6-3-25 - 8am - SCOTUS AR-15 & The Second Amendment

This this constant shift of everything to law abiding citizens and not allowing or permitting us to take actions. Is the result of this overgrowth of government and this idea that we and and look, don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in civil rights. I believe in due process, both substantive and procedural. I think you need to do all of those things. But having said all of that, we've gone the pendulum has gone so far to the other side that we can no longer live in a

free and open society. And so if you want to, if you want to understand, go back to me yesterday's conversation. You know, I really, I really struggled after yesterday's program because I and maybe I did, but I came to the conclusion that I don't care. I have to come to that conclusion a lot about a lot of the things that I talked about, saying that I just don't care because it's just how I feel and it's how

important I think it is. So the conversation I had yesterday which lasted three hours, about the decline of Western civilization, what you just said is an example of that decline of Western civilization. That's a real life example. And this text message that I have because I've got to follow on from guber number zero four to three to three, that I want to share with you, which again exemplifies or really puts a fine point on this idea that it's always us and I'm sick of it. I'm truly

sick of it. So zero four to three three wrote back and said this the way I let me back up. Let's go to the original text message. I live in Greaty. Just last night, my wife is at a shopping plaza. My daughter was in the store. My wife was sitting in the car with the window up. A thug with a tattooed face and the head came up to her car and was asking for money. My wife shook her head no. Then the thug put his face on the window,

looking in the car. Now, let's just stop right there for a moment for me, not because I'm a scaredy cat, but because I understand human nature. That's an aggressive move. That is a threatening move. That's an indication that I'm trying to intimidate you by putting my face on your car window and getting fake. You know, only the glasses separating us. I'm trying to intimidate you. You won't give me money, I'm going to put my face on your window.

Then he raised his jacket, exposing a gun and actually tapped his gun in a threatening manner. This was in broad daylight. So now I want you to think about that. Your daughter's inside. You're a mother, you're obviously concerned for yourself. But now you're worried. Oh my gosh, what if my daughter comes out? Why this is going on? Then what if he's shown a gun, he's tapped his gun. Look that I have? Oh really, look that I have? Kaboom, Yeah,

that's what I have. Now. The problem with all of that is, unless you've got surveillance footage, unless you've got witnesses, it's all now depended upon a prosecutor, and that they could very easily decide that you were in your car, you had the window up, you could have driven off, you could, you could have gotten out of that situation, and instead you chose to blow the guy away. Yes I did, you know, mister prosecutor. But he had his

face against the window, he was tapping his gun. For all I know, he was going to pull the gun and either break into my car or shoot me. So I took defensive action to protect myself, which I think would be absolutely reasonable. But we've reached the point in Western civilization where that's not reasonable, and that's what pisses me off. Now. The follow up text Mike, the way I understand she screamed in the car. People in a little Caesar's witnessed what was going on. They came out

of the store. In the meantime, my daughter came out. My wife sped away. She called me. She did not want to call the cops, which made me mad, because we have to get these gum off our streets. Can I get a hallelujah? Can I get an amen of? Eventually the cops did get called by my son. They contacted my wife and said they were going to review the surveillance footage. So at least there is some surveillance footage. I'm thankful her and my daughter got away unharmed, except

for being really shook up. Excuse me, but what's to say the next person won't be so lucky? What's to say the fact that your wife just happened to be lucky? Now that scumbag, that scumbag, for all we know, is continuing to do the same thing. Now without denigrating the greedy police department, do you really think they're out there looking or will it just be one of those things where, oh, we have a bolo be on the lookout for, you know,

some guy tattooed faced blah, blah blah. You know he was intimidating a woman in a parking lot and blah blah. And so you just have they just happened to see him. They're not actively looking. And in fact, for all we know, if he's homeless, he's moved on to to uh who knows, He's moved on to Firestone, he's moved on to Longmond, He's moved on, you know somewhere else's Fort Collins, who knows where he is. To pull the same thing again. Now, am I advocating for him to be killed. No, I'm

not advocating necessarily to be killed. But you think about that situation. Now, go back to the Oklahoma law that I ascribed to you earlier. What that guy did is brandishing because he wasn't threatened, he didn't have a fear for his life. He was the one invoking the fear in this guy's spouse. He was the crow. He is the criminal, and even under the new Oklahoma law, what

he did would still be unlawful. But had she had a weapon in her car, she could have pulled the weapon, didn't have to shoot, but could have pointed the gun at him. And knowing most people like that he probably would have turned and run because, oh my god, here's a crazy woman in a car with a gun. I really don't want to get in a shootout. But no, not in our society anymore, not at all. So between her screaming, you don't say whether or not you say

your wife sped away. I'd like to I'd like to know, now, when your wife screamed, did he run off or did he continue to try to intimidate her as she was speeding away in the car. It's just it's just freaking unbelievable to me. And then you go back to the Supreme Court case Snope versus Brown. Now, I don't know, and I don't care how many AR fifteens you own, or if you even own an AR fifteen. But Kavanaugh

is right. There are probably some twenty or thirty million AR fifteens, which means they are in common usage in this country. Ten percent of the population owns an AR fifteen, or roughly thereabout. It's clear, and forget that it's a freaking AR fifteen. It's a semi automatic long gun that shoots either five five six or two two three, a common caliber that's commonly used. It's not a weapon of war. Does it look like one? Yes? Is no? But that's

the mantra that the left will tell you. So now we have out of the Fourth Circuit a decision that upholds a ban on an AR fifteen, and the Supreme Court, for lack of any testicles, doesn't take the case up. Oh we want to. According to Kavanaugh, we went away because there's a few other circuits that are dealing with this. So maybe we can deal with it in this term or maybe the next term. In other words, maybe we'll

deal with it. Let's just take the next term, so we'll deal with it two years from now, and then the decision will take oh maybe a year, so we might have a decision in twenty twenty eight for a ban that exists in twenty twenty five. We just can't do this anymore. We just can't keep doing it anymore. People's lives are in danger, and the people's lives who are in danger our most are predominantly the innocent, the law abiding. And it's the criminals they're getting away with everything.

The protesters, the anti Semites that are using molotov cocktails. By the way, somebody raised an interesting question once he was denied the background check to purchase whatever. I don't have any information about what he was trying to purchase, but he gets denied. Now, let's stop and think about how everybody wants the federal government to just run everything.

So the federal government sets up the next system. He gets denied because he's not the US that is that shouldn't shouldn't that cause in some database somewhere, a little pen, a little flag. Oh, we have a guy in Colorado Springs that was here on a Now I want you to think through this for a second. He came here on a tourist visa, which means he went into an embassy. I assume he came from Egypt, so because he's Egyptian. So let's just make that assumption for the sake of

the argument. So he goes to the American embassy in Cairo or to a consulate office somewhere in Egypt, and he applies for a tourist visa. So he sits down with an employee of the State Department. What's the purpose of your visit? I want to I want to tour the country. I okay, what's your itinerary? What cities are you going to? I want to visit New York. And then I'm thinking about making a trip to Los Angeles, and I've heard that Colorado Springs is really nice. I'd

like to see Pike's Peak. I'd like to go there and see the Garden of the Gods or something. And then okay, so how long are you going to stay? Well, you know, this tourist visas I think good for I think it's good for ninety days. I may be wrong about that, but whatever, it's good for. Okay. So, uh, do you have your tickets? Yes? Do you know where you're gonna stay? Yes? Okay, so tell me where you're staying. Blah blah blah. So he's coming here as a tourist.

Now when he gets here he applies for asylum, that alone should have raised a red flag. You're not, which is which is also why we should require if you want to seek asylum, you seek asylum in either the country that you're seeking asylum from or a country other than the United States, because if you get denied asylum, then you can stay in the If you went from Egypt to Kuwait, then you can stay in Kuwait. Not our problem, because we're not getting brand, not granting you asylum.

But when he when he applied for asylum, and god, then was there nobody any was there, no bureaucrat anywhere that looked around and said, wait a minute, he applied for asylum, but he's here on a tourist visa, and the tourist visa, according to our data base, is expired. So he's overstayed his visa u CBP dirt bag number two six five, last known address, Go pick him up, get him deported. Of course we didn't do that because the f and bureaucracy is too huge, too wieldy, doesn't

care and quite frankly wants them to get the asylum. Then, so you got a guy on a tourist visa, overstayed the visa, then he applies for asylum, then he goes to buy a firearm and gets denied.

back into the discussion about the Supreme Court case. You think it's going to be difficult to deport twenty or thirty million illegal aliens? What happens when you try to confiscate twenty or thirty banned ar fifteens. I'm not trying to be mister macho. I'm trying to be mister practical. Who's going to be the first person to say, Nope, I don't have and if you want to come in my house, you need to have a probable cause search

warrant to come into my home. And even then somebody somewhere is going to deny entry and they come in your I mean, what you really think about this? A law enforcement first of life, I would hope that a lot of leos would refuse to enforce this. I would hope that a lot of FBI agents, eight even ATF agents would refuse to enforce it. But can you imagine in the United States of America, anybody that has a

law enforcement uniform on or not I don't care. Maybe they don't have the inform they got, They've they've got credentials, they've got a badge, and they knock on your door. Can I help you? Yes, we're here to take your AR fifteen's they've been banned and the court has not ruled on that. So we're gonna start enforcing the band and we're here to take your AR fifteen. Is there at any point? Is there any point at all in which anybody says, no, No, you're not Is there everybody?

Everybody says they will. Everybody says, oh, yeah, they're not gonna take my gun. Really, I don't believe it.

are afraid to exercise the right of self defense. And don't get me wrong, I understand, I think I understand that if you if you exercise that right of self defense, even if you've not committed a crime, you're still subject to a civil lawsuit because well, you just took someone's life away. Now, yeah, they may have been trying what's that stupid one we have on the taxpayer relief shot? Well, understand he was robbing him, but he didn't have to

shoot him. That's the kind of people that will then go sue you in a wrongful death lawsuit because you well, we know he was robbing you, but you know you did have shooting. Oh all right, See if I can't finish up this Supreme Court case, because I really do want you to understand the insanity that's going on in DC right now. So the Supreme Court's denial of sert in Snope the Brown that's the case from just a

few months ago, really does reveal a fractured bench. So you got three of the justices openly dissenting a fourth Kavanaugh. This signaling in openness to you know, hey, we probably should review this. I just don't want to do it right now. So to kind of reset, the case challenges Maryland's ban on AR fifteen rifles under the Second Amendment. That follows the Fourth Circuit's ruling that AR fifteen's fall outside constitutional protection. Now that alone, I can't believe that

that's what I'm saying. But that's the Court's decision that in AR fifteen is not protected by the Second Amendment. Some explain to me how that works. Now. Granted I've not because I've been focusing so much on the Supreme Court in show prep, I had not read the Fourth Circuit opinion. Maybe I'll try to do that today and tell you what the reasoning was for the Fourth Circuit's decision. But Justice Thomas was the author of the primary descent.

He wanted to hear the case, and he was arguing that the Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with DC versus Heller. That's the two thousand and eight case that held that there is an individual right to keep in bear arms. Gee, really, let's see a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free state. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You. I say that all the time, and it seems pretty clear to me. But

then I guess I'm got a sick of mind. And Thomas also cited New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. But here are the points that Justice Thomas was trying to make. First, regarding burden of proof, he argues that the Fourth Circuit was wrong in requiring the challengers to prove that AR fifteens are protected by the Second Amendment, rather than placing the burden on Maryland to demonstrate some sort of historical precedent for the banning of

an AR fifteen. He's arguing that you've got the burden of proof completely inverted. It's wrong the government who is trying to take away the Second Amendment of protections for an AR fifteen. They've got the burden of proof to show that under the Second Amendment it is there is historical precedent for doing so, which obviously there is none. He also makes a great textual argument, or I should say,

to be more precise, a textual analysis. Justice Thomas argued that AR fifteens are bearable arms under the Second Amendments playing text because they're weapons of offense widely owned by civilians. That's that's an encapulation, encapsulation of the Heller case right there, weapons of offense widely owned and used by civilians. And then he analyzed the historical tradition. He said that Maryland's

ban lacks support in historical firearm regulation. And he went even further and criticized the Fourth Circuit for invert or for inventing a dangerous and unusual category unsupported by precedent. I've got to I've got to go read the Fourth Circuits case.

There's no greater justice right now in my opinion, in Clarence Thomas, I hope he lives to be one hundred and fifty years old, and I hope he stays on the court as long as he can. Let's let's go to Justice Alito and Corses. Now again, they descended, they voted to grant Cirt, they wanted to hear the case, and they joined Thomas in his descent. But they didn't author separate opinions. But their alignment with Justice Thomas suggests

that they have agreement on a misapplication of Bruin. That the Fourth Circuit's reliance on dangerous and unusual standards that I just mentioned contradicts Bruin's mandate to evaluate the historical analogs about how you know the Second Amendment has how firearms have evolved into common use. AR fifteen clearly meets that standard. But they also talk about the circuit split

concern the split among the circuits. Lower courts have inconsistently applied the Bruins standard to assault weapon bands, and they argued that because you have these different standards, we need to hear this case so we can finally set a standard by which if you want to regulate AR fifteens or any of the guns, here's the standard by what you've got to do it now. Kavanaugh was pretty interesting because his statement concurs in denial, yet hints that he

actually would support overturning the ban. For example, when it comes to common use. As I said earlier, he notes that AR fifteens are legal in forty one states. They're owned by somewhere between twenty and thirty million Americans. And the reason he states that is he's pointing out that under the Heller's common use standard, this ban in Maryland is probably unconstitutional, to which I would once again say, then, why the hell didn't you hear the case future review?

Kevinaugh went on to predict that the Court should impresumably will address the AR fifteen issues soon, and goes on to criticize the Fourth Amendment, reasoning as questionable. Well, then why not settle it now? Why make people suffer under a ban that likely a majority of the Court's going to overturn. Why make them suffer under a ban while you wait for other circuits to make a decision so they can help inform your decision. Why do you think you were appointed to be an associate justice of the

US Supreme Court to make decisions. And this gets back to a part of the court's his oracle reasoning that drives me crazy, strategic avoidance. He wants the Court to wait for a case with a stronger procedural posture, such as a final judgment from a different circuit. No, don't you have a case. You know, you can write your opinions however you want. You don't have to wait for

other circuits. So the denial leaves intact Maryland's ban, although it does to be fair, it signals potential future action and a potential overturning of the ban because you've got Thomas lead On Gore such already steadfastly opposing it, and Kavanaugh hinting at opposing it. But Robertson Barrett's silence pathetic, absolutely pathetic. So for now, the Fourth Circuit ruling stands another example of how the federal government our institutions are failures.

sense now? My guess is that these scientists in air quotes are probably the beneficiaries of a bunch of government grants. So they spent the summer of twenty twenty three studying ammonia emissions caused by the poop from penguins at a coastal site near the Maribillo Base, a permanent year round research site that's run by Argentina. Okay, so what so far, so good? Right, wait to hear what the research discovered.

The team measured ammonia concentrations at that coastal site during the astral summer of twenty twenty three, they found that penguin colonies, particularly ones containing around sixty thousand of these adeli penguins, acted as massive sources of gaseous ammonia. Now, ammonia in the atmosphere is a key ingredient in forming aerosols, and those particles are essential for creating cloud condensation nuclei, which allow water vapor to condense and form the clouds.

More clouds can reflect sunlight and reduce surface temperatures, making this process highly relevant for sea ice retention in climate regulation in the polar environs. But ammonia has obviously been for years under represented in climate models. They don't like to put that in the models when they talk about

how you know the Earth is warming. Well. The study recorded ammonia levels between January tenth and March twenty of twenty three, and when the wind blew from the penguin colony, ammonia concentrations surged more than a thousand times what the

background levels it normally were. And even after the penguins migrated at the end of February, the soil that was enriched with laol iguano kept emitting ammonia for weeks and that surprised the researchers and the data confirmed that these penguin hotspots around the Antarctic coasts could be releasing ammonia levels comparable to those found in agricultural fields. Well, I don't know out here on the Eastern plains during the summer. But that's not the end of the story.