Biden Pushes Gun Control Laws for Everyone but Hunter

any kind of shooting. This is obviously very sad that this shooting happened. I don't know though, that it's that much different from shootings that happen every month, every weekend in cities like Chicago and others where people die. I guess the idea because it happened, you know, obviously, there's a certain greater sort of shock value to it that it happened at a Christian school and involved a child, although children are killed in street related shootings in urban

centers throughout this country all the time. Nonetheless, it prompts a statement from the White House. Here's the press release. Here's the release from the White House.

Every child deserves to feel safe in their classroom, room to words not well edited. Students across our country should be learning how to read and write, not having to learn how to duck and cover. Jill and I are praying for all the victims today, including the teacher and teenage student who were killed and those who sustained injuries. We are grateful for the first responders who quickly arrived on the scene, and the FBI is supporting local LA enforcement

efforts in my direction. My team has reached out to local officials to offer further support as needed. My administration has taken aggressive action to combat the gun violence epidemic. We passed the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly thirty years. I have taken more executive action to reduce gun violence than any other president in history, and I created the first ever White House Office of Gun Violence Protection.

the President saying we need universal background checks. There are federal background checks, and the entire line of argument from Democrats over the last over this past month, sort of trying to line up to defend the Hunter Biden pardon, has been as follows. So let me let me just go back before I explain.

the tax stuff. He was also charged with a gun crime. Basically, Hunter Biden gets a form. The form asks if he has a history of drug abuse, and Hunter Biden lied on the form. Hunter actually has a rich, storied, abundant and varied history of drug abuse and continued to be using drugs and behaving erradically, I believe after he got after filling out that form, so he'd been using it before, he continued to use after. So he lied on a

federal background check, which is a crime. That's the whole point of the background check is to try to cells out if you are the kind of person who is qualified to purchase and own a gun. Now, often what happens in the background check process when people lie on the form is that in the course of doing the background check, the FEDS realize that this person is not

actually qualified to have a gun. These are called lie and try cases, where the person lies on the form but the FEDS who are looking through the form and doing the background check realize way to sy no, this guy's lying. He says on the form that he doesn't have a felony conviction, but actually our review of local and of state and federal records indicates that he has a felony conviction in Oklahoma in two thousand and six. And so sorry, you lied on the form, but we're

not gonna approve your background check. That's called a lie and try. So someone lies on the form, but the FEDS catch the lie, and so the person does not get the gun. He tried but he failed. And then the question gets passed on to prosecutors. To federal prosecutors, all right, well, this person lied on their background check to try to get a gun. They didn't ultimately get a gun. So do we expend federal resources to prosecute this person for lying but ultimately not getting the gun.

You could see how maybe that would be a question for for prosecutors, you know, any US Attorney's office.

they might determine. Okay, well if we you know, we're busy prosecuting major drug crimes and this and that, and you know, we only have so many attorneys in our office and so many hours in the day. You know, we don't want to spend a bunch of time and energy and resources prosecuting people who just lied on a federal background check. So lie and try cases often don't get prosecuted again, where someone lies on the form, but the lie is found out and the person is not

given the gun. And again, it's just this position where the prosecutors are like, well, we have this person who lied on the form, but they didn't get a gun. Nothing bad happened. Ultimately, so do we spend the time and energy and resources prosecuting this person? Hunter Biden was not that kind of case. Though Hunter Biden lied on the form, and because he lied, he was able successfully to get a gun. It wasn't a lie and try And this is the this is the thing where commentators

have been really dishonest. Both commentators and Joe Biden have tried to make the argument that, you know, people are rarely prosecuted for lying on federal background checks for guns, so's it seems like targeted political persecution that my son Hunter was singled out for this kind of a prosecution.

Hunter was behaving so erratically with this gun that his girlfriend at the time, Halle Biden, Bo's widow. You know, we don't need to talk about how extremely weird that is. Anyway, Halle Biden is so concerned about his erratic behavior that in a moment seemingly of desperation, she takes the gun, brings it out of the house, and dumps it in a garbage can that's near a school. That's a bad outcome,

loses the gun. That is the precise kind of bad outcome, bad, dangerous, risky outcome that you fully expect is within the realm of possibility if a druggie gets a gun, if a guy lies on a background check as a drug ee and gets a gun. So Hunter wasn't a lie and try case where he just lied on the form. The Feds figured it out and he never got the gun. No, he was a lie and succeed and misused the gun.

Case he lied on the federal background check, he got the gun, he was misusing it, and a bad outcome resulted from it.

not enforcing. Is that what he wants? More background checks that we don't prosecute people for under what circumstances does Joe I think we should prosecute people who lie on background checks? So he thinks that Hunters shouldn't have been prosecuted, who should? What has to happen with the gun before you actually prosecute people for lying on a federal background check? Does the person have to lie on the form and get the gun and murder somebody first? Is that what

has to happen before you're okay with prosecuting them. I mean, the whole idea of the background check is for it to serve as a prophylactic against bad people getting guns, the kinds of people who he thinks shouldn't have a gun getting a gun.

than Joe Biden. You know, he's not doing anything.

he's tired of international travel. So maybe I don't know, maybe Joe never even looked at this statement, which seems like it was written by some annoying millennial staff, or even down to the style in which it's written, in the fact that it's.

anything at this point. But the White House issued this statement after this school shooting that happened in Madison, Wisconsin, in which the same repeated Democrat talking points about gun control get you know, reiterated and reiterated and reiterated. And the thing that always frustrates me is how often the purported solutions have actually no connection whatsoever to the crime that happened. So let's go through the purported.

universal background checks now. Again, as I said in the first segment, recommending universal background checks is laughable given that Joe just pardoned his son for lying on a background check. Nonetheless, a background check wouldn't have helped here. It appears this fifteen year old got her dad's gun. I'm not sure how the dad's background check would Maybe he already passed a background check, probably did. How that would have stopped this? I'm not sure a national red flag law. Again, this

fifteen year old didn't even own the gun. She was able to get it from her dad or to steal it from her dad. No red flag law would have been able to flag this. You know, she was a fifteen year old girl who was kind of depressed. There was some evidence that she was depressed, no indication again that I'm not sure a national red flag law would not have helped. A ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. She used a handgun. It was her dad's

handgun wasn't There's no definitely. I mean, the term quote assault weapon is a kind of made up term that is not really a term of art within gunsmith ry or gun manufacture. It's a made up term that lawmakers use for certain kinds of features of different kinds of guns, some of which are purely cosmetic.

the Second Amendment is in their way. Clearly, this Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Second Amendment is in the way of them achieving those policy goals, and Democrat have always this is part one of many reasons why Democrats are driven so insane by the current six to

three Republican appointee majority on the Court. They're so furious over it, in part because they've always been able to use the Supreme Court as the shortcut to getting the kinds of policies they want, so they don't have to do the hard work of actually convincing people and passing legislation. Abortion. Just have the Court do it via Roe v. Wade, same sex marriage. Just have the Supreme Court do it

via oh Bergefell. They want, they have wanted a decision like that for guns for forever, and they didn't get it in the time when they had, you know, a pretty sizable majority on the Court. And now they look

at the makeup of the Court. They look at the fact that Donald Trump is now in office and the very distinct likelihood that he and a Republican controlled Senate are going to be able to replace Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, maybe even John Roberts, and as a result, there's going to be Republican appointee majority control of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

them up the wall. When we return distressing court developments for the establishment of an abortion clinic in Vicealia, what it excuse me into, Larry, what it could mean for abortion as a civil right in California. That's next on the John Groarty Show. So yesterday I attended the hearing at the Vice Salia at the Superior Court, the California State Superior Court in Vice Salia. This was a hearing in front of the judge, Brett Hillman's California State Judge.

And this has to do with a court case that I'm going to be following on this show, and I might be writing about all the folks at GV wire, might be sending over a little op ed to them today maybe later on this evening. And it has to do with an attempt to open an abortion clinic in Visalia, and it's raising some interesting legal issues for how California

law should approach doing abortion. The right to apparently a right that we're just sort of making up to do abortions as opposed to a right to have an abortion. This distinction between doing abortions and having abortions is a troubling distinction. Well, it's a distinction that is troublingly elided

all the time. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases where I mean the whole characterization of the right to abortion from row to planned parent versus Casey, although that is now gone at the federal level, but the characterization of the right to abortion within the California Constitution, et cetera. It's always framed as a right that the woman has, that the pregnant woman has, she has a

right to abortion. That's always how it's framed. But when it comes time to vindicate that right in court, very often, for some reason, the abortion provider is deemed to have standing on behalf of those women, which Clarence Thomas always pointed out, No, that doesn't not necessarily or naturally follow There are certain kinds of principles of third party standing where someone other than the directly impacted party can sort

of stand in for and represent that injured party. But by his contention, he's often said, I don't see why abortion providers, abortion doctors who are doing abortions should be able to stand in for women who want to have abortions. And what this has resulted in in federal abortion legislation.

In the pre Dobbs era, some state would pass some kind of restriction on abortion, and who would sue It would usually be Planned Parenthood or some abortion doctor, as if the abortion doctor, as if the abortion doctor naturally has the exact same interests as the women having the abortions, even for stuff like Okay, Texas passed a law with health and safety standards for abortion clinics, and the clinics sue,

saying that it violates the right to abortion. Well, do the clinics have the same interests of the women there? I mean, couldn't the health and safety regulations be interpreted as benefiting women? Could the abortion clinics posture of not wanting these health and safety standards be deemed as being

antagonistic to their abortion seeking female patients. Anyway, this has been a problem in the history of American abortion jurisprudence where we just sort of slip in the slide between abortion as a right that women possess versus do women have a right to get abortions? Or do doctors have a right to perform them? I think that's those are two very different things. Is there some civil right that women have to have abortions? All right, if you want

to argue that, okay. I think that's different though, from the right of a doctor to perform them. And this is kind of the heart of this dispute that's happening in the city of to Larry. So there's a office complex and I talked about this a bit yet last week. There's an office complex in the city of Tillarry, the Tilarry Medical Center, and it's basically an office suite with a bunch of different individual doctors' offices.

things that excludes. They say, we're not going to have chiropractors. Okay, we're not going to have this. We're not going to have that. You know, if you want to have a kind of professional setting, a professional medical office setting, maybe there are certain kinds of businesses you don't want to have so they don't allow. They don't allow chiropractors. I think they said they didn't want to have pediatrists office.

an abortion clinic. But at the same time they seem to be acknowledging that this covenant could apply to them, because, I mean, they may be referring out patients for surgical abortions, but they're definitely wanting to do pill abortions where they prescribe mif A pristone to a patient, which is, by the way, the most common form of abortion in America. It's basically prescribed this woman a pill up to the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

stop doing the activity that we think is bad. We want them to stop operating because we're going to suffer harms. You know, we have this CCNR. We sorry, we have this covenant in place saying we don't want abortion clinics. It changes the tenor of the office space. It changes you know, it reflects poorly on what we want to do as an office space. If you let them function, it results in harm to us. We want you, therefore, to stop having them function for the duration of the

lawsuit until we can ultimately decide this thing. So they file a motion for a preliminary injunction stop operating for the duration of the lawsuit. Now, the thing with preliminary injunctions is that very often if you prevail at the preliminary injunction phase, it usually means that you're going to ultimately prevail because one of the things the judge is determining is your likelihood of success on the merits for

the ultimate issues presented. On Monday, the Superior Court judge, Judge Hillman indicated he released a tentative statement that I believe is now the non tentative final ruling following the court hearing that they are not going to get this preliminary injunction. This abortion clinic is going to be allowed to continue to function at the Tillary Medical Center. And

the reason why is really troubling. So what the judge keeps citing as something that could be the case, he's not definitively saying it, but he's saying that an argument could be a very strong argument could be made that California civil rights law.

If the doctors had put something in their covenant that said, we're not going to allow any female doctors to work here, to set up their shingle and have their practice in this office complex, that too, would likely be illegal.

want to serve women. It's almost creating as if you know, we have protected categories for civil rights law race, sex, Apparently, doing abortions, we're thinking here is going to be as

protected a category under California law as being black. That discriminating against someone because they want to do abortions is the same as discriminating against someone because they're black, not you know, one of the principles for California's civil rights law is it protects things that are permanent, static categories that someone can't change.

do abortions. That decision is apparently protected that we slide from. Look, I don't like it, but very clearly established within California law, within the California Constitution, you know, since we amended it in twenty twenty two, is a right of patients to have abortions. Patients have a right to have abortions. It's clear in the California Constitution.

what the doctors in this lawsuit want to do. Are they going to appeal this decision to the appellate court. This is a really important case for the development of abortion law throughout the state of California. We'll talk about it more on Right to Life Radio on Saturday when we return. I dare to tread where angels dare not ask some questions about autism next on The John Gerardy Show.

The nomination of RFK Junior to be the Secretary of HHS, which I fiercely dislike on abortion grounds, has led to a refiring of the debate about whether vaccines cause autism. And I'll just make this one point. First of all, vaccines are very different from one another, so I justike

using such broad language, but also autism. People keep saying things I keep seeing online, things like we're not allowed to question why the incidence of autism has increased so dramatically because on a hundred years ago, nobody knew what

autism was. It's also because am autism, especially the idea of the autism spectrum is a very loose over inclusive category that includes, on the one end, obviously people who have a developmental problem who are you know, nonverbal, but on the other end includes a whole bunch of people who are just like, kind of socially awkward, who maybe

don't need that label. So, you know, before we start citing the number of people who have autism has spiked drastically, maybe let's just think about the nature of what we're talking about.