1
00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:09,880
Speaker 1: Line from the Heartland and the crossroads of America.

2
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:16,280
Speaker 2: It's Tony Katz today.

3
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:20,279
Speaker 1: When I first saw the case, I'm like, I don't

4
00:00:20,360 --> 00:00:22,840
Speaker 1: understand what this case is all about. No part of

5
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:25,880
Speaker 1: it made sense. Can you be stoned and shoot your

6
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:30,160
Speaker 1: weapon at someone? I mean, I thought that was the case.

7
00:00:30,200 --> 00:00:33,200
Speaker 1: I thought that was the conversation. Maybe it's a little

8
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:36,760
Speaker 1: more in depth, Tony Kats Tony Katz today, Good to

9
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,479
Speaker 1: be with you. This is the case the United States

10
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:44,839
Speaker 1: versus Hamani, the United States versus Hamani Hma n I,

11
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:47,760
Speaker 1: where the Supreme Court has already heard the case, and

12
00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:53,440
Speaker 1: this was a question of whether an habitual user of

13
00:00:53,520 --> 00:01:00,800
Speaker 1: marijuana is still able to possess a firearm. I have

14
00:01:00,960 --> 00:01:05,679
Speaker 1: many thoughts. Guy Ralford joins me right now. Guy Ralford

15
00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 1: is a Second Amendment attorney. He is also a radio

16
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,160
Speaker 1: host on my home station of ninety three point one OFFMWIBC.

17
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:15,839
Speaker 1: He is known as a gun guy throughout Central Indiana,

18
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:18,720
Speaker 1: Indiana as a whole. He is engaged as a lawyer

19
00:01:18,800 --> 00:01:21,280
Speaker 1: of some of the most high profile cases in the state,

20
00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:25,520
Speaker 1: never mind in America. He is also the founder of

21
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:30,160
Speaker 1: the two A project. Let's start where we start here

22
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:33,479
Speaker 1: because This case kind of flew under the radar until

23
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:35,200
Speaker 1: it was heard by the Supreme Court this week, and

24
00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:38,480
Speaker 1: people were saying, well, well, well I can be stoned

25
00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:42,160
Speaker 1: and shoot. Walk me through, take me through the basics here.

26
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:44,039
Speaker 1: What is this case about.

27
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:47,800
Speaker 3: Yeah, this case is about the Controlled Substances Act of

28
00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:52,960
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy and how it intersects with the federal laws

29
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,560
Speaker 3: dealing with who can and cannot possess a firearm tony

30
00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:01,760
Speaker 3: and under eighteen USC which is US Code nine two G.

31
00:02:02,120 --> 00:02:07,160
Speaker 3: That's a broad category, several categories of people who cannot

32
00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:10,680
Speaker 3: legally possess firearms under federal law. If you go to

33
00:02:11,760 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 3: G three subsection, it says, if you're an unlawful user

34
00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:20,960
Speaker 3: of or addicted to a controlled substance an illegal drug,

35
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 3: then you cannot possess a firearm. And marijuana is still

36
00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:30,120
Speaker 3: a Controlled Substances Act under the Controlled Substances Act of

37
00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:34,000
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy. As ridiculous as that might be and as

38
00:02:34,200 --> 00:02:37,840
Speaker 3: unrelated as that might be to the dangerousness of marijuana,

39
00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:39,919
Speaker 3: and that's an issue that came up during the arguments

40
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:43,520
Speaker 3: in this case. It's still illegal at the federal level.

41
00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,280
Speaker 3: So Hamani is a guy who was found with marijuana

42
00:02:46,400 --> 00:02:49,639
Speaker 3: is in his apartment in Texas, and he was also

43
00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:52,560
Speaker 3: in possession of a gun there in his apartment. They

44
00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:56,880
Speaker 3: arrested him and he went to trial. The trial court said,

45
00:02:56,919 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 3: you know what, I think the statute is unconstitutional because

46
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 3: there's no nexus. There's no logical connection between occasional marijuana use,

47
00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:07,760
Speaker 3: and that's the allegation here. He admitted to being a

48
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:12,519
Speaker 3: regular user of marijuana, no evidency, was high on marijuana

49
00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,480
Speaker 3: at the same time. He actually possessed a gun. But

50
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:19,160
Speaker 3: the statute says an unlawful user of or addicted to

51
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:25,080
Speaker 3: a controlled substance. Well, he said, yeah, I use marijuana regularly.

52
00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:29,200
Speaker 3: On that basis, he was prosecuted again. Trial court said,

53
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:32,359
Speaker 3: now this looks unconstitutional to me. I don't think this

54
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:37,280
Speaker 3: holds muster under Supreme Court precedence. Say, there has to

55
00:03:37,280 --> 00:03:40,080
Speaker 3: be some historical analog that says at the time of

56
00:03:40,120 --> 00:03:42,640
Speaker 3: the founding there were similar kinds of laws, and that's

57
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:44,840
Speaker 3: from the Bruined decision, which you remember from back in

58
00:03:44,840 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two. Went up to the Court of Appeals,

59
00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that handles appeals from Texas, Louisiana,

60
00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:54,560
Speaker 3: and Mississippi, and the Fifth Circuit said, we agree with

61
00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:59,280
Speaker 3: the trial court, this is unconstitutional. And the government appealed

62
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:04,600
Speaker 3: that Trump's DJ is actually the one appealing the decision

63
00:04:04,600 --> 00:04:07,480
Speaker 3: of unconstitutionality at the Fifth Circuit, and it went up

64
00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:10,520
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court. And as you just mentioned, oral

65
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:14,240
Speaker 3: argument was just earlier this week on Monday, I believe.

66
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 3: And let's based on an argument, now we can start

67
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:19,360
Speaker 3: prognosticating what the court's going to do with it.

68
00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:22,559
Speaker 1: Let's hold on just right there, because you said something

69
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 1: that I think it hit my ear peculiar, which was

70
00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:30,680
Speaker 1: the idea about this tie was high. He admits to

71
00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:34,200
Speaker 1: being a casual user of marijuana. He owns a gun,

72
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,039
Speaker 1: but you use the term possessing a firearm, you possessing

73
00:04:38,160 --> 00:04:41,560
Speaker 1: a gun. Do we see those things as different? The

74
00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:44,880
Speaker 1: idea of ownership versus the idea of possession. Does there

75
00:04:44,920 --> 00:04:48,360
Speaker 1: have to be is the difference in use, in purpose,

76
00:04:48,520 --> 00:04:49,280
Speaker 1: in presentation?

77
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,239
Speaker 3: Well, it's a great question. And all of the federal

78
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:57,800
Speaker 3: prohibitions and most state prohibitions talking about who cannot have

79
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 3: a firearm all focused on possession ownership. So in other words,

80
00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:04,679
Speaker 3: I may own several guns. But let's say I'm convicted

81
00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:07,159
Speaker 3: of a felony, and now I can't legally own a

82
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:09,720
Speaker 3: gun under federal law under a different provision of nine

83
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 3: to twenty two g. Well, if I give all my

84
00:05:11,839 --> 00:05:14,919
Speaker 3: guns to a friend and say hold these guns for me,

85
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:16,640
Speaker 3: I still own them. I want them back when I

86
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:18,920
Speaker 3: win my case at the Supreme Court. But in the meantime,

87
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:21,479
Speaker 3: you could hold these for me. I'm not breaking any law,

88
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:25,599
Speaker 3: even under the government's interpretation, because I don't physically possess them. Now,

89
00:05:26,080 --> 00:05:31,160
Speaker 3: possession can take two actual forms. There's actual possession and

90
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:35,320
Speaker 3: constructive possession. Actual possession is it's in my immediate physical control.

91
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:38,839
Speaker 3: Constructive possession is where I have both the means and

92
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:42,679
Speaker 3: the intent to exercise dominion in control over that firearm.

93
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,039
Speaker 3: So in other words, it's in my car, it's under

94
00:05:45,080 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 3: the seat. I'm the only one in the car. I

95
00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:50,240
Speaker 3: have constructive possession of it, even though I don't have

96
00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:52,680
Speaker 3: physically have it in my hand or or what that's

97
00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:55,920
Speaker 3: called constructive possession. But to your question, the focus is

98
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:57,799
Speaker 3: always on possession, not ownership.

99
00:05:58,440 --> 00:06:01,560
Speaker 1: That is that sounds just flat out Nattie talking to

100
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:03,760
Speaker 1: Guy Ralford Ralford Law dot com.

101
00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:06,920
Speaker 2: Second Amendment attorney also the founder of the two A Project.

102
00:06:07,640 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 1: Now this case gets to the Supreme Court, and the

103
00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is trying to decipher this argument. They're trying

104
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 1: to decipher the idea of drug use and firearms ownership.

105
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:25,520
Speaker 1: Before we get to wear the Supreme Court and what

106
00:06:25,560 --> 00:06:28,400
Speaker 1: we the questions that you heard and what you think

107
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:29,080
Speaker 1: they meant it.

108
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:30,480
Speaker 2: We're trying to read the tea leaves.

109
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:36,360
Speaker 1: What is the standard thought process? You're a guy who

110
00:06:36,400 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 1: teaches firearms safety. You've done work, of course, being with

111
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:44,600
Speaker 1: the NRA and and a host of others. You're known

112
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:48,120
Speaker 1: for your work on the subject, You've written books on

113
00:06:48,200 --> 00:06:49,200
Speaker 1: firearms safety.

114
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:53,680
Speaker 2: What is the standard thought process of what we'll call it.

115
00:06:53,680 --> 00:06:57,120
Speaker 2: We'll create a broad brush here gun owners in America.

116
00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:02,320
Speaker 1: On this case, on the idea of drug use and

117
00:07:02,440 --> 00:07:06,719
Speaker 1: or casual drug use, or even drinking and firearms.

118
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:10,520
Speaker 3: I think, and a broad category of people that I

119
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,080
Speaker 3: wouldn't attempt to speak for, but I think my interpretation

120
00:07:13,160 --> 00:07:16,320
Speaker 3: of at least a consensus would be that where there's

121
00:07:16,320 --> 00:07:22,720
Speaker 3: no connection between actual dangerousness, that is something taking something,

122
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,000
Speaker 3: being in such an altered state or otherwise that makes

123
00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:30,440
Speaker 3: you dangerous and too dangerous to own a firearm. Absence

124
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 3: some connection between a prohibition and dangerousness, then I think

125
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:38,280
Speaker 3: those laws are unconstitutional, and I think the vast majority

126
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 3: of good owners would agree with me. I think there's

127
00:07:41,040 --> 00:07:43,640
Speaker 3: a smaller percentage and minority who would say, well, wait

128
00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:46,720
Speaker 3: a minute, unless you're in jail and physically taken off

129
00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 3: the street, If you're not so dangerous as to be

130
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:51,920
Speaker 3: in prison and the government lets you out to be

131
00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 3: among the rest of society, then you're by definition not

132
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 3: so dangerous that you should be deprived of your constitutional rights.

133
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:00,440
Speaker 3: And there's some logic actually behind that, even though I

134
00:08:00,480 --> 00:08:03,680
Speaker 3: think it's more a minority position, but certainly, when there's

135
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 3: no nexus, there's no connection between dangerousness and a prohibition.

136
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:09,960
Speaker 3: For instance, we're going to see a case of the

137
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:12,960
Speaker 3: Supreme Court not so long from now. I'm sure eventually

138
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:17,080
Speaker 3: that looks at whether nonviolent felons can be prohibited. I mean,

139
00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 3: the exact same analysis that the Supreme Court's undergoing in

140
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:23,960
Speaker 3: this Hamani case. Because if I cheated on my taxes,

141
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:27,160
Speaker 3: or in one actual case, I lied on my application

142
00:08:27,280 --> 00:08:30,920
Speaker 3: for food stamps, does that make me so dangerous as

143
00:08:31,000 --> 00:08:32,800
Speaker 3: to not be able to possess firearm? I think the

144
00:08:32,840 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 3: answer is obviously no. But that's the way the law

145
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:37,120
Speaker 3: works today. You're going to see a similar challenge. So,

146
00:08:37,559 --> 00:08:42,640
Speaker 3: coming back to Hamani, if occasional, even regular marijuana use

147
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:45,080
Speaker 3: with no evidence that you're high at the time you

148
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:48,840
Speaker 3: physically possess a gun, that's an important distinction. You occasionally

149
00:08:48,880 --> 00:08:51,200
Speaker 3: use marijuana, but no evidence that when you picked up

150
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:53,199
Speaker 3: a gun you were so stoned as to be dangerous.

151
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 3: That I think is what the court is going to

152
00:08:55,559 --> 00:08:57,000
Speaker 3: have a hard time with. And I think I think

153
00:08:57,000 --> 00:08:59,240
Speaker 3: it's going to be a thin majority. I think you

154
00:08:59,280 --> 00:09:02,080
Speaker 3: may see some range. Benfelows, I think you may see

155
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 3: some traditional liberal justices here side with more conservative ones.

156
00:09:06,280 --> 00:09:09,839
Speaker 3: He may see some that conservative justices that go the

157
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 3: other way. They simply want to be deferential to Congress.

158
00:09:12,640 --> 00:09:14,160
Speaker 3: So I think it's going to be interesting and you

159
00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 3: may see an interesting mix on this. But based on

160
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:21,840
Speaker 3: the questions, the challenges, the statements from justices, if your argument,

161
00:09:21,880 --> 00:09:24,480
Speaker 3: you may see a thin majority in favor of the

162
00:09:24,480 --> 00:09:25,200
Speaker 3: gun owner. Here.

163
00:09:25,400 --> 00:09:26,200
Speaker 2: Let's get into that.

164
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 1: Talking to Guy Ralford, he's known as the gun Guy

165
00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:33,440
Speaker 1: on Radio. Relford Law dot com, Second amendment attorney, second

166
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:38,360
Speaker 1: amendment expert, that we use here on Tony Katz today.

167
00:09:38,720 --> 00:09:42,400
Speaker 1: And when you take a look at how the Supreme

168
00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:45,559
Speaker 1: Court was asking the questions, this is how Shooting News

169
00:09:45,600 --> 00:09:47,000
Speaker 1: Weekly put it.

170
00:09:47,000 --> 00:09:48,599
Speaker 2: It appears the Supreme.

171
00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:53,120
Speaker 1: Court is likely to let marijuana users own guns. And

172
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,439
Speaker 1: then there was this going back to October of twenty

173
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,920
Speaker 1: twenty five when this case was first known about this

174
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,319
Speaker 1: this was gun Owners of America gun owners dot Org,

175
00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:03,880
Speaker 1: which I do not have any connection with that I

176
00:10:03,920 --> 00:10:06,400
Speaker 1: don't know if you have any connection with and they

177
00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:10,240
Speaker 1: write the Department of Justice intentionally hand picked the worst

178
00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:12,280
Speaker 1: facts for gun owners.

179
00:10:12,360 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 2: So talk to me about the case that was.

180
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:22,679
Speaker 1: Made by the federal government and then the questions that

181
00:10:22,720 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 1: were asked by the Supreme Court.

182
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:28,320
Speaker 2: How did it leaving you feeling? Knowing that Shooting these Weekly, for.

183
00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:32,880
Speaker 1: Example, amongst others, thought that this that the questions led

184
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:34,840
Speaker 1: to the idea of yeah, you're gonna be able to

185
00:10:34,840 --> 00:10:36,440
Speaker 1: smoke marijuana and still on a gun.

186
00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:42,400
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm less than cautiously optimistic. I think again, if

187
00:10:42,400 --> 00:10:45,600
Speaker 3: I had to bet the mortgage, I think my prediction

188
00:10:45,679 --> 00:10:47,240
Speaker 3: is youre going to see a thin majority in favor

189
00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 3: of the gun owner here. But I will not be

190
00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 3: surprised by it to see it go the other way.

191
00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:54,280
Speaker 3: I don't think it'll be a big swing either way.

192
00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:59,360
Speaker 3: For instance, the Chief Justice seemed to want to give

193
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:03,360
Speaker 3: Congress a lot of deference. He challenged Moni's lawyer to say, well,

194
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:06,720
Speaker 3: wait a minute, if Congress has made a determination, that

195
00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:10,200
Speaker 3: a factual determination, that a broad category of people here

196
00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:13,600
Speaker 3: illegal drug users, are dangerous, and who were we as

197
00:11:13,640 --> 00:11:18,199
Speaker 3: a court to interfere with that decision coming from the legislature.

198
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:20,720
Speaker 3: And isn't that more of the legislature's job than the

199
00:11:21,480 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 3: judiciary's job. And you can see some conservative justices wanting

200
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:29,360
Speaker 3: to go that direction. At the same time, you had

201
00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:32,720
Speaker 3: Justice Gorsuch actually make a point which I did on

202
00:11:32,760 --> 00:11:35,400
Speaker 3: the radio before the oral argument. I made the same

203
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 3: one on the radio, which was hold on if the

204
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:41,640
Speaker 3: analog here, that's required the justices have to cite some

205
00:11:42,480 --> 00:11:46,200
Speaker 3: some historical examples of regulations under the Second Amendment that

206
00:11:46,240 --> 00:11:49,280
Speaker 3: were deemed appropriate and constitutional under the Second Amendment that

207
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,680
Speaker 3: are similar, that are analogs that apply the same logic,

208
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:55,720
Speaker 3: and and and and some of the analogs were For instance,

209
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:58,439
Speaker 3: there are laws at the time of the founding where

210
00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:05,280
Speaker 3: governments could uh disarm habitual drunkards, and uh and and

211
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:08,040
Speaker 3: and and and and the government said, well, there you go.

212
00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:11,680
Speaker 3: If you can disarmed habitual drunkards, we can disarmed habitual

213
00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:16,320
Speaker 3: marijuana users. And uh and and just as uh. Of

214
00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:20,319
Speaker 3: course it said, hold on, that's drunkards, not occasional users

215
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:23,560
Speaker 3: of alcohol, and and and then and there's a big

216
00:12:23,559 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 3: difference because here he was an occasional user of marijuana.

217
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:28,959
Speaker 3: He wasn't. There's no evidence he was so high as

218
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:32,200
Speaker 3: to be incapacitated. And the drunkard statute from the way

219
00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:33,880
Speaker 3: back in the day, we're looking at people who couldn't

220
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:36,280
Speaker 3: manage their own affairs because they were drunk all the time.

221
00:12:36,440 --> 00:12:38,079
Speaker 3: That's not what we're dealing with here. And by the way,

222
00:12:38,120 --> 00:12:40,439
Speaker 3: if you're going to say that applies to occasional users

223
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:44,520
Speaker 3: of marijuana, you just disqualified all of the founders. Excuse me,

224
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:48,800
Speaker 3: regular users of alcohol is what I meant to say.

225
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:51,679
Speaker 3: If you're trying to say that applies to the occasional,

226
00:12:51,760 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 3: even regular use of alcohol, then you just disqualified all

227
00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:58,319
Speaker 3: of the founders. And it was a powerful point, that's

228
00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:00,000
Speaker 3: when I made on the radio before they were argue.

229
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,040
Speaker 3: And I think that indicates where Gorsich is gonna go.

230
00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:06,320
Speaker 3: But it's it's gonna be an odd combination of justices

231
00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:07,560
Speaker 3: on this ruling, is my prediction.

232
00:13:07,920 --> 00:13:11,720
Speaker 1: Do you find you talk about Van van Bruin and

233
00:13:11,720 --> 00:13:16,920
Speaker 1: and some of the other decisions that even the late

234
00:13:17,000 --> 00:13:20,880
Speaker 1: ru bedder Ginsburg was in favor of of the gun

235
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:23,560
Speaker 1: owner and the right to keeping bare arms means on

236
00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:29,560
Speaker 1: one's one's person. Do you think that they engage some

237
00:13:29,679 --> 00:13:32,360
Speaker 1: of these kinds of responses and decisions in favor of

238
00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:36,720
Speaker 1: gun ownership with resentment like they're they're really left no

239
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:39,680
Speaker 1: course because the Second Amendment says what it says and

240
00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:42,640
Speaker 1: doesn't say what it doesn't say. Do you find that

241
00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:45,800
Speaker 1: the court would like to find an out like, for example,

242
00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:48,880
Speaker 1: when you talk about John Roberts saying, well, Congress doesn't Congress,

243
00:13:49,080 --> 00:13:51,440
Speaker 1: that's that is standard for him. That goes back to

244
00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:54,440
Speaker 1: his position on Obamacare and a host of other things.

245
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:57,320
Speaker 2: I'm just recently decisions.

246
00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:00,920
Speaker 1: Do you find the court's churching for a reason to

247
00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:04,920
Speaker 1: turn down the gun owner or has the court become

248
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:07,960
Speaker 1: at least this court kind of accepting of the fact

249
00:14:08,160 --> 00:14:10,600
Speaker 1: that the gun owner has rights and it's simply there's

250
00:14:10,679 --> 00:14:11,960
Speaker 1: nothing that's going to change that.

251
00:14:13,080 --> 00:14:15,920
Speaker 3: I think it depends on which justice. There's a mixed

252
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 3: bag to answer your question. For instance, I think Justice

253
00:14:19,560 --> 00:14:21,680
Speaker 3: Thomas is a firm believer in the Second Amendment. He's

254
00:14:21,680 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 3: the one that consistently comes out after the Supreme Court

255
00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:28,000
Speaker 3: denies circerri in cases where they won't review a case,

256
00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:29,720
Speaker 3: he says, come on, we got to start taking more

257
00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:32,760
Speaker 3: of these cases. The Second Amendment is not a second

258
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 3: class citizen when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

259
00:14:37,240 --> 00:14:40,560
Speaker 3: It occupies equal stature with everything else in the Bill

260
00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:42,720
Speaker 3: of Rights, and we need to start treating it as such.

261
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:46,040
Speaker 3: He's a true believer on that, I think. I think

262
00:14:46,080 --> 00:14:50,120
Speaker 3: Gorsic is strong. Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh have

263
00:14:50,160 --> 00:14:54,480
Speaker 3: both written very strong opinions even as Court of Appeals

264
00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:57,320
Speaker 3: judges before they became members of the Supreme Court. That

265
00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:02,440
Speaker 3: indicate I think a strong pro constitution, pro Second Amendment leaning.

266
00:15:02,440 --> 00:15:05,240
Speaker 3: I think others are more resigned to the fact, as

267
00:15:05,280 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 3: you said, the Constitution says what it says. But I

268
00:15:09,840 --> 00:15:12,840
Speaker 3: think here you may even get some more traditional liberal justices.

269
00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:16,000
Speaker 3: And I'm thinking here about Soda Mayor and Kagan, those

270
00:15:16,040 --> 00:15:19,560
Speaker 3: two justices who may be more focused on the marijuana

271
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:22,320
Speaker 3: side of it than the Second Amendment side of it.

272
00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:25,240
Speaker 3: But to say, hold on, what's the rationale for depriving

273
00:15:25,280 --> 00:15:29,320
Speaker 3: this whole class of people when there's not been a designation.

274
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 3: There's not been any kind of fact finding of dangerousness

275
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:35,240
Speaker 3: when the scheduling of a drug occurs. And what I

276
00:15:35,280 --> 00:15:38,680
Speaker 3: mean by that is this is is marijuana is currently

277
00:15:38,720 --> 00:15:41,720
Speaker 3: a Schedule one drug under the Control Substances Act in

278
00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:44,600
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy. That means it's up there with heroin and

279
00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:49,120
Speaker 3: methamphetamine and cocaine as being one of the worst in

280
00:15:49,240 --> 00:15:52,280
Speaker 3: terms of being addictive and worst in terms of harmful

281
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:56,080
Speaker 3: effects and potential for overdose. And to put marijuana in

282
00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:59,200
Speaker 3: that same category is somewhat ridiculous. And there's some interesting

283
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:02,320
Speaker 3: stree behind that that has a very much of a

284
00:16:02,360 --> 00:16:06,960
Speaker 3: political bent to it, which is interesting history. But when

285
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:10,040
Speaker 3: in deciding that marijuana when to be scheduled at all

286
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 3: or to become a Schedule one, Congress never made any

287
00:16:13,920 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 3: kind of fact finding as to whether or not being

288
00:16:16,920 --> 00:16:20,920
Speaker 3: high on marijuana makes you dangerous makes you more inclined

289
00:16:20,960 --> 00:16:24,840
Speaker 3: to commit some violent act than any other drug prescription

290
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:28,000
Speaker 3: or non controlled or non And a lot of justices

291
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:30,280
Speaker 3: in this oral argument focused on that to say, hold on,

292
00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:33,560
Speaker 3: you're saying Congress made a broad prohibition based on their

293
00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:36,200
Speaker 3: determination that certain drugs make you dangerous. But that's not

294
00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:38,800
Speaker 3: what happens. When you put a drug into a particular

295
00:16:38,840 --> 00:16:43,280
Speaker 3: schedule under the Controlled Substances Act, they categorize them on

296
00:16:43,760 --> 00:16:47,240
Speaker 3: entirely different set of criteria, which are things like addictiveness

297
00:16:47,240 --> 00:16:51,000
Speaker 3: and potential for side effects and harm and overdose and death. Never,

298
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:53,480
Speaker 3: if they use this drug, they're going to go commit

299
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:55,440
Speaker 3: violent acts. And since that was never part of the

300
00:16:55,440 --> 00:16:57,880
Speaker 3: fact finding, how can you rely on that as justification?

301
00:16:58,280 --> 00:17:00,320
Speaker 3: And I think that's a powerful argument that even a

302
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:02,520
Speaker 3: couple of the liberal justices, like Pseudo Mayor but very

303
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:04,399
Speaker 3: much picked up on that.

304
00:17:04,600 --> 00:17:05,960
Speaker 2: Right. There is Guy Ralford.

305
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:08,600
Speaker 1: He's known as the gun Guy, a Second Amendment attorney

306
00:17:08,760 --> 00:17:09,879
Speaker 1: Ralford R. E. L.

307
00:17:10,040 --> 00:17:12,000
Speaker 2: F O R. D. Ralford Law.

308
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:15,480
Speaker 1: Dot com is where you find him checking out for

309
00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:17,639
Speaker 1: yourself and founder of the two A project?

310
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:19,240
Speaker 2: Is that two A project? Dot org?

311
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:24,199
Speaker 3: It is dot com dot com? My mistake have project

312
00:17:24,240 --> 00:17:25,080
Speaker 3: dot com?

313
00:17:25,280 --> 00:17:28,720
Speaker 2: Just that easy guy, always a pleasure. More is coming

314
00:17:28,800 --> 00:17:30,960
Speaker 2: up on Tony Katz. This is Tony Kats Today