We Shall Indeed Keep and Bear Arms

being infringed all the time. But to keep in bear arms, we've certainly made progress in that direction. We will discuss this pivotal case and how it affects the home state of yours truly and perhaps now clears the way for me to be a New York legal handgun owner. Oh look at that, wouldn't that be interesting? We will discuss

this in just a moment. If you have to wear a suit and tie, or if you just want to look sharp, look slick, look like you know what you're doing when you're out there at dinner, out at a party, you've got to wear shoes that pull it all together. But you don't want to have uncomfortable feet. I hate uncomfortable feet. I just won't do it. That's why you

need Wolf and Shepherd. This is a dress shoe made and worn by athletes first and foremost, and they've figured out hold on, it feels like sneakers on our feet. And now everyone's getting on the Wolf and Shepherd train. It's amazing. This is footwear for people who want to look like they're wearing a dress shoe but feel like they're in a sneaker. I know that sounds crazy, right, How is it even possible it is? I've owned Wolf

and Shepherd shoes for years now. I was a Wolf and Shepherd shoe owner and wore them all the time before they're even a sponsor on my program Wolf and Shepherd Friends. You need to check them out. Try the Crossover, that's their most popular shoe. But I've got three of their shoes. They're all fantastic. Can encourage you enough. Go check it out Wolf and Shepherd dot com. That's Wolf and Shepherd sh E p h E r D Wolf and Shepherd dot com. Oh, it's a good day for

the Second Amendment. Yes, it is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. The Brewin Superintendent of New York State police in a massive six three decision drop down, like freedom from the Heavens for your firearm carrying purposes. The New York State May issue Regimen has been slapped down. The notion that you should have to demonstrate proper cause. That's right, that's the phrase they were using. A special need for you to have a handgun in the state

of New York has been overturned, my friends. And it's not just for New York because this is obviously Supreme Court case. This now applies to all of the lib anti Second Amendment zones that are statewide, like Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, California,

New York. Oh, yes, they are in violation of the Constitution. Now, if you are a person of you know, necessary legal standing, no criminal background, if you meet the basic requirements and you want a handgun, they're gonna have to say, Okay, you can have a handgun legally in these states and carry it concealed in these states. That's the way it's got to be, right. Because there there had been a Heller dealt with dcv. Heller years ago, dealt with the can you own a gun at all? A handgun at

all at a place like Washington, DC or Chicago. And the answer the Supreme Court came back with was, yeah, you have to be able to own a gun. Now, oh, it's can you have a carry permit? Can you have a carry permit in these places? And the answer is, well, if you are a person who has not had some problem with the law, if you're a person who has met the necessary statutory requirements, you have to be able

to be given a carry permit for self defense. Not okay, maybe you can have a gun, but you have to have it in three lock boxes and have it locked deep in your basement, and you have to have a fingerprint scanner to get to the lock box and a lock on the gun. That's real stuff that they had. I mean, not all of it, but some of that. In New York it was absurd. Sorry, you can't have

a gun. One of my favorite parts of this decision is in the Alito concurrent separate Algal concurrence, where he points out it's he takes a shot so to speak. At the other side. He says, you know these lib dissenters here, of course you know who they are. So to my Orchagan and Brier, they're all, oh, we don't want you to have guns. Guns are so scary. There are lots of guns in New York, lots and lots

thousands of handguns. People are arrested for, not even just the ones that are I mean, there's more than that. There's probably ten times that number, one hundred times that number circulating in New York and its environs, but well, maybe a hundred times a lot. But there's there's clearly tens of thousands of them illegally in circulation in New

York City alone. And New York City decides that it's a gun free zone effectively, and the only people who can get a carry permit are connected people that have a little bit of a wink and a nod from the police department in city Hall. I'm sorry. That's not the way it's supposed to be. That's not actually what the Constitution lays out, and that's not how individual rights are supposed to function. It's really, on the one hand,

it's a great victory. On the other hand, it's astonishing that these these neurotic states were able to get away with this as long as they did. New York, California, you know, some of the states, not all the Vermont's been much better, for example, on guns, than New York is, or than Massachusetts is. But you know, basically the Northeast and California had this regiment where you can't you can't carry a gun unless you can prove a special need.

And the special need proving was effectively arbitrary. It's, oh, well, do you have a threat against your life, Well, then maybe we'll give you and even then they might not give it to you. The whole thing was absurd. It was absurd. But you know, Libs are like, oh, I don't want people to have guns, but they have guns. The bad guys have guns, clearly because they're committing shootings all the time. The lib descent here from the other

side of the court was simply ridiculous, legally unserious. They lay out, there's all there's so much gun violence. Oh, this is what the Libs believe. If we read late more they'll be less gun violence, more regulation. Less gun violence doesn't work. They have jurisdictions like Chicago and New York City that are effectively gun free zones that are full of guns and gun violence, full of guns in

the hands of criminals. Mind you, people that don't care what the state or city legislature says about their possession of firearms, and they prey upon people who are left defenseless. They prey upon people who have to say, oh, well, maybe I'll call the cops. I gotta tell you, after what everybody saw in uv all day, and I'm sorry, but we now know beyond doubt what the police response in Uval day, from the command level down to that hallway where they were stacked up with rs and ballistic

shields was appalling. Appalling. You're gonna trust the police to get there in time when some hardened criminal breaks into your home. You're gonna trust the police to show up and do the right thing when there's a moment that you could end up losing your life or your family could end up losing their lives over now, I don't think so. You should at least have the option. You should at least have the chance to be able to

protect yourself. Now, the Supreme Court decision here again, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin, It's fascinating just in terms of all the history that it goes into. Now the Libs try to make this argument of oh, but look at this time, whether there was some prohibition on open carry or look at this time. And they're going back hundreds of years in this English common law,

they even go back the medieval period. But you know what's fascinating about it is one the history of this stuff, and I mean this in general is just really interesting. But also yeah, that's right. When you have illegitimate or authoritarian regimes. You know, a new king comes to power in the UK, or there's some war between factions in England, and you know what they try to do control who

has weapons. When there is an authoritarian, when there's a tyrant in charge, you know what they always want to do, make sure that only their people, their side, can have weapons. And it's the most basic understanding of politics you can have. Right. Ultimately, this stuff all rests on force. The state at some level is an attempt at a monopoly on violence, and the state, when it is in the hands of a tyrant, wants to eliminate any possibility of a check on that violence. Ah.

But that's why we have the Second Amendment. This is the genius of the founders. This is what they understood from really knowing the history of England and Europe. And the whole world for that matter. People in power don't want anyone questioning their power, and they want to stay in power, and they want to do whatever they want to do. They want to pursue their whims, they want to oppress, they want to enrich them selves, and they want to destroy anybody who stands in their way. That's

the nature of concentrated power. Well, when you have all the swords, or you have all the knives, or you have all the guns, etc. Pretty easy to do, that, isn't it. But when you don't know, when you send in your agents of the state into you know, seventeenth century England, to take somebody in chains, torture them and

have them executed for being an enemy of the state. Well, if they are armed, if their household members are armed, perhaps their household guard, or just people that are in the neighborhood who see the tyranny, what can they do in response to this? A whole lot more? And that's the point. Now, people say, oh, but the state always wins, does it? Though? The dumbest argument you'll hear often about

this is well, the army has nuclear bombs. Yeah. The thing about time tyrants is they don't usually want to knooke the city they're living in and ruling over right. The thing about tyrants is that they want control and they don't want to be constantly looking over their shoulder. And that means, first of all, you turn an entire population against you if you carpet bombs your own cities, which some have done. Some have tried this in the past.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's always a fighting chance for the civilians and for the oppressed if they're armed. If they're not, then they have to take it right. Then there's nothing they can really reasonably do in response to all of this. So now this means that six states are going to have to change the way that they have been infringing upon the Second Amendment for years now.

This is a huge win for those of us who want I mean, I would have people asked me if I could just apply and get a carry permit in New York. Of course I would have. I would have been a law I would have owned a handgun in New York for roughly the last twenty years. I couldn't show proper cause they wouldn't give me one. They wouldn't give me one, and it wasn't worth going through. What

so I could have a premise permit. Well, gee, that's gonna keep That's gonna keep me really safe, locked away in my closet with a trigger guard, a lockbox, a separate lockbox for the ammunition. That those are the regulations, by the way, so that when the burglar breaks in through your window and comes at you with a sharpened hammer, you can at least throw the lockbox with your ammo

at the guy. Good luck with that. But you see in this decision and the liberal response to it, how so much of this is rooted in their own neuroses, their love of the state and its power, and their delusion that the state will keep everyone safe if only the good people in the state are in charge, and that there are no individual rights that are too sacro sank for the state to trample over. They have. This is a mentality, This is deeply rooted in the psychology

of a left. They ban guns, and that means there will be no guns. Well, that's clearly not true. They will ban carrying of guns and nobody will carry them. That's clearly not true. All they do is a press and disarmed a lawbody. Well, now, at least a major blow has been struck against this, and we have to keep it. We have to keep the pressure on. We have to keep this going. And now hopefully people who believe in their constitutional rights in large numbers will get

carried permits and you know what will happen. This will be the fascinating thing too. It'll take a few years, maybe five years, maybe ten. Crime will go down in many of these areas, and the Libs will say, oh right, it doesn't make any sense, or it's something else, or it's it's our policies on you know, late night basketball, or it's after school programs, or it's you know whatever

that's stopping the gun violence. Well, no, criminals have a very different calculation when citizens can be armed and when they don't know changes you're feeling about how how many you know? Because remember, criminals don't commit crimes once. You have to always remember this. People who are carjackers, who are burglars, who are engaging home invasions, armed robberies, they're not looking to do this once. Once they have done it,

they realize, well, I've already crossed that threshold. I'm facing perhaps even decades in prison. Now this is what I do. But it's only a matter of time before they come across somebody who is armed, who has tactical training, and who has the will to defend himself or herself in a society where the law abiding can be armed. This is a great decision. Six three. By the way, Roberts joined with the majority here. So he's a coward, but he's not an imbecile. I will give him that. And

the three lives their descent is just whimpering nonsense. It's reads like it was written by some shrill you know, Moms against Guns group. It's just we're going to take away all the guns. No, you're not, actually not on our watch, not in this country, not while the constitution still exists. Thanks for hanging with me today. Team, make sure you join me on the Big Show. I'm all three hours today. Solo plays out on vacation, so the

Clan Buck Show I'm on for three hours. Make sure you listen in Shields High