got
this huge chunk of law abiding Americans who aren't being
victimized anymore because of that, And.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
You're I think you're I think your cause and effect
analysis is not actually accurate. Just so, just so you're
where I want to place an objection into the record,
Rudolph Giuliani did not lower crime in New York.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Crime yeah down.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
And you look at crime in other cities in America
during that time and you'll find a similar and significant decrease.
I'm not saying that nothing he did had had an impact,
but also I would hasten to add this to the conversation.
If Mark you think that we should have a reduced
(28:10):
standard of Fourth Amendment rights in high crime areas, then
that's something the Constitution can be amended to include you
should have to draft constitutional language that says, in high
crime areas, define however you please, We're gonna have a
reduced standard that they that people aren't free from government
in position into their homes and their private papers and
(28:31):
their persons absent a showing of probable costs, which is
the current requirement. Whether we're in a high crime area
or a low crime area, the Constitution requires that of
law enforcement, and through the incorporation of the Fourth Amendment
against the States, that is something that Supreme Court has
said all police must have against all people. Now, you
(28:52):
seem to be arguing for a different standard because it
maybe had made my positions in Giuliani's.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hang on, Scott, My position here is that you're making
the case that this would be a benefit to either
a Donald Trump campaign obviously he doesn't have another campaign,
but a future Republican administration. What I'm saying is that
there are enough people. So let's say, for example, there's
an inner city, a black or brown people who are
(29:22):
more in tune with Donald Trump or the Republican Party
because of you know, cracking down on the infringements on
civil liberties and Also, there's another subsect of people who
are very limited government enthusiasts who would also like go
for the more Republican candidate because that's a continuation and
(29:44):
it's stopping suppression of civil liberties. What I'm arguing is
that there might be more people who think without these infringements,
crime is going to be worse, more people are going
to die, and therefore I would actually prefer someone who
is strictly law and order, and of course that law
(30:06):
and order is, as you point out, going to be
include violations of civil rights, which is why there should
always be a Civil Rights Office within the Department of
Justice cracking down these But my contention is that there
are probably more people who would rather not be victimized
than have a few people stopped and searched, and I
(30:29):
think the one outweighs the other. That's my position.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I appreciate that I just disagree with you, and I
imagine that the imposition by the police is felt in
these places.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
So let's just take.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Baltimore, not too far from from where I am, that
is beset by violence and also beset by police officers
who are completely and totally out of control. If we
look at instances of police abuse. Sure, now there are many, many,
many find police officers, and I mean, look at the
way I have to kind of say that just to
(31:05):
even discuss the issue, like it's preposters that there wouldn't
be with however many I'm sure thousands of people that
are in that organization. But the political realities mean that
those who are not the good officers get to stay
and do so much damage. And the overall thrust of
(31:28):
my argument for a federal change at the federal level,
for any president who wants to pick up those pieces,
I think is they could have enforcement and say they
could steal Ten's line right in the press conference, nothing
better than a good cop, nothing worse than a bad cop.
And what are we going to do about these bad cops? Well,
(31:48):
right now we're not doing much federally about bad cops,
really almost nothing. And I think my argument is, let's
stop with the idea that to go out after bad
cops is to attack police. A more nuanced attack on
it can be seen as booying Americans civil rights, lifting
(32:09):
them up and protecting them. And where will that be
seen and felt the most? I think in the places
where the most political benefit can be. That was the
point of bringing it up, is that it's sort of
a twofer. You get this, you know, gun nuts get
to have you know, more protections, right, and also the
(32:30):
political win. But but for a Donald Trump like candidate,
there's not a whole lot of extra he's going to
get from from the gun nuts in terms of votes, probably,
But if he can turn populations that have historically voted
almost exclusively for Democrats, well then that's a big difference
politically speaking.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
It's a good case. It's a good case, and it's
been augured. Well, Counselor. We'll be back with Scutt after
this show. Right down, go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelities.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
And your back on Liberty Nation Radio with me, Mark
Anthony's and Scott dec Senza s squire and we have
been discussing civil rights, civil liberties, the Department of Justice,
and we're gonna round it off with a rather interesting
discussion on the latest cases through Supreme Court pertaining to
gun rights. Scott, what are you going for me?
Speaker 3 (33:30):
Well, I think the most interesting case to be argued
that will be argued before the Supreme Court in this
term is the Hamani case regarding guns, certainly Usonia usv.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Hamani, which is a case that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
It's going to basically when you fill out for all, right,
this is going to take a moment just to delineate.
For for people who have never purchased a gun in
the United States at a federally licensed firearms shop, you
have to fill out a form and you have to
disclose this number of things and make some certifications. For instance,
(34:06):
you have never been adjudicated mentally incompetent or harm others,
that kind of thing. You're not a felon, you're not wanted.
There's just a number of things. You're of age, and
also you're not an unlawful user of basically drugs. Now,
the question is whether or not it's legal to require
(34:26):
an affirmative answer to that, or legal to require that
as a function of being able to own a gun.
We don't have to answer any questions to observe our
fundamental rights in any other capacity. There's no preclearance qualification.
And the thing that's fascinating to me, well, one of
the many things that's fascinating to me about this case
(34:47):
is we have now in a situation in America where
any marijuana use, possession, cultivation, you name. It is a
federal felony, and a felony is the most serious crime
that we can we can delineate in our in our system.
And yet those events are happening legally under state law
(35:09):
all the time, often with state permission and sanctions. So
you have many, many, many thousands and not millions of
people in America who have, for instance, medical marijuana ID
cards or non medical you know, permission cards that let
them purchase marijuana, and then a significant number of those
same persons are going and purchasing firearms and saying they're
(35:30):
not an un lawful user of marijuana. And it only
would take a motivated i think president in concert with
some governor who are both hostile to gun rights to
kind of really light a fire on this claim and
really kind of imprison lots of Americans for it. So
this case may have impact on that, and I find
(35:52):
it a fascinating issue because of it.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
What strikes me that pretty much the first thought that
popped into my head there is there's a and I'm
almost certain this will be one of the thrusts of
the argument when it is heard by the court, is
that there's a difference between an habitual user and somebody
who has used right, and.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
So I believe the statute reads unauthorized or habitual.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Okay, So I think it can be both. So okay,
it habitual or regular.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
It equates unlawful with habitual and or regular use.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
And so this is why I guess it's at the
Supreme Court, right, because there's a lot of difference difference
between state laws. And let's say, for example, it's a
habitual or unlawful use, right.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Mark, I want to just add this. I know we
don't have a ton of time, but there's another component
that's fascinating, which is you could be a habitual user
of marijuana and not use it unlawfully, meaning you could
travel who a false exactly the points that making I
am Yes, you could use it unlawful lawfully in white state.
Well I'm I'm talking about Well presumably then your your
(37:11):
your use would still be unlawful under federal law. What
I mean is it's not illegal if if if human
travel to the moon was capable.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Now uh, and and we had to get right or
just international waters. William F.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Buckley, the Dean of Conservatism, Uh, posthumous Uh he famously
went to international waters with his sailboat to smoke a joint,
so he could say that he never broke the laws
of the United States, uh in consuming marijuana. Now, of
course there was a conspiracy to consume. He knew it
before he left that he was going to be doing it,
so we can quibble about that some other time. But
(37:49):
but so that's a fascinating angle to it too. I
expect that we're going to see some interesting, interesting outcomes
from this case where we may see, uh, people who
we may not consider to be sympathetic to marijuana use
vote that it is unconstitutional to require this, and then
some others who we may think are hostile to gun
(38:09):
rights come out a different way.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
So yeah, it actually uh, I think we might not
get a a big result out of this one way
or the other, because I don't think this is going
to be a bright line ruling one one way or
the other. However, there's going to be some fascinating arguments
coming out of here, and I think that is I'm
(38:34):
right in thinking that it was Justice Alito that took
this on board.
Speaker 3 (38:40):
Well, this is a case out of and Justice Alito
typically handles appeal from the third circuit. Okay, but also
sometimes they are subbing in for others, depending on and
I haven't checked before we went to air. But yeah,
but but but let's recall to be granted for the
Supreme Court to hear it, four justices have to agree
(39:01):
so alito, or what another justice may have granted, like
a restraint or a temporary state. But at least four
justices think this is an issue worth spending our time on.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
So and it absolutely is an issue worse, but anything
that impacts and individuals constitutional rights is worth spending time on.
Scott Cassenza, thanks ever so much for joining us on
the show today. I really appreciate it. Yes, thank you, Mark,
And that's all we have time from this week's edition
of Libutination radio head Coast to Coast on the Radio
America Network. I've been your host, Mark Andelin's I'd like
(39:32):
to thank our guest today, Scott Decassnza, and of course
you the audience for taking the time to tune in
and join us. Please remember Libutination does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement
Popular Podcasts
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
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!