Sound On: Portman, Ossoff, Brady on Gun Ruling, Inflation

to use their profits to increase output. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The Supreme Court strikes down the New York gun control law. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics. As the High Court rules even as the US Senate prepares to pass the first gun safety law in decades, and as the White House today meets with big oil executives to ask for more production.

We focus this hour on gas and guns and will be joined by Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, as well by Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, one of the fourteen Republicans who have endorsed the gun bill. Analysis from our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Chanzano and Rick Davis will be with us for the hour and we have twin

leads today. Thanks for joining us to lead stories that will be discussing in a moment with Congressman Kevin Brady. The first a six three ruling by the Supreme Court that broke the middle of the day on New York's law, New York's gun law that limited who could carry a handgun in public. Here, New York was one of at least six states, as you've been hearing on Bloomberg, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii with laws that prevented most

people from legally carrying a handgun. So this could have sweeping effects on those states that I just mentioned. We just got reaction from President Biden, who was attending another event and at the White House asked about this. Gun laws in forty these states are still in place based on the decision. Not good enough, but it's I think it's a bad decision. I think it's and I think

it's not reasoning accurately. But I'm disappointed, disappointed as deeply disappointed, were the words in the formal White House statement earlier, President Biden writing that it contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and he's urging states to continue to enact laws that he says will make their citizens and communities safer for gun violence. This comes on the same day the White House met with the heads of the big

oil companies. And this is where we begin with Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, of course, ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee. It's great to have you back, Congressman, if we can pick through these one at a time. In terms of the Supreme Court ruling, first of all, do you agree with that ruling? And what do you see happening in terms of a legislative answer if there is one. Yeah, Jill, thank you, thanks for having me of being on so you know, first, I do think

it was the correct um decision. UM. Clearly second Amendment does UM apply and is available for those who want to carry a weapon self defense outside their home. I think that makes sense. But let me give you my experience. So Texas has had a concealed weapon um law for more than a court of a century, more than a million people have have gone through the courses and do

carry concealed weapons. You know, the concerns. The truth of matter is, um, isn't that ability to arm yourself has been key in stopping a number of shootings uh in in our state, UH and for self defense. UH. All the concerns that were raised about there being you know, rage type shootings or abuse of just never has never occurred in a quarter of a century uh in our state.

UH to that point. And so you know, I think the President's uh concerned that this is dangerous or Recklessit just in real life in real states where h this has been around for an awfully long time. You know, none of those concerns have occurred. Well, I know there's been a lot of worries about increased crime rates and particularly gun violence in our cities. And when you look at the states that are at issue here California at l A and San Francisco, Massachusetts, You've got Boston, Newark,

New Jersey, think of Baltimore, Maryland. They could all be in that that scene. Group, do you have faith that those cities will remain secure if that happened? If not more secure? I I don't understand the correlation, and we haven't seen. For example, um, of the eight most deadly cities in America the last two years, seven of those cities are in those modeled gun control states New York, California, Maryland, Illinois, and others. Only one, Houston is out side that. We've

seen a major increase in crime. We think part of it time to our to our proximity to the border here the last two years. So no, I I don't think there are concerns to be raised, frankly in those cities. People who get a concealed carry license, who do the training, uh, go through the legal process. Uh, they're not the ones committing crimes. We have many of those guns are coming in illegally, of course, and we still haven't gotten to that, Congressman,

how do you do it? Well, So run that by them again, not for those who have concealed carry weapons or you don't have to have a weapon. You know, the majority of them when they start the training for the lesson, for the for the license itself, tend to have their own things. So those aren't Those are not bought illegally and you're going through a process. So it's uh, no, I just mean in terms of the amount of illegal

guns that are used in uh in crimes in cities. Uh, we never we never quite get there with whether it's this bill that's going through the Senate right now, that wouldn't be well to get to it. And obviously, uh, well this Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant because he who guns are already on the street. Yeah. Well, one thing we do know, I think nationwide is that unfortunately, gun laws you know, tend to affect. Gun control laws tend to affect those who are eligible and in law abiding.

The criminals tend to ignore all of that. I do think when I look at the gun control bill coming out the Senate, what I think is is helpful is the money for mental health in crisis innovation intervention, if it is used properly. In Joe, we are the things being kind of rushed, so we're you know, spending a lot of time figuring out what will that help? I hope it does. Secondly, I think hardening the schools makes

good sense. And uh, third, I think, uh, opping the penalties on those who straw purchase, who are buying specifically to give to someone you know who is ineligible normally criminals there you know, I really think that is that is very helpful. So would you vote for it in the House if it was a similar version? No, the red uh. I think the red flag laws. One, they're unconstitutional uh and and will be litigating the course forever. Two.

I didn't notice that of those seven of the eight uh most violent cities in America, most of them are states with red drawn laws. So it's not curtailing either or violence or mass shootings in those states. Well, so you're a no vote. Congressman Brady. I want to ask you about the oil picture today as well. This is normally where we begin our conversation, uh and, and it's

just been one of those days. Today. You've got the CEOs of exx On, Chevron, bp On down, all the seven top refiners at the White House today, not with President Biden but with Secretary Granholm. We just got a little bit of a readout of from the Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre on exactly what was discussed in the

room is an ongoing dialogue. I think you've heard some of you may have heard from the oil companies themselves are saying it was productive and so what what Secretary Granholm has called on is for her team to continue having conversations with the oil companies. It doesn't sound like there was much of a conclusion. We did hear from the CEO of Chevron congressman who also did say that it was a productive meeting, but nobody is getting exactly what they want here. What does the White House need

to do to help these companies increase production? Yeah, so, I you know, I think most people's takes on that this was just a show pony type of of meeting arranged by administration that's playing both sides of the fans has been condemning and trying to kill these jobs and oil and gas in the US, but but also working with the Climate Change UM leaders outing the fact that they are going after these industries and these jobs. So, I don't know it has credibility on the fuel price

or production area. I do know this, UH. The one country right now that is UH benefiting the most is Russia, whose production now has increased dramatically, telling more now than they did before the their war on UKRAINI. It's frustrating because they just feel like in Texas, we feel like we can do more on traditional oil and gas uh here in America. But it just seems like we're stymied between cancering the leases onshore and offshore, pausing the permitting

for this. The Biden White House makes it awfully tough to produce more here in America. Congress Been Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, thanks for being with us. There's always it's always a pleasure. We're gonna be speaking next with Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, who again is one of the more than a dozen Republican members of the Senate who actually signed on to that bill, which today

moved forward in the Chamber. On this vote, the yeas are the days or thirty four three fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to culture having been invoked, the motion to refer the amendments there to fail, and so

it moves on to a final vote. Next. As we assemble our panel Blueberg Politics contributors Jeanie Schanzano and Rick Davis, I just want to hear from both of you quickly on this, and we'll start Genie with you on the Supreme Court ruling happening at the same time as this vote in the Senate. There's something about two Americas here. Maybe you can write the column though. Yeah, that's right,

and I think big questions obviously remained. The Supreme Court has decided that Second Amendment has been a second class right and citizen for too long. Now they're moving it and they want it to be a first class right. But of course that raises many questions as to what is going to be allowed in terms of regulation and what's not and that is left to come. And the Senate is working on this bill. It's going to be ensure there is litigation for years to come on this

question of break elation of this right with this conservative court. Yeah, Rick, your thought on this. The President is encouraging states to start enacting laws u now to mitigate the impacts of of this ruling by the Supreme Court. Is that going to unleash kind of a new movement in blue states or or have that? Has that already happened, They've already gotten ahead of This is the rest of the country

we're talking about. Yeah. I think Congressman Brady uh painted the right picture, which is in states that can pass these kinds of laws that limit concealing carry. Um, they have already done so, right and and but the vast majority of states have have have pasted laws that allow that and have some kind of regulatory regime around it. So so it's not like this hasn't been a debate going on for some time. In fact, some of these laws or twenty years old. As he pointed out, they've

had concealed carry in Texas for twenty five years. So so for the President go out and say, wow, let's unleash of a flurry of regulation around this, well, that's what these states have been doing. And and part of actually why the Supreme Court took up this case is because you have a patchwork quill of laws around this

one issue. Regardless of whether you like it or not, it has created a lot of confusion within the community around what is the law, and courts are choked with these kinds of appeals that will now lessen because the Supreme Court has made a decision. We heard from New York Governor Cathy Hokel on this today. I'm prepared to call the legislature back in a session to deal with this. We've been in contact with the leadership. We're just looking

at dates. Everyone wants a little bit of time to digestice. We know as well. She spoke with the President today, Jeanie. He said so when he was talking with reporters, he had just spoken with the governor of New York earlier. What's the next step in that state? Specifically, specifically in New York, they are going to come back into session, I believe, and they are going to try to rewrite this law so it meets the Supreme Courts requirement, which

is that they impose objective criteria. Right now, in my state, we have subjective requirements, which means an individual decides whether you meet it or not. Objective criteria, according to at least Thomas, is the letter of what he wrote, are are going to be allowed. And that's what I think New York is going to try to meet in this next go around. Jennie Chantano and Rick Davis our signature panel with us for the hour, and we'll be back to speak with them about the gas component of our

Gas and Guns Hour. But what we're gonna do next is bring you inside the Senate here in a special conversation that I had today with Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, who again back the gun bill. We had just learned at this point when we were speaking about the Supreme Court ruling, and I began by asking him if this ruling could impact the text, the language of

the bill itself, or the outcome in the vote. You know, I've just briefly looked at the Supreme Court decision, but I don't think it has any bearing at all on the legislation. Uh. The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the New York law did not have the proper protections because it required uh cause in order to to to get a license to to have concealed carry. We don't get into those issues at all. Our bills focused

only on three things. One is the mental health issue, which I think everybody agrees now is something that needs to be addressed by the way I believe it needed to be addressed, whether we're doing this in the context of a gun safety bill or not. It's a substantial part of the bill, it's the majority of the funding. It's about the fact that there are people, including this young man who committed these horrific acts and Texas who are mentally ill need treatment. And somehow they're able to

get weapons and they shouldn't be able to. So it's it's providing more access to mental health and also make sure those mental health records are in the national background system. And then second, school safety, which I think again parents all over the country agree with we need a part in our schools and protect our kids. And then third, there are some very specific things that relate to the kinds of problems we've seen in relationship to these mass shootings.

One would be maturing that people's records who are between eight and twenty one years old are actually provided to the background system, and of course they should be. These are records of prim all activity, records of mental health history. Right now, many of these records are not being provided. They're sealed or even expunge. They need to be provided specifically to the system. So that those are the main

parts with the bill. There is no new red flag at the national level that's been misinterpreted by some are you find that some of your Republican colleagues, though, are either no votes or skeptical because of the language in the in the red flag component. I know you spent a lot of time on due process. What would you tell them about their concerns before they in some respects working with some of the groups that support the right of people, you know, to be able to bear arms.

There is more protection now because you do have this due process in place for state psych Ohio, but we do not have a red flag law. Just does not create a red flag law. There's no federal red flag law. It would give Ohio the ability to access more funding for things like drug courts, for other interventions, things like Veterans Court, um. But if they did that provided that, uh, if they got the funding for that, then they would have to ensure that there were due process rights in

place even for those programs. So it's not a new red flag law at the federal level. That's that's something that people have incorrectly said about the legislation. But it does help in terms of this mental health issue. And I think that's probably the biggest impact this is going to have on because like, you're one of fourteen Republicans supporting the bill at this point. Could that number be higher?

And when is this done tomorrow? I think I'd be done tonight or tomorrow and the number will be higher than four. Team. We don't know how much higher. Um. But there's one person who is absent who expressed his support for the legislation and has worked with Senator Corner and Senator Tillis on it all along the way, and then there are a couple other members who are are

considering supporting. So, um, we'll see. But look, it's it's important to do something, and I think that is part of what this process has been about, is to show the American people that these horrific acts of violence that we saw in the places like Texas or Buffalo, that we have some some response. And again it changes in mental health access through these community health centers, I think may and then be the most significant part of the legislation.

Do you think that this bill, assuming it becomes a law, could have prevented Vivaldi or Buffalo? Possibly? Yeah, yeah, through the background checks, through the background checks, and through identifying this individual through his mental health history. Coasts a suicide and by the way, the vast majority more of them are the mass shootings, So they are both a horrific mass shooting of in this case kids and teachers, but

also they're suicides. This young man absolutely intended to be killed in this process, and that was part of why he did this, according to what we know, but that would be typical of all these other mass shootings. So people sometimes ask me back home, what's the mental health component here? Well, it's it's clear to me these are people who are in effect committing suicide um and taking

other people with them. It's not a department. I want to ask you about reports that Intel is reportedly telling some lawmakers that it's going to delay the groundbreaking for this massive computer chip plant that it's planning to put in in Ohio. I'm wondering if you've got a heads up on this and if you're concerned they're pointing to the delay and passing the chip backed as part of the bipartisan innovation law that just seems to be grinding forever.

I did get it heads up, and of course I'm disappointed, because I'm really excited about this commitment to Ohio. It would be the largest economic development project in our Faith States history, and as important, it's about the future, because semi conductor production is about the future economy, and it's critical to our national security to have the ability to reshore some of that infrastructure UM for making chips back

to America. We designed these semiconductors. Originally, we used to have, you know, forty years ago, thirty seven percent of the production here in America, and now we're down to twelve. And if this legislation as I've passed, I believe we'll be down to single digits before long. I didn't realize this project this campus though hinged on the chip backed. I thought that was a commitment that Intel made or you can certainly pull out altogether. No, I think from

what I've heard that they plan to move forward. The question is timing um and they have other countries around the world that are offering them, you know, huge incentives to build fabs in their countries. And that's because other countries in Europe and in Asia in particular, understand that this is part of the future. It's sort of like, you know, the countries that had the oil in the

ground benefited a lot over the last several decades. Countries that have semiconduction production will benefit a lot going forward. You see in places like Ohio UH trucks or cars you know, parked at UH large parking lots in a raceway northern Kentucky as an example, I saw recently as I flew into our airport in Cincinnati and they're just waiting for semi conductors. I mean, so this is an example. If you've got a car on order, probably you're waiting,

and probably it's because the semiconductors. The supply chain is being constrained. Uh. That's it's it's an enormous problem for us right now. What our senators serious about getting this done? I think so. Yeah. I've had lots of conversations even today about it, UM, and my hope is that we will make all the big decisions even before we go out on breaking here today or tomorrow, and then over the next two weeks, you know, finalize some of those decisions so we can put the bill to a vote

when we get back. It's certainly is important to UM to move forward because of the competitive issue with our Asian competitors and our European competitors. UM. That's also very important to my home state of Ohio. It's going to create not just thousands of great paying jobs eventually, but immediately thousands of construction jobs. Other companies will come in as suppliers, which will create more and more opportunity. These are good, high paying jobs, so it's important we get

this done. Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, speaking with us a little bit earlier today on Capitol Hill, we covered a lot of ground there. I want to get back to where we began, though, and that is with the Supreme Court ruling on guns and of course the gun legislation that is moving through the Senate. You just heard from a Republican on this. Of course, this is Rob Portman, uh, and his positions are not necessarily shared by the entire Republican caucus, as he is one of

the fourteen GOP members supporting this gun safety law. We're joined right now. This hour is really becoming, uh, quite a conversation here as we're joined by Senator John Ausof, Democrat from Georgia, who has very strong feelings about all of this. Senator, welcome back to Bloomberg. It's great to have you. Were normally asking you about the Federal Reserve, which was of course part of your day yesterday talking to j. Powell. But this ruling today is significant on

many levels. The White House says it's disappointed. President Biden is urging states to get things moving on the legislative level to mitigate the impact of this and a lot of Republicans, like we heard from earlier Kevin Brady, the congressman from Texas, say this is a good thing. What's your reaction to the Supreme Court today, Joe, thank you for having me in. Good afternoon. I'm still reviewing the

Supreme Court's ruling in full. Uh. Not yet in a position to comment on their decision, having not been through it in detail. I do want to discuss, however, the action that the Senate's poised to take with bipartisans support as early as this evening. Does this have any impact on it significant? Well, I think it's quite significant that the Senate is going to take action and bipartisan action to advance gun safety legislation for the first time in decades.

Um and uh, that we're poised to have significant Republican as well as Democratic support for legislation that is aimed at making it more difficult for those who pose a threat to their family members, their loved ones, their domestic partners, and two children in our community who are seeking access to firearms. Uh and UH. I want to commend Senator Murphy of Connecticut, Senator Cornin of Texas, and the bipartisan negotiators who brought this over the finish line for their

tireless efforts to that end. What do you tell Republican members UH Senator who are concerned about due process? They say, the red flag component of this law is the problem. Of course, it's not a federal red flag law. It's incentivizing states to start their own. But what would you

tell them to assuage their concerns about what's in the language. Well, I think one of the reasons that there is such broad bipartisans support for this language is that it is supportive of state efforts to implement red flag laws where states see fit to implement them, and that provision, as well as the provisions that slow down the process when an eighteen to twenty one year old, for example, seeks to purchase some automatic rifle, are intended to reduce risk,

imminent risk to family members, to domestic partners, to schools and two children. When those who intend to do harm or are suffering from acute mental illness seek access to a firearm, potentially to um embark upon one of these horrific UH spree killings that we see all to open in our society. Do you worry that this Supreme Court decision today could could make more of a challenge for law enforcement, make more gun violence in our cities. When you look at the states that have similar laws, it

means l A. San Francisco, Boston, New Work and so forth, Baltimore. Senator, there are concerns by mayors in those cities that this could and in the words of Eric Adams, create a wild wild West kind of situation. Well, look, one of the things that I hear consistently across the state of Georgia is strong support from law enforcement for common sense

gun safety measures. Uh. It's our law enforcement officers who um typically have to enter these scenarios where a suspect or an active shooter is heavily armed, and its law enforcement who are among the most vocal advocates for reform. We're spending time with Senator John Austuff, Democrat from Georgia, and there are a lot of things we don't get to speak with you too often, Senator, that I love

to ask you about. And of course, high gas prices, high oil prices, and the story of inflation is one that we talk a lot about here, and I know you do certainly on the Banking Committee in a direct conversation yesterday with with J. Powell. Uh, it's interesting to see what's going on here because it's been so stubborn that that a lot of lawmakers, a lot of your colleagues, think the White House and the FED are running out

of tools here. What do you want to see happen with regard to high oil and gas prices that that the Federal Reserve can't seem to impact. The White House today is asking oil executives to pump more? Is that the solution to this? Well as for the FED stance, I don't think we're seeing that they lacked the tools

in their toolbox. I think it's clear that they were late to apply those tools and got behind the curve last year while insisting that the threat was transitory UM and are now having to play catchup and in plane catchup having to move more swiftly, therefore having a greater

impact on market volatility. One of the questions that I asked share Powell yesterday was his assessment of where he may see some systemic risk or threats to financial stability and financial markets because the FED is now moving quickly with seventy basis point hike and potentially more to come. What kind of major trade may unwind? What kind of financial activity at two was sustainable but at three percent

is not? Uh, you know, we have to be wary of where bubbles may have emerged in financial markets and capital markets after such a prolonged period of extraordinary low rates and a lot of bond buying on top of it. Of course, you know they as as He's made the point though, getting to oil and food prices. Energy and food prices is very difficult just by hiking interest rates. But I wonder your thoughts on tariffs as well. Should we be dropping, for instance, China tariffs if we're trying

to do everything we can to lower inflation. I know that, for instance, UH, you're working on reducing tariffs against the US when it comes to Pecans an important industry in Georgia with regard to to India tariffs, is this an avenue Senator, we should be taking? Well, Look, I think that the administration should be actively considering the use of trade policy to uh stabilize the price level for products

for American consumers. And I do want to highlight and I think it's important that there is attention to the major breakthrough that I've made with the U. S. Trade Representatives Office in the last twenty four hours with respect to the barriers that India has erected to US agricultural exports. My home state of Georgia produces one third of America's pecans, and UH farmers in Georgia are seeking access to the Indian market, a massive market. India has a thirty six

percent tariff on pocan imports but no domestic production. I've raised the issue repeatedly in recent weeks with India's ambassador to the United States. Yesterday had a very productive call of an ambassador Byankee at the U. S. Trade Representative's Office, and we announced this morning my office and the Biden administration through the U S tr that we are going to put India's pecan terraffs at the very top of

the U. S. India trade agenda. That's a significant shift in our stance with respect to that bilateral trading relationship and something that I'm gonna be pursuing in months to come. All Right, you're clearly doing what you can for pecan farmers and Georgia Senators. The White House behind that effort

is the Biden administration doing what it can well. I was really encouraged by the confirmation from the administration today from the U s Trade Representative, the chief trade negotiator for the Biden administration, um that we are now going to put India's pecan tariffs at the very top of our trade agenda with India, and there will be upcoming talks in July. I'm considering leading a delegation to work

toward accelerating a resolution of this victory. By no means assured, but for farmers in my state, those thirty six percent tariffs are a major obstacle and and so I think it needs to be noted and represents a significant shift in our posture with respect to that by lateral trade relationship that now the Biden administration, the US Trade Representative are putting Indian pecan tariffs at the very top of

our bilateral trade agenda. It's the politics of Pecans. I hope you appreciate Senator this Yankee not calling them pecans to embarrass you on the air today. Well, I'll tell you what you need to come down and we can do a live show in the pecan orchard. Some of Georgia's finest products. We can talk about agricultural trade policy. All there sounds great, we can we can want out

on the farm. Senator John Ausa, thank you, Democrat from Georgia, weighing in unexpectedly on this special edition as it turns out of Bloomberg Sound on the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington will hear from the panel coming up as we balance our twin leads today, the Scout is ruling on guns and the White House meeting with oil executives. We have a lot more on that ahead as well. We'll reassemble the panel next with Rick and Genie as we work our way through a very

busy day here in the nation's capital. Thanks for joining us here, uh Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano on the politics of pecans. I think I can trust you on that, Rick Davis, as an Alabama boy, nothing better than a little pecan pie like well, Yankees call it pecans. Yeah, the peacans. You wouldn't even know what I was asking you for in this particular case. Though. That's just one example.

When you when we're talking about the inflation story here in the many tariffs that this White House is considering

right now that that could have a meaningful impact on prices. Rick. Yeah, Look, I mean there there's a laundry list of items, especially with China, where we have tariff's already in place that are making consumer goods more expensive, and this administration has it within their power uh to sort of ignore the geopolitical consequences of why those um UH tariffs were put in place to begin with and lower um that will you know, have an impact on the cost of goods

coming out of China. That's a little bit different of an issue than you know, demanding that India open up its markets to our agriculture, which is a very good thing to do too. But I just don't get the impression that this administration has a comprehensive attack on inflation. I mean, we you talked earlier to Kevin Brady and and we're talking about the oil industry, and he may

I think a very salient point. You have a bunch of executives in your White House today and there's no evidence that they asked them to do anything other than can you produce more? While at the same time, the Interior Department is limiting their access to offshore drilling, so I honestly, uh uh struggle to understand what the administration's postures on on inflation. The meeting today was an important one. Ginnie will have a little more time for this later on.

But Jennifer Granholm, the Energy Secretary, we talked about it with Kevin Brady earlier this hour, asking for more production, for more oil, and no real conclusions to come from that meeting. We understand it was only about an hour long. What do you read into that? Yeah, I mean, I mean that the fact is that I've all along criticized the administration for going out on things like this holiday,

um and making statements. You know, the president's sort of chastising some of these oil executives without meeting with them, and of course you know he sends Graham Holme in there today. Um. At the very least, if they're going to get asked for this you know, gas holiday, they could secure some agreement that that those costs would be or the savings would be passed on to consumers. They

didn't do that. She has a short meeting today, So I think the problem for the White Houses it comes off seeming very scatter shot, like they're just throwing things to the wind and seeing what sticks. And that's a problem because their base and Americans as a whole want a consistent effort to address inflation, and they want honesty here and even his own Democratic Party pushing back on

his his latest efforts with the holidays. So, you know, for the White House, I think this has been a misstep in the last few days and and and you know, I hope they're able to get back on track. And in terms of tariffs, we've already heard that the President is going to announce not going to announce before he goes to the G seven um. And I think in part that has to do with the base of the

Democratic Party in labor. Should the President have gone in that meeting today, Rick, I think if I were advising the President that I'm the last guy they're going to ask for advice, Um, I think I would tell them to have them into the Oval office and lock the door and don't come out until they're planned to UH increase production, increase refining and uh in lower gas prices.

Is that everybody in lockstep, That's what they should have done. Jeanny, Well, you know the Democrats, we don't tend to lock people in offices. The way, Rick David stuff. I don't know anything about it. We don't know anything about that. We just like our peacans. But you know, I could see what Rick Davis is saying, So I got it. I'm from the northeast. All right, We're gonna get back to, uh,

the gun story here, the SCOTUS ruling here. Uh, in a special conversation that we've been looking forward to with Adam Winkler, law professor from u c l A, who is joining us in the middle of the flurry, about what we should understand from this ruling, the precedent that it's setting for other states, what legislation might emerge here. But I'm just curious to talk with Adam, and then we'll reassemble the panel so they can have a little more time to weigh in on this. Professor Winkler, thanks

for being with us. A lot of folks saw this ruling coming. Uh, now that it's here. Is Eric Adams, the Governor of New York correct when he predicts wild wild west in in inner cities where gun violence is already such a problem. Well, let's hope not. I do think that we all are going to see an increasing number of restrictions on conceialed carry. Even in these states where the may issue permitting has been overturned, We're going to see states broadly define sensitive places to restrict where

people can carry guns. And I think states like New York and California are not just going to throw up their hands and surrender to the Supreme Court, but are gonna try to interpret this opinion in ways that allow them to continue to restrict concealed carry. Is it automatic essentially that the laws in the states uh that are at issue here, those with similar laws to the one in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and California will all be in the same boat. It's not automatic,

but it's all but automatic. We're going to see lawsuits filed against the concealed cares carry policies in those states, and those lawsuits will be successful in the long run. So, um, we are seeing states already take up the mantle of reform, and I'm talking about different ways to start regulating concealed carry. The New York governor has already called for a special session of the legislature to figure out how they can continue to limit the number of guns on our streets.

In a concurring opinion, Justices Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts said the ruling did not prevent states from requiring handgun owners to get a carry license. Kavanaugh said the decision did not affect the shall issue systems. The President referred to this todays shall issue in dozens of states that we're talking about where licenses have to be issued to

anyone who meets set criteria. So how much will actually change, Well, I think we're going to see the law change significantly in the half dozen or so states like California, New York, and Massachusetts that do require have many issue permitting systems that give government some discretion. But I also think that part of the importance of understanding this ruling is that it will have a broad effect on other gun laws, to beyond concealed carry restracts. That's what I'd like to

hear about. What are you what are you looking at? Yeah? Well, the Court said that the only gun laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that were either in effect in the seventeen or eighteen hundreds, or are sufficiently similar to laws that were in effect in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds.

And that closes a real risk for really the entire gun safety reform AGAINDA bands on high capacity magazines, bands on military style rifles, even the red flag laws that are supposed to be encouraged by the Senate Gun Bill maybe unconstitutional. We didn't have any law like that in the seventeen or eighteen hundreds. Uh. You mentioned this is going to be tied up in courts for some times. There going to be a lot of lawsuits that come from this. What does that look like? How long could

this be tied up? We're going to see lawsuits for years to come. You know. Opinion in two thousand and eight, Well, what he was getting to something good there. It always happens right when they're getting to something good. Maybe we can reconnect with the Professor Winkler, Adam Winkler of the u c l A Law School. Uh, somebody said his phone needed a background check. I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. This is the fastest hour in politics. It goes by so fast sometimes you just wish you could get a

couple of seconds back. Why don't we take the time we have right now take advantage of this. This has been quite a flurry. This hour. We're just breaking all the rules today, and I'm certainly gonna get in trouble as soon as I'm off the air, but that that is why we have live radio. I'm glad you're with us. If you're showing up late here, you've missed a lot already, and that's why I'll encourage you to subscribe to the sound on podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Can we

get the professor back? Is he with us? We lost the line with the Professor Adam Winkler, who was making an important point that I really would love for him to finish before we reassemble the panel. Rick and Jeannie are standing by and he is with us now. Professor. I'm sorry somebody got in the way. We'll blame will blame the telecom gods on this one, but I just wanted you to finish your points, specifically about how this ruling could impact other gun laws. If you could continue,

that's right. Well, the court said that only those gun laws that were in effect in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds are likely to be constitutionally permissible, or laws that were sufficiently similar to those, and so it's like California, we've got things like it's that hundreds, we have bans on military style rifles that weren't in effect in the eight In the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, we have bans on high capacity magazines. UH, and those were of course

not in effect in the seventeen or eighteen hundreds. Exactly, we didn't even have high capacity magazines. You're not going to lead to a lot of litigation and a lot of gun laws are going to be second guests in the coming years. Thank you for humoring me and coming back to finish your point. Adam Winkler, Law professor. You see l A with us on sound on. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington, and we reassemble our panel with Rick and Genie as we started off with this, and we

have tackled a few other topics along the way. Jeanie Schanzana when Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributors, Rick, your thought on this after hearing from the professor and the precedent that's being set, Yeah, I think that his point about the proliferational litigation around this is gonna be really overwhelming for a lot of state courts. UH. This cracks the

door open for UH. People both on the side of the Second Amendment and looking at opportunities now to lessen the requirements like what he was talking about around high capacities and red flag laws. I mean, while the United States Senate has a biparsan bill that's gonna encourage red flag laws, it just shows you how disconnected, uh, the Supreme Court is with what's happening in the United States Congress.

Although you heard Kevin Brady before, we heard Senator Rick Scott as well, Rick that this has become the line for a lot of Republicans who want to say no to this bill, that you know what, the red flag component is just a bridge too far, sure, and and and states are willing to do it. And so maybe we continue to do this patwork quilt of state laws

around these kind of red flag laws. But now we have a Supreme Court decision that says, well, you know, if these things weren't uh settled law back in the eighteen hundreds, and you know, maybe they're not constitutional. So again, I mean, his point about the proliferational litigation is disappointing because the last thing the courts need to do is spend all their time litigating on the Second Amendment and

not worrying about putting criminals away. What's your thought on that, Jennie, that that the red this is not even a red flag law, it's an incentive for states to have their own red flag laws. Where's the unconstitutional component here? What would what would your answer be to those concerned? Well,

you know, yeah, the question. I think there's a lot more questions coming out of this decision than there are answers, because if I read the decision and I read you know what, I found Kavanaugh's very confusing concurrence and they those two seem to conflict. And of course Kavanaugh and Roberts are in the majority because if you read what Kavanaugh and Roberts say, they say, this isn't going to impact you know, so many types of restrictions, including background checks.

Yet you listen to what the professor said, you read Thomas's decision, and there is a huge component in there. If anybody has a lot of time tonight about originalism and what the professor said, which is that only laws that were in effect or similar to those in effect at the founding would be considered constitutionally permissible. So right there, you have a conflict between the concurrence and the majority, And to Rick's point, and to the professor's point, you

raise a whole host of litigation. You know, I think for many Republicans they are saying in a restricted sense, then the Supreme Court is just saying that you can't have subjective requirements for gun per mid's like New York had. That is, you know a little bit more uh, you know, understandable to many people. But it's when you expand outside of that that it becomes problematic, because of course background

checks are objective. Yeah. Look, this is not a legal show, and god knows, I am not a lawyer, Rick Davis, but it does strike me this concurring opinion. To Genie's point, it certainly argues with the with the majority opinion, Kavanaugh and Roberts say the ruling did not prevent states from requiring handgun owners to get a carry license. Don't they cancel each other out in a way, Well not really.

I mean, look, what what New York was getting away with was was having this law that says that you may have one and that, but you had no real subjective right. It was a subjective criteria that was left up to government. Bureaucrats decide whether or not you could have one or not. So and in fact, they didn't

have a law that allowed it. Um, and so what the what the Supreme Court did, which I think is the part that's very clear, it's I set out your criteria, make it, make it very clear, um as part of your regulations. We're not opposing that you do regulations around this issue. Texas has regulations pass. The states that that have concealed carry have regulations, and so promallgate those. It shouldn't be left up to a state bureaucrat to decide

how the second man was gonna apply. The government in New York and the City of New York has to set up criteria that everyone can see and follow and determine whether it's constitutional. Getting back to the President's response to this earlier, this was off the script. He was asked about it in the meeting that had to do with green energy. This was his answer, There are the gun laws in forty of these states are still in place based on the decision. Not good enough. But it's

I think it's a bad decision. I think it's and I think it's not reasoning accurately. But I'm disappointed. So he doesn't like this obviously, Genie. But as he says, forty states will have no change. The concern is this half does and uh that have some pretty big cities inside them. That's right, And and questions remain. For instance, you know this was brought up in the ole oral arguments in New York City in Times Square on New Year's Eve? Are you allowed to conceal and carry a

weapon now? And of course you know a whole host of sensitive areas like churches and government offices. You know, some of those Thomas spoke to many he did not, you know, for instance, sports stadiums and other things. And you know, just on Rick's point about this subjective criteria, you know, I am a proponent of red flag laws, but what I'm hearing from some of my more conservative friends is that those are also subjective to this question

of due process. Somebody has said that you are not stable to be carrying your gun, and a judge in that case hopefully will be making that determination based on your background. I have conservative friends who say that that is problematic when it comes to subjectivity. So this I think, does I know you spoke to Portman, and you spoke to aus of both said, this isn't going to impact

you know, what the Senate is doing. I think it may impact what the House does on this, which would derail the whole thing, Which would derail the whole thing. I think you may find you you only need five or six of them Democrats who say enough is enough. We're not letting conservatives get away with passing a pr bill to say they did something on Uval Day when it's a watered down gun safety not gun control bill, especially after this ruling. So I think we watch for that,

is you need getting warmer rick. Uh, you know, I think that that obviously, uh, in this kind of interpretation is going to have ramifications maybe with the red flag laws. But but again, you know when you've properly set up the regulations around it. I mean the point she makes about, you know, carrying guns into sporting events and stuff. All these states that have concealing carry that do have regulations set up location restrictions in their state from where you

cannot bring a gun. It's not a Wild West situation. It is a regulated situation, and so you can't bring them within forty ft of a certain building. Schools and government buildings. You can't bring him into you know, certain locations of public buildings, but you can't make a city

a sensitive right. You have to be more specific, so that won't be an option for for Mayor Eric Adams in New York, who spoke to this again today, we have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. We will collaborate with the mayor's, municipality leaders and governors and will leave no unturned stone as we seek to undo and mitigate the

damage that we are witnessing today. A lot of lawyers are about to make a lot of money here, genie lobbyists. I suspect will as well. But what what can New York do to mitigate the law in the In the words of the mayor, you know, it's going to be difficult. I think the legislature comes back. I think they try to, you know, adjust to the Supreme Court has done. And I think there are ways, examples and over forty states

to do that. But I do think there is a real difference between you know, New York upstate and downstate. Ten million people in New York City a gun, you know, arrest up twenty eight percent in the last year alone. They are fighting hard to keep crime down, and this takes away is the feeling of many law enforcement officials their ability to do that or at least makes it harder for the moment. And that's what Eric Adams is

responding to. What do you think about that, Rick, in terms of big cities like New York who are just in a different world, They're they're dealing with a different reality, uh than than states with rural areas that also have representatives arguing about this in the capitol. No, for sure, I think I can't even have fathom the complexities around policing and and and and fighting crime in a city

like New York City. I would say that there are a lot of big cities, nowhere near the size of New York City in states that have concealed carry and and and they've managed it. Uh. There are cities that, um, I think, regulatorially UM have have done a good job

with this kind of UH law. So UH, New York is gonna have certain things that they're gonna have to do and it will be tested in the courts, I'm sure, But it doesn't mean that they're defenseless, and yet uh, you know, uh, I think it goes without saying, like what Congressman Brady said was that the experiment of like the eight largest crime cities in America, you know, only one of them is in a state with a concealed carry. So,

I mean it may be oversimplification. And I and I and I feel for people who have to navigate the legal framework that the Supreme Court has just given us. But I don't think it's I don't think it's undoable. Supreme Court's not done. Guys. Um, we're gonna get a ruling here on Roe v. Wade that is apparently imminent. We saw the reaction to this gun ruling today in the media. We saw it with lawmakers in town. When that Row decision comes down, Genie, there are a lot

of concerns about what's going to happen. There are groups threatening all kinds of stuff. Is this this night of rage? You might have heard about that. The White House even acknowledged yesterday that some activists are promising if this comes down the wrong way. Is Washington ready for this? You know, I'm not sure we are, and I'm not sure Washington is I noted in the Descent. You know, Justice Brier starts out talking about the reality the number of Americans

killed by firearms in overt thousand Americans. And what many people see is they look at a decision like Bruin, and they look at a potential decision like the Mississippi case on abortion. Is that a Supreme Court out of touch? Again? You read Justice Thomas's decision, he spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the seventeen and eighteen hundreds in history. Now, I love that stuff, and I love myself some James Madison, but when you're talking about issues on the ground in reality,

it feels like they may be a bit divorced. And that's what Brier and the dissenters tried to touch on. And you know, so if they're gonna do what Rick is talking about, they've got to make sure their decisions are relevant to what people are going through and out of touch Supreme Court becomes a Supreme Court like the one that walked us into the Civil War and some of the other low points in the Supreme Court's history, of which there have been a few. Wow, Rick, if

you're preparing a lawmaker or the president for that matter. Uh, what's the process here? Knowing that the Court could rule on this even tomorrow. Yeah, I think actually one of

the best things that's happened is the leak. And I'm not for leaks out of the Supreme Court, but at least we've had some time to prepare the American public for what is likely to be a rebuke of Roe v. Wade, and and and and So I think the fact that there's no transparency in this process around the Supreme Court, right, there's no like um ability to try and prepare the public for what comes down. And these are seismic events in public. Let's see that affect millions, hundreds of millions

of people all at one time. Uh. So I think that that from that perspective, we have to maintain the conversation. We have to keep talking about what the remedies are going to be. We have to be talking about like how states can adjust to this. Uh. Like Professor Winkler was saying, there, there's going to be a lot of litigation around this, and some of it will be successful. But from a political perspective, you're already writing that news release, correct,

You've written the speech for the Senator you're advising. Uh, you know where you're, where your member is going to be the next day, and what that news conference is gonna look like. Oh yeah, you've got this thing sitting on the desk, waiting, just like the media is waiting for all the stories that are going to roll out of here. We know what those stories are gonna be, We know those interviews are going to take place. Uh.

And I would say it's not insignificant. I mean abortion went from not even the top ten issues of this election cycle to number one in many states because of this leaked abortion ruling. Is the White House ready, Genie? They should be ready. I'm not sure they are, but they should be. Gene Shenzano and Rick Davis. What a conversation. We haven't taken a breath for an hour. Thanks to Charlie Pellett, we made our way on the fastest hour in politics. That's gonna be one big honkin podcast. Aren't

you glad you subscribed? We'll meet you back here tomorrow. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg