The o' chile effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot com and listeners like you and now and now and media looks like the seventh day of November twenty twenty three, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is the o'celly effect. So I don't know if it's the show you were looking for, but you found it anyway. Tearesday Tuesday, and it is
usually the first broadcast day of a week. Now because I have moved things to Tuesday through Friday, I'm doing something a little unusual tonight due to a cancelation. Once again. I've had cancelations on Tuesdays, like I don't know five out of the last six Tuesdays. Uh. But what I did is I figured, why not grab my Friday night co host who has to go through things with me and navigate through phone calls, the phone calls that we do get and whatnot, and give him a different shot at doing things.
Let's see what happens if he doesn't have to answer callers and doesn't have to sit back and put up with everybody else's opinion, and neither do I. So Tuesday, b Pete is with me, and he randomly pulled a subject from the news. I asked him, Hey, what do you got on your mind? He pulled a subject from the news. I said, good, let's go with that because that is worthy of discussion. We're going to
do that for about an hour here. So if you're catching the podcast and you're wondering what happened and you see b Pete's picture once again on the graphic, it's not the Friday Night Show. It is something else. Anyways, man, how are you doing tonight? I'm doing good. It is Tuesday, correct, it is I pulling guys, I'm just checking. Well. You know, we are getting ready to go to Dallas, which is a little more than a week away now, and I'm looking so so forward to
it. You have no idea. Not looking forward to what it's going to cost me to go, not looking forward to what I got to do in the meantime to try and get things done, but very much looking forward to the trip. And you and I are taking the road trip. You're you're coming down from North Carolina, grabbing me in Georgia, and then we're going across the Texas. Souh, fun and fun and a little more fun.
But yeah, definitely looking forward to that. Oh, by the way, I should have in hand a couple of those little JFK quiz books as well, which Walt Brown authored as well, but they're not, you know, quite as controversial as the Judithiary Baker book. I should have those by the time we leave, too, so we should have a few different books to distribute, some you know, nice thank you gifts for supporters stuff like that. And god knows what else is going to happen on this little adventure,
but we'll find out when we get there. Huh oh, definitely, definitely. Uh. The guys told me on when I had the I recorded with Rob and Doug. I think it was Saturday. I recorded with that. I'm a little confused because I got people insisting on recording with me on days that I don't normally broadcast now, so I've got had all kinds of weird days and times that I've done shows. I think it was Saturday I recorded with those guys, and they were saying that, you know, the whole
thing is kind of sold out. I'm like, okay, that would be a rare situation, Like the physical tickets are sold out, what the conference? Yeah, well, I better have something when I get there. No, well I haven't. I haven't bought mine yet. Well, look, I have a reservation or two. But I mean I'm just saying I'm just told that. Well that's good though. If they can sell it out, that's that's good, right. But there's still still virtual access available for people.
So it doesn't mean that you can't come down and meet us, like, you know, alongside the conference. You can meet us after the conference proceedings are over with all that stuff. I mean, we're gonna be in Dallas. I'm not planning on leaving the city in the overnight. So the virtual thing is that's something where they give you a link to a site or
is it through a service. Yeah, it's probably I think it was, like it's a specific like you go to their website and if you have a pass code you can see the stream and uh yeah, that's that's what happened in the past couple of years when they had it only virtual. So I'm assuming they're going to do that the same way, you know, so yeah, go ahead, Well it makes sense to yeah, do it that way, do it the same way. If it was successful, Yeah, just
continue it on. Makes it a lot easier if everybody's familiar with it, right and uh, and it worked. I mean I watched uh, I participated in the past couple of virtual ones. I watched a couple and it was for one of these organizations on redoing boats, and they had like a conference on teaching how to finish jail code, make repairs, do things like that, and watching it, it just kept cutting out. It was so it didn't cost me that much, so I really didn't complain. But you
could get the show on a DVD they would send you. Yeah. No, I wrote them and told them, I said, hey, I watched it. It was cutting out audio and all that good. Hey, no problem. Stuck me as CD in the mail. Well see now with this what they did on Lancer the past couple of years is not only could you watch it live, but you also had the option like next day or two. They would I think next day on Friday and then maybe it was Sunday, but they took a couple of days to get the rest of it up
there. You could download it, you know, afterwards, so you know if you if it did cut out, mine didn't cut out any I had one weird one where it kept repeating like the little commercial part for a minute, but it was something that I was doing wrong, yeah, with you
know, trying to watch it live. But look, anything that's live streamed, I've even watched, you know, even say, like almost ten years ago, I was watching boxing via live stream because I didn't have any cable or any box or anything, you know, so I couldn't, like I forget which fight it was. Like in twenty maybe the very beginning of twenty fourteen or twenty thirteen, somewhere there, I was watching a boxing match on a live stream and that thing was a mess. But I didn't pay for
it, so I didn't care. It's like it was a free thing and I just wanted to see who won, you know. But yeah, but some of those sports ones become messes sometimes. But it's gotten better over the past couple of years. It looks like to me and Lancer had a pretty good one. I didn't have a lot of problems, like I said, except that one thing I got stuck, like watching the same commercial or whatever. But you know, anyway, and you can always download it and keep
your videos later, which which I did. I kept my segments. You know that I was involved in past couple, you know. So, but I'm gonna be involved in like everybody segment this year, so at least giving an introduction, except for those that present virtually. Now that's another thing is a lot of people are sending videos. I don't think anybody's going to present virtually live, so they're not going to be like taking in a live stream
and sending it back out. So everybody should be pre recorded, Like James Corbett is pre recorded. I think John Newman is not going to be there physically, so he's because he's going to Pittsburgh physically the day's previous. Yeah, I did to get an updated link to see the roster. Yeah, if you go to that, you've got an old link. I think. Okay, well, if it's from this year, they should I'll check my emails. I think there's a link in there. Yeah, well if not,
I can get you one. But Vince Palmyra was gonna present Now he's not presenting. So if you don't see Vince Palmyra on the list, you have the updated list, you know, for this year. I'll check. That's how I've identified it, and I think it's a JFK Publications. I've given out the link a bunch of times with the show notes. You know,
any of the recent JFK shows, it's in the show notes. It's like JFK Lancer Publications dot com or something that you go to and uh and and they presented you know particular I have it there as you know, you can get your tickets here, but also you can sign up a virtual there and all that too. Also some people will be able to do both. You know, you're pay in person and also you go home, you got your downloads. Hey, well, how many were they? How many were
they planning on accommodating? Well, I wasn't aware of an audience. Nobody gave me an audience number, so I didn't know about it. And the first I heard of it was Doug saying that he was told that it was sold out. And I'm like, okay, well from who all the folks over there? Now I know who the folks over there are and I'm in contact with them, but nobody told me it was sold out. Well, you know, so I don't know. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Guests, we'll find out. Let's see. You said if it had
Vince Paula Maron on it, it was updated. No if it has Vince palmyern not on it now, then it then it has been updated. He was like, old, I've got an old one because he's listed on there
with the Landis claims. Okay, okay, yeah, because he decided that he's not going to present on that from what I was told, so but anyway, we'll get the updated list, and they're gonna have to give me an updated list pretty soon because I got to introduce everybody, so you know, we're gonna have plenty of time to do stuff though in between, because I'm not gonna sit through the pre recorded ones, you know, and they don't need me to introduce those, so I'm just gonna walk away during those
and go sit down at my table and hopefully be there to you know, if people want me to sign anything. Great. I don't know if anybody wants my autograph, but you might want to have the merch, so you'll come and get that. I was gonna say about the only one that I would want to hear would be the crap on prayer man from bark what's his name, Oh yeah, Bark Camp. And he's going to be there in person, and you asked me to bring the book too. I thought he
was doing it. I thought he was doing it virtual. No, I think if you look at that list, it still says he's in person. I'm pretty sure. No, I'm almost sure it was virtual. Man. All right, well, I'm gonna have to go look at it then, because I don't Yeah, you know what, I'll look at one of my Uh, I'll go ahead over to because I'm in the chatroom at Ocelli dot com. But I'm not looking I doubt that. Let's see. Yeah,
nobody, nobody really is saying anything new in the chat room. So I'll go over to my own website and uh use that tab to go ahead and take a look at the JFK stuff. I know if I go to this, uh Doug Campbell and Rob Clark show, I'm sure that I put down the correct link to go see where it was. Man, I listen to that this morning. Yeah, well, you know, look, I was trying to give those guys plenty of space, and I I find it interesting.
But Rob and uh, what does that gore is he? No, he's not going to be there, but he's doing a presentation with with another guy. So and that's about the time I was hoping he'd be there. Just give me a chance to meet him. Yeah, me too. I I would have liked to have run into him. Well, okay, so mine, Maybe refresh your page because I don't see Paul Mayra now on my page. Well, this is an email, so it's whatever you copied into the email. Oh yeah, yea, yeah, that's an old list then.
But anyway, let's see, where is bar Camp now offline? What the hell? Oh boy, well, you never can tell according to this, let's see. Oh crap, bar Camp does say virtual on here. Oh that's too bad. Yeah, that's too bad. I mean, oh, well, I would love to ask him. Well, I have a feeling I'm gonna have a chance to interview him after I get to read the book and stuff. So I just recently got a copy. Somebody sent it to me, uh as as a president because they really want me to read
it. And it's not Bart's. Yeah, like Bart didn't know. Bart didn't send it to me. It's his book. Somebody else wants me to read it because they are converted to the idea that this is legitimate. But it is Bart's book that someone else provided. Yes, absolutely, okay, because I heard he was putting one together and was going to get it out. No, no, no, it's out. It's a big it's got the big, huge blurry blob on the front. Like the whole front cover
is absolutely dominated by the blurry blob. Oh uh. And it does say Bark Camp on it. Matter of fact, I think I got it within an arms reach. Let me see, Yeah, this is a forwarded message you sent me, so it was I guess, just an email list. Quite a minute. Yeah, that's a lid show. Now it's Yeah, if you've got a tab or something, I'll go to the archos or go to the website and see what's Yeah, that's that's the old list. If
you go to JFK Lancer Publications dot com. Here, I'll get it and i'll put it in our I'll put it in our little skype chat here. I want to get to the subject at hand before we run out of time too much, because usually this is the way our you know, lingering thing goes on Friday, he said, JFK Lancer Publications. Yeah, yeah, but here, I'll put it in the little bubble here so you can click on it from your Skype if you want. I'll have to do it later.
Put it in there. Okay, well I'll put it in the same same spot as Uh. That's okay, I'm there, I'm there. I already got to the website. All right, there you go. It's some good stuff. I mean, yeah, Carmin is doing his virtual. Yeah, Carmine is doing his virtual that's true. Uh. The people I'm looking forward to being in person with actually is uh, you know, Mike Swatson will be there, which is great. Uh William William Law told me he
was going to be there and it says virtual. Still now, I don't know what's going on there because he says one thing, the list says another. Maybe maybe they need to update that or maybe something changed. I don't know. Uh. Rex Bradford is going to be in person. Uh, Stuart Rexler will be in person. Okay, how much of this for you? Are you going to have to be there for on Sunday? Uh? Well, I'm gonna have to go to the banquet. You know, I'm
definitely going to go to the banquet. So I don't know on Sunday. Yeah, what time is it? Uh, well that occurs that that's gonna have speakers and stuff too. Is that after eight o'clock? I have the schedule somewhere. I don't think it's after eight o'clock, no, because I don't see anything about I mean, I'm seeing times and speakers, but know nothing about banquet. Let me look, wait a minute, Yeah, not a banquet, right, No, the banquet is Saturday night. Is that
what it is? Yeah, seven thirty pm at Saturday night. Oh yeah, there you go. Banquet prep on six o'clock, seven thirty. Yeah, yea, yeah, sorry, special speakers, raffle, awards, ceremony, all that happens at seven thirty on Saturday, right, right. If we get out of there and drive, we're gonna have you home by about
nine o'clock the next morning. Well, we're not going to leave Saturday night because no, I'm at Sunday. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, Well they got stuff going to They got a speaker schedule at eight pm, Greg Parker. Yeah, but look see the last in person speaker listed there, as far as I know, is at five pm. Yeah. The other ones are virtual, So we could leave after the last in person speaker, you know, wouldn't bother me If you want to leave a little early so
we get back you know, early Monday, that'd be great. Well, yeah, I mean, as soon as it's over, we'll go ahead and drive on through the night. You're only looking at twelve and a half, thirteen hours, Yeah, yeah, no problem, I'll I'll be more than happy to leave it, say five o'clock, starting to get dark earlier too.
Well. Anyway, look before we run ourselves right out of time talking about this, although I'd be happy to we had this other idea, because there is a controversy, right, and yeah, I'm doing the on the other side of the pond thing there. The controversy impure in America, but the controversy in England or UK, you know whatever, Hey, whatever you want to call it. The thing is, yeah, the Supreme Court,
right, yet another Supreme Court ruling. Now, what's weird is all I've been hearing from the MSM generally over the past couple of years, is that we have a very partisan right wing Supreme Court. And I agree that that's what it looks like considering the majority of the people on the court, right, I mean, oh yes, absolutely, let's go buy their votes. It's like, listen, the woman that's very dedicated to that certain idealism regarding
Catholicism. Kavanaugh was certainly a conservative judge. All of his rulings previously going on the Supreme Court suggest yes, indeed, looks to me like the conservative leaning judges absolutely outnumber the liberal leaning judges. But that's just it, though, if you look at what they've ruled on since they joined, Kavanaugh is going to become a swing vote. You can't, I if you can't guarantee that he's voting the conservative way. He's shown that on a couple of cases
in the past couple of years since he got on. Well, great, that's Roberts. And I'll go ahead and tell you now, don't count on Roberts to be a conservative vote. He has shown blatantly that he will swing to the other side. I mean, look at Obamacare. He's the one to put it enforced by re arguing the government's position. Okay, so I'm going to tell you you got to watch what you know these people that,
oh, yeah, we've got conservative court. Yeah they were conservative when they were elected and put on the court, But that don't mean that's how they see things. Yeah, well, the majority of stuff going on there, in my opinion, looks that way also. But this is my opinion. You have yours. I have mine. So I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about it. Don't care. It's irrelevant because they do
what they know. They're not irrelevant. It's not totally irrelevant. Well, it should be because the Supreme Court is there to determine the constitutionality of stuff, okay, which has zero to do with modern political positions. Zero. That's what it should be. Okay. So it doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative or anything else. Tell me if this holds up when compared to the Constitution, that's what the hell they're supposed to do. Well, But
ideology has figured I mean, look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ideology has figured into the court a lot of times. Yeah. Okay, but but here we go again with what should be and what is Okay, I got you. But what I'm saying is it should be absolutely irrelevant. I don't give a crap how they vote. They should be looking at the Constitution. The Constitution is not democratic or republican. It just isn't really really, in my
mind, it is not a democrat. You think some of these liberals would would take that into consideration, according to them, as some living, malleable document that you can bend and contort to fit any needs that you have. And this case, well, this case is a good example of how trying to trying to shape the argument doesn't help them in this case. Yeah, but based on the prior rulings that they've had in the past two years.
But here's the thing. I'm not here to inform liberals definitely, because they are confusing as hell. They don't make any sense. And I know most of the people that call in on the Friday Show, and you seem to agree that liberals will lock together and you know, march in the same direction. That is not the way I see liberals. I see circular firing squads constantly. These people will shoot each other in the foot all day long and
never stand together. The GOP side, it does very well at standing together quite a bit, except when it comes to getting a House of Representatives. You know, a speaker in there. You have most likely flipped view of the majority of opinion and polling in this country. I know, because my observations don't go with the polls. I don't. You know, people are stupid, you know, well, people are full on stupid. As far
as I'm concerned. You know, how I can prove that because voting for either Trump or Biden in the highest voter turnout, allegedly going through the trouble of voting for either one of those is absolutely stupid in my opinion, either one of them. Okay, but that's the only choices they had. Yeah. Yeah, And you know what happens if nobody shows up to poll, they start answering other questions. One, that's just it. Nobody shows up. One person is going to show up, and that's the one you're going
to have to live with his choice. That's the fear. That's what gets people out there. Yeah, but they have no choice. I mean, yeah, they're both stupid choices. But we haven't had a decent political candidate probably since Clinton. Yeah, but you're missing part of my point, which is that it's not about do you vote, don't you vote? I don't care even Here's the thing. The people that were enthusiastic on either side of
that equation are are really the stupid people. Not necessarily everybody who voted, but the fact that you had a huge high voter turnout and people were super enthusiastic literally thinking that they were saving the country one way or the other by siding with one of these two old men, okay, is proof positive that the majority of people in America are stupid, bottom line. Okay, because if you did it holding your nose, then maybe you're not so stupid and
you just did it because you thought it was your responsibility. You didn't want to leave it up to the minority that would show I get all that. But if you did it because I know President Clinton, not Clinton, I know President Biden will save the country, you're a moron. Okay. I know that President Trump is great for America. You're also a moron. Okay. If you were enthusiastic about either one of those guys last time or this time coming up, I consider you a moron. And I'm being kind by
calling you a moron. I'm serious. I'm not calling you a moron. I'mius. Though. If you enthusiastically believe that either one of these guys is gonna do something great for this country last time or this time, you are stupid. You're dangerously stupid, actually, And that was a huge segment of the population either side. So I have a flip view of this because I observe that, yes, indeed, Democrats will take each other down they will
take each other down constantly. They don't stand there regardless. I mean, look, look at the guy who's the drag queen and getting charges against him and all that. That George Santos or whatever his name is, right, he's lying to everybody. He's robbing veterans. He's taken to one guy and is supposed to raise money for his dog, and the guy's on TV going he let my dog die. This guy, the Republicans won't even remove him from committees. He's clearly a scumbag, and they're the moral party. No,
they won't take them round because he's got a master. But their position is he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Uh huh. So their position about making sure the guys like al Franklin had to go, their position about making sure that other people gotta go to wait a minute, Al Frankin was a victim of the Woman's uprising that had nothing to do with Republicans. Fine, you're gonna tell me that they are not all for taking down Democratic people
that haven't been convicted yet. You mean to tell me that for real? Who's the Republicans taken down? Okay, that's it. The Republicans don't take each other down anyway. Look, they don't vote against the guys. Yeah, Republicans do take each other down. They got rid of Bonnard, they got rid of oh who was the guy that got in trouble for uh talking about Strong Thurman? Trent Lott. No, yeah, they get rid of them all the time. They got rid of Gainer. It show we're a
book deal. Now this is this is no no, no, no, no, no. That's different than just seriously turning against people who could clearly make the party look bad. Trump is sitting there with all these with all these indictments against him, has basically convictions against his businesses and other things, showing you know, he's the only one running the business. And by the way, his business got convicted malfeasan's all over the place. Nope, this
is just a political thing. That's it. That's what they default to. Okay, this recent stuff is a political thing. All the stuff before. I said a long time ago, when the Republicans went head over heels over Trump, they were showing their own hypocrisy over the whole situation, right, Because but here's the thing. Anytime there is a moral question over somebody's bad action, They're more than happy to call for the resignation of a Democrat,
but they don't call for resignation. They don't call for resignations over something that's bad behavior. If somebody is impeding their agenda, they will call for their resignation. Right. They got rid of McCarthy because he was impeding the agenda gates with no backup plan. Nobody put in his place, was like, get rid of them because he was impeding his agenda. It wasn't. Now, if McCarthy was accused of, you know, found with a dead intern
and everything else, nobody would have said boo. They would have been like, hey, wait till he's convicted. Right, That's the attitude there Democrats though. The second something looks wrong, they want to kick people out. Uh no, your name one Democrat kicked out by their party, by their party. Every Democrat that's resigned basically has been kicked out by basically forced out. They sit there and they isolated. It wasn't because the Democrats told him
it was time to go. Look at the race baters, you got in the squad Right now, with everything that's going on and how nobody has said anything to condemn them or try even when they had a censure against to leave, they let that one drop. It's the demos. Democrats do not eat
their own unless they can step up to the next level of power. Well, like I said, but you want to debate it, you don't watch what goes on in the chambers like I do, then, because all day long I listened to Democrats attacking their own and Republicans sitting there going hey, hey, nope, not attacking their own. That's all they do all day long, that's all they do. It's it's democrats attack their own. What hearings are you listening to? Okay? Anyway? Many? Uh, you
know? And what's What's the only weird thing I saw recently which I don't understand at all is people attacking Christopher Ray, who was appointed by Trump as some sort of like democratic operative, even though he's a lifelong Republican. That's the only weird thing I've seen recently where I'm like, why are they saying that he's the guy literally he's the guy holding back the whole thing on Hunter Biden for partisan reasons when he's a Republican and Trump is the guy who installed
him. I I don't get that. But other than that. I usually don't see these guys attacking. I really don't. They will go after they want to impeach everybody when they don't like the job they're doing. They want to impeach people left and right, you know, as long as they're on the other side. But they don't want their own impeached. And that's what That's just the behavior pattern I see. Anyways, again, I don't go with the polls. I know, and maybe I do have a warped view
of the world. Then fine, whatever, don't care. Back to this partisan issue with the court, right, I do agree that it looks like you've got conservative judges based on their careers, based on their public statements, based on their own writings. Looks to me like the majority of the people on the court would go on the conservative side of things if given a chance. So, but what's interesting here is this issue that's currently being discussed,
okay, which is effectively it's now the base case. Is weird because I don't know all the details of the base case. You were starting to tell me some stuff before we went to air, which is interesting. But it's supposed to be based on this Texas case, and there was a situation where they said that it was improper to have taken away somebody's gun rights when they
were on a temporary restraining order. Now, I personally had experience with this where I had a temporary restraining order issued against me a TRO in New Jersey, you know, allegedly for domestic violence. It was later on dropped. I was never convicted of anything anything like that. But fact is, my soon to be ex wife issued a temporary restraining order, which, by the
way, I had a counter temporary restraining order against there. Okay, but there was no weapons involved in my restraining order, she stated, because they
ask when they create these tros, does this person have any weapons? Because there is a federal Now I'm not sure if it's a law or if it's a statute, or if it's just like a rule, but there is a federal something in place that automatically says if someone is accused of domestic violence, even if a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency order put in place, like you don't actually have to have a full on hearing, you don't
have to offer evidence. Nobody's convicted of anything. It's supposed to be an emergency procedure. To protect someone who is alleging that they are a victim of domestic violence, right, the idea being, Hey, look, if I throw this person out of my house, they're going to come back and kill me. So I need something where if they even come near the house, I need them arrested pretty much. Or if they come to my job to
harass me, I need them arrested. So temporary restraining order. It makes sense when it comes to defending somebody who is a victim of domestic violence. I'll go with that. But here's the thing. When you are accused in that situation, one of the things that automatically happens, and you know, even though there's been a lot of debates about this, is that you're supposed to even if you are lawfully armed, you know, even in your state,
depending on what you're licensing is I don't care hunting rifles. Most times, automatically they request you surrender your weapons. Okay, So when you're issued your tro they come and they give you your copy and inform you don't come within one hundred feet fifty feet whatever it is of this person, their home, their job, Da da da da da, you know, and then they give you the details. If they have children, don't go near their
children. They might include other family members might be attached to it. Okay, So that you, until this can be taken care of in court, cannot go near this person or people connected to them or places connected to them. Okay, and my tracking pretty well so far. BP. Okay, So the thing is with that in my circumstance, I had cops, you know. Actually it was the county sheriffs came to deliver the TRORO to me,
because it's issued by a county court in New Jersey. Now, it may differ a little bit locally for you wherever you the listener are is right, individual is all right? Anyways, it may differ a little, but for me, the county issued it. So the county sheriff comes and says, look, you got to surrender your stuff. Don't go near your wife. Don't go near the home you were living into up until a couple hours ago. Don't go near the home you were living into, the home you
were living in until a couple of hours ago. Don't go near her job, don't go near her friends. You know whatever. Okay, But also, sir, you need to give us your guns. Now. The problem for me in two thousand and four when this happened, is that I didn't have any guns, okay, And I told them, well, I don't have any weapons, so no problem there. Now they ask questions, and
so they asked her does he have any weapons? And I imagine, if there is no idea that you have any sort of weapon and nobody says you have any weapons, maybe they don't ask. I don't know because she alleged I had weapons, and I said, well, that's silly, because first of all, everything I own is in that house where she lives. And secondly, because I was at my friend's house. You know, she had me removed from the property by the cops and I was just letting it cool
off. But you know, here we go. I'm removed from the property, so anything I own is over in her home that you're telling me. I can't go anywhere near number one. Number two. I don't actually own any firearms at this moment, so I can't surrender to you what I don't have. Would you like my pocket knives? To which they said no, But there you go. So anyway, this is very typical, though this
happens to a lot of people. When a temporary restraining order is issued against them because there's an accusation that you harassed them, or you were violent toward them, or you threatened them or whatever else, you can get one of these orders issued. Okay, And it does work both ways. But typically I would say, I think women probably get them more against men than anything. But you know, look same sex, hey, look equal opportunity.
I imagine there's domestic violence in same sex, transgender, you name it, so it doesn't really matter what the gender is. But the majority I would think is, you know, men being told stay away from women. But you know, I could be wrong. Maybe I should look at some statistics there. Anyways, whatever it is. Now, the thing here is that that was done in this case with this guy, And if you don't read into what the case was, it seems as though he was accused of some
sort of domestic violence. A temporary restraining order was issued and they wanted his guns. Now, he went to a a higher court, a circuit court somewhere, another federal court and got them to agree that this was wrong to violate his constitutional rights with this federal again, is it a laws of statute, this procedure that basically automatically assures that you get you know, you have to surrender your weapons if accused of domestic violence. Accused of domestic violence,
by the way, not necessarily convicted. Accused of domestic violence. We're under a temporary restraining order. This is almost an automatic. You lose your right to legally own firearms temporarily supposed to be. Now, is this not all what you understand? BPTE? Or am I out of line here? Well? In reference to this case, well, in reference to this case or any case in general. I've made general statements here and also talked about this case. Good. No, I mean the procees are on the restrained order
and everything is very similar in this state too. But just to you asked a question whether you didn't know if it was a law or a rule or it's actually a It's in the US Code, so it's a regulation. Okay, Yeah, it's eighteen USC. Nine twenty two GS, which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. There you go, and I bet there's more than one of those situation. But it's a regulation. So what would we call that a rule? A it's not a
law. Because it wasn't you know, I don't think it's been signed in the law exactly that thing. It's like, there's no no, it's it's based on whatever the law is. It's a rule written to interpret that law. So it's it's a US code, it's a it's it's a portion of the law. Like the Domestic Violence Act is a law. You know that that act was passed and signed, and this was a section of that. So when you pass a law, then you've got to write the regulations that
interpret the law and how it's applied. And that's what this is. Whatever section of that law. This covers that section and says that it is illegal to possess a firearm if you are subject to a restraining domestic violence worker. So that's where it stands. And now this is going to the the Scotus, and I have to point out there is a difference because you can get a restraining order against someone and it not be a domestic violence order. That's
the difference here. This was a domestic violence order. True, well, as I said before, it could be harassment and that doesn't have to be a domestic violence situation. If you were say harassing somebody and they wanted you
to stop. Like, okay, in the case of somebody either being stalked or somebody's threatening somebody at their job, this kind of thing, like I've seen this where people work at restaurants or whatever, and somebody keeps coming into the restaurant, you know, threatening the person who's working there and this and that. Now you call the cops, you get an incident, and then you get a temporary restraining order to go before a judge to try and get
a permanent one because this person is coming in and threatening violence. Now it's got nothing to do with a domestic situation. You don't live with them, you don't really even know them. But somebody tries to harass you could be you could get a restraining order against them, right yeah. If somebody's repeatedly calling you and sending you crazy notes and whatever, you can get a restraining order against them for what is it electronic harassment, So a harassment, a
threat or domestic violence situation. Now in this case, this was domestic violence a thing though, right yeah, it was okay, so but so again it does apply to the little story I told and I asked you about. You know, look, this is the way this goes, I get it. But again it's about the accusation. This doesn't even necessarily mean somebody has been convicted. Now that's another issue too, because frankly, there's a lot of people who think one way or the other whether if somebody has been convicted
of a felony or not. I know, a lot of felons end up, you know, getting pinched a second time when they just have possession of a firearm, because a lot of felons are disqualiy fired from owning firearms. Right, But that's in the case of where somebody's been convicted, not just
accused, but convicted of something. Yeah, this one's got a little different twist to it because he was convicted of possessing a gun right while subject to a domestic violence protective order issued after he violently assaulted his domestic partner in a parking lot and shot a gun when another end of when he realized that there were witnesses to what he did, he shot the gun in the air, so he was menacing other people with it. So it's not like he got
the domestic violence order because of this domestic violence incident. And then after that he was also charged with several other instances of discharging the weapon. He didn't shoot anybody, but he would either shoot in the air or pull the gun out and you know, commit assault by pointing at someone, but he didn't
shoot him. So this one's got a little bit of a twist because he's arguing when he argued to the Circuit court, he said, the fact that I was under the domestic violence order should not infringe on my Second Amendment rights. But the ACLU is going after this. I'm looking at their brief in here, and their argument is is that the law only applies to reasonable individuals,
law abiding individuals. So they're asking the Supreme Court to rule against the overturning of this on a narrow grounds that this guy was not he wasn't considered dangerous, but I mean, no Core sat there and said, this is a violent individual that needs to be you know, put away because he is a violent individual. They're claiming that this is only the right to keep that gun, regardless of the restraining order, is only to law abiding, responsible
citizens. So it's coming down to a definition now, and they're reaching to try to apply that to this decision. So the Supreme Court started asking some questions, you know, are you using this word, are you saying responsible meaning law abiding? Or they're really getting into the specifics on this because now they're starting to go out into the nether region on whether how do you determine if someone is law abiding? Well, they haven't broken the law yet,
and how are they? How do you determine responsible? These were two terms that were used in an earlier case that was argued by the Supreme Court, and they decided that you had the right. I think it was the rule where you had a right that certain weapons constituted arms and therefore you couldn't exclude
them. I forget all the particulars of it, but they said, well, you know, for a law abiding, responsible citizen, And the court is saying those were words that described two of the plaintiffs in the case. It wasn't a determination of qualification for anybody that would be in a case.
So they're really getting down to knit and pick on this one. I find it strange though, that the guy is under a domestic violence order, and in that case that got him put under the domestic violence order, he discharged a weapon to intimidate somebody. So does the fact that you're breaking a lay all with the gun, nullify your right to own it? Well, see that's look there you go right now. I would look at it and say,
look, you make me the judge for a minute. I would say, look, domestic violence is one issue, to take it away from him, But the other issue is he's discharging. He's accused of discharging a firearm in a way that is improper. Now, this is somebody who is dangerously utilizing the firearm, Okay, therefore endangering public safety. So in the name of public safety, I say, until we sort this out in court,
yeah, he loses his guns. I mean, and look, and I know that there are some people that are absolutists who say, look, even the idea of law abiding citizen. Hey, wait a minute, the constitution doesn't say law abiding citizen, does it? Well, And that's a key aspect of this case because when the temporary restrain in order was put in place, he had not been and convicted of threatening the person with the gun and discharging it in the air, nor had he been convicted of assault on his
girlfriend yet. Right, So this is where the argument comes in. Okay, can we It's almost like they're saying the law should be able to predict the future. Yeah, but nobody's arguing that part. What I see so far is that nobody's arguing about the predictive programming here, nobody's arguing about the pre crime aspect of it. Well, he wasn't convicted yet, because typically in many situations, once you're charged with something, or once it's been legally
entered into court, a lot of times seizures will happen. Okay, which you're meant to prevent any other problems because you know, I mean, but here we go. Right, Let's just say the guy is accused of you know, massive grand theft, but he didn't use a firearm in that action. Does that mean he should surrender firearms? I would say no, because he's only accused of a crime. It's got nothing to do with the firearms. But in this case, it's weird to me that the s fitzer could
court overturned this because the firearm is literally an issue in the incident. Well, and that's where the Solicitor General for the DOJAY is making this argument. She based her argument on the idea that Ramini or Rahemi, the guy involved, isn't a responsible citizen since he was not yet convicted of any crime when a judge imposed a domestic violence restraining order on him that prehimit him him from
owning a firearm. The funny thing is, though, that since that was put in place, he's been charged with at least six shooting incidents in Texas during the time that he was not supposed to have the gun. This guy was on a rampage. Well, see was fixed different charges. Well what's messed up is again you know, having observed the courts in New Jersey.
See, I'll tell you this much. If you were given any leeway regarding this, okay, and somebody said, well, we can't take away the guns, yes yet, because he hasn't been convicted, and then you got charged with two three more things, a judge would issue a separate order where he says, look for the for the in the interest of public safety, I want this guy's gun seized because at the very least, let's take some of his firearms away to reduce the possibility of more of these things coming across.
I mean, he would literally have his whole you know argument if he tried to enter e motion with the court. Hey, look, I shouldn't have my guns taken away they would dismiss that out of hand and say, I'm not gonna bother to even argue this. You keep getting charged, you're out of here if you. Okay, somebody goes in and they have a drug charge against them, right, and you know they got a possession charge, all right, so you haven't gone to court for it yet, but
you've been charged with it. And then you get caught with drugs again. Judges will turn around and toss out any of your little motions to hey, look, you know, I'm just an addict and I need help. I don't want to go to jail. This and that, blah blah blah. They'll throw all that crap out. Anything that is merciful to you will go to hell out because you got busted and you're still getting busted. And I'm
not saying I love the court system. I mean, believe me, I feel as though any time you walk into a court, it's just a question of how much you're going to lose, not if you're going to lose one way or another, because unless you have lots of lots of money, you can't buy a good result in the justice system. That's the way I feel about it. But here's the thing. I think it's reasonable if somebody is turning around doing what you're describing here and getting other gun charges while he's waiting
to even get this, you know, restraining order hurt. Yeah, I think it should be the court that says, look, this guy is apparently having a little problem controlling himself with a gun. Well take the guns. Yeah, I'm sorry. Here's the I found. I found a store that's on the Baring Arms website and they do a pretty good explanation of what the argument from the DOJ is. Okay, and if you'll bear with me a minute, I'll read through this. It might make things a little clear as
to where people think the argument's going. But you know, with this group of justices, they may be asking certain questions, but they can certainly go in a different direction. And you think they're going just based on the questions that they ask, well maybe so. And here's the weird thing though, as I think that it's almost irrelevant because when you consider what you brought up to begin with. And by the way, we're gonna wind up running over
an hour here. Just so you know, I want to talk to you after the show a little bit, and I do have another recording to do at ten o'clock, but the thing is just giving you that heads up and so we'll take as much time as you want. But here's the thing about this. To me, it seems crazy that this is even a consideration because there's a whole lot of other things going on here to where I don't know
why the Fifth Circuit even found it necessary. I mean, look, I get trying to adhere to the Constitution, absolutely, but at a certain point, right, you can commit certain actions, you can cause certain things to occur that make you surrender some of your constitutional rights. Okay, for instance, getting convicted of a felony, your constitutional rights are gone. Even if you serve your time and you're done and you come out, you might not in most places be able to vote, etc. Right, you can't be
bonded anymore. There's a whole lot of things that you've become restricted from once you're a convicted felon because you surrender some of your constitutional abilities. Here's a good for instance, you get out on parole. You've been granted your freedom, but you can't leave the state you live in because your travels restricted.
Now that's completely unconstitutional, except that you are convicted of a crime. So if somebody is temporarily given an injunction against being able to enjoy their constitutional rights, I think that that's kind of necessary. It's almost like being arrested in slow motion. And in the rest of the real world, I would think that, you know, in a fair and reasonable justice system, that would make sense. But there are some people that are screaming, Nope, absolutely
not. This guy's gun should have have been taken away from him. Nope. You know what, it doesn't apply to law abiding citizens. The Constitution doesn't say it, and I get it, but I want to hear what the arguments are here. And again, well we'll leave it. We'll leave it to the judgment of the listener here. But to me, this is one of those crazy things and it's just funny that it boils down to let's see what the partisans will say here. I don't think this is a partisan
issue. I think this is a matter of look, does the system work and can we make it work better? And what is the best interest of public safety since allegedly that's what these people should be engaged in, right, the best circumstance for public safety altogether, and the individual's rights should both be equally respected, and unfortunately, in many situations you can't possibly respect both because
some people will take actions that do not allow you to do so. Okay, I think some people make their own bad circumstances, but maybe I'm wrong about all that. I kind of stand on the side of which is weird. Law enforcement being able to take away your guns if you are repeatedly getting charged with stuff that shows you're not a responsible gun owner. Not saying that
that's what the constitution says. I'm saying that, in the interest of public safety, you might surrender a constitutional right because you don't know how to behave I think that is possible. I don't think it should be done based on pre crime. I don't think the situation should be permanent. I think you should get to go to court and make your case and see if you know. Look, if the guy is not convicted of the violent act, if nobody finds that he did anything wrong with a gun, give him his guns
back. But if he did, he may have surrendered his right. And I believe we can do it. And the argument is coming down to how the government can determine what is They can't set broad arbitrary of capricious terms for determining whether someone is non law abiding or irresponsible. And that's what I mean, that's the whole argument based on this uh breakdown here were last thing, real fast, irresponsible is way too open a term. How do you determine
responsible and irresponsible? That's kind of subject to interpretation. If you want to say law abiding, then you would say, well, does that mean somebody who's convicted? And again if they're temporarily charged sometimes in all restriction. Que Roberts asked the Solicitor General if she was using the word responsible as a synonym
for dangerous, and she agreed. She said, the question then becomes how to define danger riskness as well as who actually determines that, And according to the Solicitor General, they said, the legislator Brandis has the primary authority to do so and invested with almost unchecked power to define it as broadly or narrowly
as they see fit. And that's what the argument is coming down to, because if that's the case, then the legislature could make some hard to define description of people who should be denied their rights, and it would be its end run around the Second Amendment. Because we can label you this, even though that may not be the case. But if we label you that, then we can do whatever we want and take away not only your Second Amendment rights, but we can expand it and take away other rights as well.
And that's what the argument is coming down to on this one is if the legislature can, if the legislature has the power to place a poorly defined, wide sweeping law in place, well, okay, but here's the biggest problem with it is that, Okay, we let to let the legislature determine it. And somebody might say that's an adequate solution. Here's the bigger problem in my mind is that the legislature turns around and uses terms like in good standing.
Okay, if you are blah blah blah in goods I've seen that that phrase, right, that partial phrase used. What in the hell is in good standing? Is that not subject to interpretation? Okay? Do you need to have a record of your good standing to prove good standing? Or is lack of poor standing good enough to say that you're in good standing? You know what I'm saying? Like legally, when when they do this whole thing with adoption, this is how people get qualified for and disqualified for adoption by
different state agencies. Is they have this that phrases like that built into it, right, where it's like, well they need to be this and this and this in good standing in order for you to be able to get this or that, you need to be in good standing. Well what the hell
does that mean? You know? Does that mean no problems? Then why not just say you have to have no negative charges against you, you have to have no negative criminal record, Like that's more specific than this in good standing crap, And legislatures love to put language into things like that, which allows it to be open for interpretation, where where in sometimes I've seen exactly the same circumstance, you know, by two different individuals, and for whatever
reason, you'll have completely different results given right, So if they say that somebody is in good standing when it comes to you know, somebody being qualified to not have their constitutional right taken from them, well, what in the hell is in good standing? You see? Anyway, Look, I'll leave it alone and let you explain from here on out. But I just wanted to get to that because it's like, to me, I get the argument of well is this and then run around the Second Amendment. Well, it
kind of is. But doesn't that happen When you are in a case where you get convicted of something, you'll have things like I mean, there's plenty of people that are convicted felons. They're not allowed to own guns, and they might have been convicted of things that do not even involve guns. There are people that have had dwy's right and they end up causing an accident.
They wind up with it with a felony charge because of the DWI, which leads to some damage that ends up being a felony blah blah, And they'll take away their ability to own a gun even though it's got nothing to do with them driving a car drunk, right, And most times they don't win those arguments. I mean they've tried to bring them up. Hey, look, just because I'm a drunk and I'll get in a car, doesn't mean
I should lose my right to own a gun, Okay. And you can stand on that any which way you want, not you beat people to anybody listening. You can stand on it any which way you want. But this is an interesting point because you know, well, yeah, at which point do you lose your constitutional right? Which you know, some things almost anybody would agree you can be disqualified by your actions one way or another from having
all your constitutional rights intact. That can happen. So where does it happen. I think that's the ultimate question. But go ahead and go through those arguments if you like, and you know, we'll close this out a little bit after the hour, you know, maybe quarter after something like that, wherever it's appropriate, unless you want to take a break before we go into the reading of this. No, I mean, it's really not that much to read. I mean, I pretty much gave you the most of it.
It's just that it gets me that the ACLU, someone who's there just supposed to protect an individual's right, you know, your civil liberty, which is what you're allowed to do based on the Constitution. They're arguing pretty much that the legislature should be able to enact anything any arbitrary or capricious rule because domestic violence orders, restraining orders, or domestic violence orders resulting in loss of
gun ownership temporarily because it is a temporary thing. But they say that it's such a tool in helping with combat domestic violence and lessen the severity of the problem. And I can understand that, but they're basically telling the court that, yes, you should be able to They want to stick to that law abiding, reasonable citizen, and that's you know, that's a definition that can be you know, you can define that a thousand ways. It's nothing concrete.
Now, we have rules on the books for felons possessing firearms and things of that nature, and the courts in the past have said that, yes, there are certain things a felon denied. His right to have a possession of a firearm is legitimate because they have shown the ability to commit a serious
crime, and therefore they can have that right taken away from them. But in this case, they're arguing that no conviction was there, which and this case is ridiculous because the domestic violence order was issued because this is what the guy did. It was issued after he was convicted of this stuff. That's
what kills me. So I'm trying to understand how this one even got to the court, the Fifth Circuit flipping it saying, oh, wait, you know, this guy has a Second Amendment right, you can't infringe on it. I'm sitting here thinking, well, in this case, maybe you can, because it was issued after the initial violence. Well, see, that's
the thing. That's why I don't understand why I got flipped. Because look, if it's a case of a guy smacked his girlfriend in the face, all right, and that's what the temporary restraining order was being issued over, and then they're taking away his guns, there are people that would argue because he's violent, he shouldn't have his guns period, right, he was willing to use violence, take away his guns. Now, I don't necessarily agree
with that. I don't think that's right. But in a case where you got a guy utilizing a firearm in the inciting incident, here, I'm saying to myself, it almost seems logical, preventative, prophylactic in fact, to take away this guy's weapons. I get it. Not saying it absolutely abides by the constitution though, See, but because nowhere in the Constitution doesn't say, well, you know, we can take this away if you know you're not in good standing right or something. It doesn't say that. It doesn't
say if you're accused of a crime, you surrender things. None of that is there in the Constitution. But it does seem to have a logic to it that I can understand. So I get where. And it's so weird looking at the ACLU taking a stance on this at all, because it seems to me like they're against the idea of being absolutists about the Constitution, and I thought that used to be their primary goal when it came to freedom of
speech. This is you know, they would always point out, this is why we're a liberal organization defending Nazis right, because as despicable and horrible as we think they are, they have a right to their free speech. But if you're a despicable, horrible person who you know, committed domestic violence,
you're not necessarily entitled to all your constitutional rights. Well. True, but in this case to what they're worried about is the anti gun lobby having an opening to argue that even a traffic ticket is enough to prove that you're too
dangerous to own a gun. Yeah, and which is stupid and that well, but that's what they're afraid of, that, you know, giving the legislation through the ability to to put something out there that says ambiguous is that you know, oh, well he had a traffic ticket for what, Well he did thirty five and a twenty Nope, can't have a gun. That's what they're worried about happening. And if it happens in this case, then
it can happen to a lot of other rights. Hey, the guy got a traffic ticket, he shouldn't be allowed to join this organization, or he shouldn't be able to allowed to associate with these people, or you know, your freedom to roam the earth. There's pretty much something that is kind of hard to take away from you unless they can put you in prison. And they're worried about these these rules being written so vaguely that oh, traffic ticket,
Nope, can't own a gun. Well, it's crazy. So given in the past that certain organizations have lobbied to try to have things written as ambiguously as possible so that they can use it as a as a club to go after people. That's like, well, right, it's like it's like arresting people for possession of unregistered guns fills the jails up with people who really shouldn't be there. You know, if the Second Amendment says that you have a right to own a gun, why do you have to register it?
Registering it simply tells the government who's got them. So if they want to go get them. They got a handy list right there, people with gun licenses. I'll get them. But in this case, yeah, So in this case, you know, if you if you have a right to own it, you shouldn't have to register it. So are we going to start
seeing those arguments. It's just like the concealed carry. You've got some states now that have determined that you do not have to have a permit for concealed carry because the Second Amendment says you have the right to bear it doesn't say you don't have the right to bear it under your jack. It doesn't have to be open carry. You should not have to have a permit to bear an arm wherever you decide to bear it. If you want to put it in your pocket, it should be able to No, I got you.
And these are well and these are the type of arguments that something like this would bring about if they decide to overturn this and say, yes, we're going to go with the responsible and uh or what was the other word, crap, not dangerous. We're going to go with those definitions, you know, law binding and responsible right. That will now be the determining factor.
I can of worms well, yeah, and absolutely. Look, but this is not unlike actions in the past though, because there are people that get convicted of or even get you know, arrested for possession of too much pot okay, too much weed, right, this happens. And if you get a certain amount of weed, that turn around and say, well, we're
gonna hit you with you know, distribute distribution. You're looking to distribute this because you have a certain amount that might raise a misdemeanor charge to a felony charge. And while you're awaiting trial on that felony charge, they turn around and take away your guns. Now, that's got nothing to do with your guns. The fact that you had a big old bag of pot. Does
it? Or does it? You know what I'm saying. And there's plenty of people that would say, Nope, they're criminals, so therefore screw them. I happened to know a guy that got arrested somebody narked on him, okay, and he had sold them I want to say, it was less than an ounce And when they showed up at his place, he had done a lot of trading of weapons and people would come to him, Hey, you know, I got to make this bill. I've got a pistol I
can sell you. They took over twenty five it was over twenty five firearms out of his house. And when they busted him, they also caught him with a non tax paid liquor still and he was producing liquor. The funny thing is when it went to court, it was all federal charges and it was felonies. They nailed him for the possession and distribution. They banned him from owning weapons. He can't even own a hunting rifle to feed himself.
But they didn't charge him with bootlegging and non non tax paid liquor possession. So when he got done with it, he asked his lawyer. He says, all right, so okay, I'm out. I did I did you know my thirty days? What can I what can I can? What can I do? And the guy looked at him and he just said, look, you can't own a weapon, not even a hunting rifle. Are you gonna go hunting? You're gonna have to use a bowl and harrow, he said. He said, of course, can't have any any drugs on your
possession or in your house or distribute. He says, but you can go back to making liquor. They didn't charge you with that. So that's how the guy paid off all his fines and legal fees. He cranked his still
back up. Now, what's funny hilarious that that is hilarious. And I'll tell you what's really funny about that is the only reason why the prosecutor didn't nail him on it is because probably he wasn't trained well enough, because I mean, that's a simple taxation issue, right, I mean, they usually nail you on that. That that's just it's more complex, it's a little more different. Yeah, that's a that's a slam dunk for the tax department,
for the untay taxes, untaye taxes on your liquor. It's really easy. You get you get the tax lawyer to come in and be like, yeah, this is violation of this, this and this, and therefore he oweses this much money and he's committed a crime by not paying us. And that's it that. I mean, look, how did they how did they take down capone? Finally taxes? You know why, because it's it's you can't even fight them, Well an thing you have taken in consideration too.
And I don't know if this is part of the issue when it comes to drugs, you know, getting a drug conviction and losing your right to have weapons and all that. There is so much weapon use in connection with drugs. Yet, you know, can you argue that it's a direct result of the illicit drug trade? Is the violence, gun and death and everything connected to it? Does that give you a right? Yeah, you know, there's a difference. There's a difference between moving I don't know, two hundred
pounds of fentanyl and two hundred pounds pot. Yeah, no, fair enough, But look, the gun is not an issue unless the gun was part of the crime. And seriously so, unless you can directly prove that it was used, then that's just stupid because look again, bottom line problem here even with drugs, by the way, it's basically when you look deep into the federal thing on it, it's about the taxes. Again. You know, you were selling something that you couldn't pay taxes on because you're not allowed
to. Yeah, that's the whole drug industry is based on that. Yeah, you can do drugs as long as they're our drugs. Yeah, and we get our cut. As long as we don't get our cut. It's an illegal drug, right if somebody's paying taxes on that drug guarantee you you can find a way to legally have it, consume it, whatever, And then your problem might be you didn't have a license to sell it. All right, that's your problem. But here's the thing about the gun issue.
Just because somebody's convicted of one crime, you can't just logically say, well, this normally goes along with this, you know what I mean. You can't just attach it. You got to prove specifics, right, You got to specifically prove. You can't just make an assumption that well, since you're a drug dealer on a certain level, then automatically you have to use a gun. Not every drug dealer you have. But well, but that's just it. Though, if you're a drug dealer in possession of a gun,
it's really easy to tie it to the drug business. He was using it for protection, he was using it for intimidation, you know, they go hand in hand. Well maybe, but then again, it is also possible, legally feasible in my mind, that you could be a drug dealer, never pick up a firearm in your business as a drug deal but have you know, but go hunting. How about that? That's possible I knew a
hunting drug dealer once. A guy was an avid hunter. He had plenty of shotguns and rifles and stuff like that, never used it in his business, and he was moving significant weight. If they would have busted him, his guns had zero to do with his drug business. He was an avid hunter also, right, So should they take away his guns because as a drug dealer on a certain level, since he was moving a quarter million dollars worth of stuff over six months time easily, does that mean that well automatically
the guns are involved. No, he was a hunter. Now I'm not saying other people that you know he dealt with didn't have guns or whatever. But he did not use a gun in commission of a crime. He didn't use it in his business as somebody running a criminal business. So why should the gun even enter the picture unless the crime is committed with it, right, What do you think? Well, yeah, I agree with you there. I mean, unless it's actually used in the commission of a crime,
then it shouldn't be an issue. And one thing that bothers me about this whole thing is is the fact that there are a lot of domestic violence orders that are issued that may not necessarily need to be issued, but a lot of judges issue them to cover their butts because the last thing they want is twelve hours after they decide not to issue it, to see some lady in an emergency room or the morgue. And that's their fear that they that's the
fear that runs through them that influences their decision to issue these things. I personally went through it a situation where one was issued, but it was only so that someone could get back in the house because I had possession of the residents and everything that was in it. So what they were trying to do
is get back into the house after a lot had been changed. So they swore out this domestic violence order, and I was able to go to my attorney and him put the cabash on it and say we're having a hearing for this, and in the meantime, we're suing you for exupable distribution, so we have control of the assets right now. We're asking to keep control of them until this thing's decided. So it was a legal maneuver, but they were using it to try to get back into the residence and get out certain
items. They didn't care about the residence. They wanted to get stuff out of the residence, certain marital assets that really, had they been gotten out, would have been liquidated. And it was the only thing I could do to protect myself. But yeah, I went straight to my lawyer. He said, Oh, you don't worry about this. He says, we got this one covered. He says, you haven't. Is that how many days has been since you had any contact or talked to her? I said,
it's been like a week. He said, this thing goes away tomorrow. Yeah, well you got lucky. You got lucky because Okay, a couple of things though. I understand the logic for doing that though, if somebody is legitimately under threat for domestic violence, I get it. But here's the thing, Like you said, it could be a strategy for some other reason. They might be setting it up so they have grounds for something in the divorce to prove damages. Right, Because the more happen, most of them
are taken. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't I'm not saying the majority. I'm just saying a lot. Oh, there's enough restrained orders are taken out where they shouldn't be. Yeah, there's enough problem the questions. Yeah, the majority of the ones taken out need to be taken out. And that's the unfortunate thing about this. There are a lot of violent
people out there and push to extremes, They will do violent things. And the domestic violence order has a purpose, it has a use, and it is a very important tool of being able to try to combat domestic violence. Yeah. I agree with their issues absolutely in this case. You know you nowadays, if you get a domestic violence order, you sit in jail until you go before a judge. Well so if you violate, if you if
there's one in place and something happens. And I don't know what this guy's case was, but apparently he was charged for six instances where he was discharging a weapon at somebody. Oh well, see, you got you kind of wonder how he was allowed to do it six times and not be in jail. Oh well yeah. And also, why is it that the firearms weren't taken away? Because look, we keep having charges against you for this.
Let's just take these off your hands temporarily. Again, you'll dig into this one and see if he was using different weapons every time and they confiscated the weapons. I have to I'll have to go back and read the initial the initial case that started it all. Yeah, you got to go back and read through it. But the thing is, I get it, and it makes sense. Look and and I don't mind that. Indeed, there has to be some wrongfully issued ones where people are probably you know, just being
leveraged. I get it because you have to err on the side of safety here. And unfortunately, unless you present something like this, you're not going to stop somebody from continuously going after another person. It's just the way it is, okay. And there's some people who don't care either when they got a restrained or I don't care, they get arrested again and they keep doing
it. So I get it well. And there are those individuals that don't have the resources like I did to be able to go to an attorney and say, hey, you know what about this and him go, don't worry about that. We're going in front of a judge on this and I'll make it go away. Mine was dismissed with prejudice, which meant it could not
be filed again. Right, oh, thank god, right now. But there's a lot of guys that aren't in that situation, right, and they get put between a rock and a hard place when it comes to something like this. Yeah, well, me, for instance, because what happened to me, I have no ability to fight with this. I was just like, okay, I'm gonna wait for my hearing gate because I'll just stay away from her. That's fine by me. And I don't have any guns to
surrender. I'll just wait for my hearing gate, you know, because that's all I could do, Okay. And that's what gives me about this guy. He was convicted of this. I'm trying to understand though, how he was They issued the order when he was convicted of the violent act, so therefore, how could he say that it was a violation of his rights?
And that's the part that I don't understand. You know, this guy was arrested for doing this stuff, right and convicted of it, and I'm and the and the restrain and order was not violated until after that a second instance. So apparently there were six extra incidents. Yeah, well, but but here you go. Anyway, the current controversy, like I said, is
what is the court going to do with this? And you know, the media signaling that they believe that the court is gonna come down on the side of upholding the idea that you can take away somebody's guns if they have a
temporary restraining order. I'm not sure how I feel about it. But in this particular case, I don't understand why this is even an issue, because if the guy is continuously getting charged with firearms problems, it seems to me like you got a variety of reasons to confiscate his weapons, at least temporarily. Okay, So I you know, look again, I think there's a certain point at which, no, your constitutional rights should not be violated,
but they can be taken away. I think if you are violating things like public safety. I mean, that's the way I see it. But I don't know. I'm probably gonna get all kinds of hate mail from people about this and whatever. But it's a messed up situation. We'll see how it comes out. And again, I don't think this is a con conservative or
a liberal position to take. I think this is a matter of somebody should look at this and go, well, the particulars of this case mean this first of all, and secondly, this leaving open ended ways of taking away people's firearms. No, I don't agree with that, and I don't see how the court's going to agree with that. Well, And that's like these amicus briefs that are filed by individuals and organizations on behalf of a side of
an argument. It's almost like, you know, we don't need the ACLU coming in there and saying, oh, yes, we feel that this should not only be overturned, but when it gets overturned, we should use these parameters in the future to determine if anything else is a violation or not. You know, it's almost like that's where the politics get involved in the amicus briefs, because everybody's got an opinion coming from a certain point and an agenda,
right. You know, the American Civil Liberties Union ain't really looking out for your civil liberties their special interest all the way. So that's something that I have a problem with, is when we start letting that into the court through these amicus briefs where people are arguing things from a certain direction. But here's the thing, it's so asked backwards. I have no idea how to interpret that, because it's not a liberal position to be sitting there and fighting
for this this way. You know, it seems to me, like you said, it's just a set up to allow, you know, future abuses. And it's crazy because you would think, you know, the way that I understood the ACLU for most of my life is that they should be on the opposite side of this issue, you know. But then again they seem to not be for free speech and everything else lately. So it is what it is, the o'celly effect. Though for this Tuesday is all done.
I got to take a little time and talk to my co host off air before I get to another appointment. But hopefully you guys had a little bit of thought provoking something happened during this discussion. I'm gonna give you, guys some links to the stories, a few other things. Follow up on it, keep track of it, and maybe we'll bring it up again on Friday. Wall Street Window dot Gold, Silver, the stock Market, Wall Street Window, dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough.
Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street, Windows dot com, Doo dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wallstreamo dot com, Go there, now go there now go there now o Chili dot com. Do you like history, Real history that you
were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson revelation through conversation. Take there are things that I will
make you listen, So nas yowing nassy show. I am showing enough to save you from save you from school sports, school, don't go? Don't that? Why do I like? I'm got by cop back? That's don't know. I don't know this stuff so bad that my bat do what I know? If I got that's my job. If I got a cop that's this stuff