1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,240
Speaker 1: Speaking of pretty good cases, here's a guy who knows

2
00:00:02,320 --> 00:00:05,480
Speaker 1: one that Tim the lawyer Sander for Tim's the vice

3
00:00:05,480 --> 00:00:08,360
Speaker 1: president for litigation for the Goldwater Institute, longtime a friend

4
00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:10,720
Speaker 1: of the Armstrong and Getty Show, and one of the

5
00:00:10,720 --> 00:00:14,200
Speaker 1: great explainers of the complex that we've ever run into. Tim.

6
00:00:14,240 --> 00:00:16,919
Speaker 1: How are you, sir? I'm great? How are you guys good?

7
00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 1: Who do you like in the Bengals Rams matchup? I

8
00:00:20,079 --> 00:00:24,759
Speaker 1: heard there was some football game yesterday several you're you're famously,

9
00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:27,040
Speaker 1: for our listeners, not a sports fan, but you do.

10
00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 1: You do have the same sentiments about the Olympics that

11
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 1: it's crazy that it's happening. I know it's it's crazy,

12
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,200
Speaker 1: and it's it's immoral that that the United States would

13
00:00:36,360 --> 00:00:39,840
Speaker 1: would have anything to do with an institution that has

14
00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:45,440
Speaker 1: become a favorite playground for totalitarian dictatorships. Yeah, I would agree,

15
00:00:45,560 --> 00:00:49,280
Speaker 1: I would agree. So, uh, there was news last week

16
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:52,640
Speaker 1: about a significant Second Amendment decision. I will let you

17
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: lay it out because you can do it better than me. Um.

18
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:57,680
Speaker 1: And then if you're not a big fan of litigation,

19
00:00:57,880 --> 00:00:59,680
Speaker 1: you might be interested to hear that one of the

20
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: Joe just laid a verbal whooping down on on the

21
00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: court as a whole. At least that's the way I

22
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 1: read it. But Tim, what are the basics? First? Yeah,

23
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:09,520
Speaker 1: that's all right. That that was really spectacular. So this

24
00:01:09,600 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 1: is a case from California. It was decided by the

25
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:15,839
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the question of whether

26
00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:22,160
Speaker 1: the COVID shutdowns of guns stores violated the Second Amendment.

27
00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 1: So the Ventura count did, is there any other discussion that?

28
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:30,200
Speaker 1: And that is what the what the court said remarkably enough,

29
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:33,759
Speaker 1: So the Ventura County imposed these these shutdowns of various businesses,

30
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,760
Speaker 1: and if they were kind of discriminatory, they allowed, for example,

31
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:40,759
Speaker 1: bike stores to remain open shut down, but shut down

32
00:01:40,760 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 1: gun stores. Now, I'll add a footnote here to say

33
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:46,160
Speaker 1: that the Arizona constant or the Arizona law, is different

34
00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 1: from California, and this and that Arizona law expressly forbids

35
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:53,160
Speaker 1: the shutting down of a gun store under circumstances like this,

36
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:56,000
Speaker 1: because we take our our Second Amendment right very seriously

37
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:58,400
Speaker 1: in my home state, but in California they don't. And

38
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:02,200
Speaker 1: so the question that the court addressed was whether that

39
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: violated the Second Amendment. The court said yes, But what

40
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: was really remarkable was that one of the judges, Judge

41
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: Van Dyke, wrote a separate opinion where he said, look,

42
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:13,040
Speaker 1: I expect that I'm going to be overruled on this

43
00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 1: by my other fellow judges on the Ninth Circuit, and

44
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:18,680
Speaker 1: here's what they're going to say, and here's why it's wrong.

45
00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 1: And it's really quite quite a uh an angry sarcastic opinion.

46
00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:28,240
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, angry sarcasm. Now you're working my

47
00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:30,639
Speaker 1: side of the street. Can you give us some of

48
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 1: the basics of what he said to his brethren. So

49
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 1: what happens is when the when the Court of Appeals

50
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:38,720
Speaker 1: decides the case, it's three judges who hear an appeal

51
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:41,440
Speaker 1: and they decide that appeal, and then if you're one

52
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:43,360
Speaker 1: of if you lost that appeal, you can ask for

53
00:02:43,400 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 1: what they call on bank rehearing, which is where all

54
00:02:45,600 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 1: of the judges on the circuit will review the case

55
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:51,720
Speaker 1: and hear it all over again and correct the three

56
00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:53,640
Speaker 1: judge panel if they think they were wrong. And so

57
00:02:53,639 --> 00:02:55,959
Speaker 1: what Judge Van Dyke said is I expect that that's

58
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: what's going to happen to me because I've enforced the

59
00:02:58,760 --> 00:03:01,079
Speaker 1: Second Amendment and I know that my fellow judges in

60
00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:03,760
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit don't take the Second Amendment seriously. So

61
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:05,760
Speaker 1: I expect that they're going to overrule me, and here's

62
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: what they're going to say. And he wrote a fake

63
00:03:09,280 --> 00:03:12,960
Speaker 1: opinion that was like a draft of what he expects

64
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,919
Speaker 1: they will say when they overrule him. And the reason

65
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:18,639
Speaker 1: he did that was to show that the Ninth Circuits

66
00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:22,040
Speaker 1: precedent when it comes to the Second Amendment is so vague,

67
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,920
Speaker 1: so meaningless, so malleable, that it can basically come up

68
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:28,760
Speaker 1: with any conclusion you want, and so that the odds

69
00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:32,079
Speaker 1: are stacked against people who want to exercise their constitutional

70
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:34,440
Speaker 1: right to defend themselves. So he wrote this fake opinion.

71
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:35,800
Speaker 1: He said, here's what they're gonna say, and then he

72
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:38,600
Speaker 1: added footnotes in the opinion that says, so he you

73
00:03:38,600 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 1: know these we use these words as if they say

74
00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 1: means something, but they actually don't. We're just making this

75
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,480
Speaker 1: stuff up as we go along. And it's written in

76
00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 1: this very sarcastic tone that is quite refreshing for those

77
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:51,440
Speaker 1: of us who agree with him that the Ninth Circuit

78
00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:55,040
Speaker 1: does not take Second Amendment rights seriously. Well, my understanding

79
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:57,560
Speaker 1: of his blast was saying that the Ninth Circuit decides

80
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:01,720
Speaker 1: case by case. In this case, the Second Endment is okay.

81
00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:04,080
Speaker 1: In this case, I don't like it and it doesn't

82
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:07,360
Speaker 1: yield the result I would like. And so no, no,

83
00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:09,880
Speaker 1: you don't get the results in this case, treating it

84
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:12,080
Speaker 1: like it's not a constitutional right at all, but like

85
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:17,159
Speaker 1: watching football, it's a hobby. Yeah. So for here's a

86
00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:20,159
Speaker 1: good example. So he goes through in his fake opinion

87
00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:22,919
Speaker 1: that he expects his just his fellow judges to issue.

88
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 1: He lists, uh, the history of the we consult the

89
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:28,680
Speaker 1: history of the Amendment, and then he had a footnote.

90
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:31,080
Speaker 1: He says in the footnote, here's the deal. Whenever we

91
00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:34,040
Speaker 1: think the history helps us in upholding the challenge regulation

92
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:36,159
Speaker 1: of gun rights, we're happy to rely on it and

93
00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:38,159
Speaker 1: stuff one of our tests. But most of the time,

94
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:41,080
Speaker 1: either the history doesn't help us to uphold the gun regulation,

95
00:04:41,400 --> 00:04:43,479
Speaker 1: or it's indeterminate, or it's just hard to value it.

96
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:46,480
Speaker 1: So we usually skip over this step of our test

97
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:49,560
Speaker 1: by assuming that the regulation burden Second Amendment conduct. But

98
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,160
Speaker 1: that's okay, because the real beauty of our test is

99
00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:56,080
Speaker 1: it's amazing flexibility at the various stages in balancing the

100
00:04:56,120 --> 00:04:59,880
Speaker 1: government's asserted interests against the claimed impact on the Second Amendment. So,

101
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:02,479
Speaker 1: in other words, although we we often say that we

102
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 1: care about history, the reality is that we only use

103
00:05:05,360 --> 00:05:07,279
Speaker 1: the history when it allows us to take away your

104
00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:10,040
Speaker 1: gun rights, and then if not, we ignore it. Which

105
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 1: it's true. He's just not not usually supposed to say

106
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:16,080
Speaker 1: that in public, is the thing. How how long were

107
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:19,880
Speaker 1: the gun stores actually closed? It was a couple It

108
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:22,560
Speaker 1: was several weeks if I remember right, but I think

109
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 1: it was. That's incredible. Yeah, so during a time when

110
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:30,760
Speaker 1: we know that not only was COVID going on, but

111
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:35,279
Speaker 1: violent riots in major cities across the United States. Gosh,

112
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:38,839
Speaker 1: maybe people would want to have a firearm to defend themselves,

113
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:41,120
Speaker 1: but no, we can't allow that. Yeah, that we're talking

114
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: about that last week. That's what even makes it so

115
00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:47,799
Speaker 1: much more outlandishes at a time where crime is spiking

116
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:50,200
Speaker 1: and it's one of the top issues in America and

117
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:54,000
Speaker 1: the riots everywhere in your local target is being looted

118
00:05:54,600 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 1: coincident with the authorities making it clear we are not

119
00:05:57,560 --> 00:06:01,479
Speaker 1: going to intercede in this violence. Yeah, while defunding the police,

120
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:05,440
Speaker 1: they closed gun stores. That's amazing. And as the as

121
00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 1: the as the saying has it when the cops are

122
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:11,800
Speaker 1: minutes or when seconds count the cops are minutes away.

123
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 1: It's amazing a number of places in the country where uh,

124
00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:19,280
Speaker 1: you know, were either churches were closed violating the First

125
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:22,800
Speaker 1: Amendment or guns stores were closed violating the Second Amendment

126
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:25,800
Speaker 1: and overturned by courts. Eventually, I think in all the

127
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:30,320
Speaker 1: eat ice cream until you were in a coma. Yeah, right, yeah.

128
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:34,160
Speaker 1: For whatever reason. Tim Sandiford, the vice president for Litigation

129
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:36,360
Speaker 1: for the Goldwater Institute, is on the line. It's almost

130
00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:39,760
Speaker 1: hard to understand you because you're so hoarse from sharing

131
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:44,799
Speaker 1: your hometown rams to victory over the weekend. I I

132
00:06:44,839 --> 00:06:48,040
Speaker 1: was really excited, you know, I just can't sleep unless

133
00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:53,080
Speaker 1: I know what group through, what ball through what apparatus?

134
00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:56,760
Speaker 1: Well said, so, as long as we are honored with

135
00:06:56,800 --> 00:06:59,240
Speaker 1: your presence today, Tim's but what else are you guys

136
00:06:59,279 --> 00:07:01,479
Speaker 1: working on at the Goldwater Institute that might be of

137
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: interest to the peeps. We are waiting for the Supreme

138
00:07:05,120 --> 00:07:08,520
Speaker 1: Court to decide whether to take a major challenge to

139
00:07:08,560 --> 00:07:11,200
Speaker 1: the Indian Child Welfare Act. This is a law I've

140
00:07:11,200 --> 00:07:13,200
Speaker 1: talked on your show about a number of times, a

141
00:07:13,280 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 1: federal law that essentially bars states from protecting abused and

142
00:07:18,680 --> 00:07:22,640
Speaker 1: neglected children if those children are eligible for membership and

143
00:07:22,680 --> 00:07:25,400
Speaker 1: an Indian tribe. So a white or a black or

144
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:28,120
Speaker 1: a Hispanic child who is being abused or neglected, the

145
00:07:28,160 --> 00:07:30,880
Speaker 1: state can come in and rescue that child from the

146
00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:35,040
Speaker 1: abusive family. But if the child is biologically eligible for

147
00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: a membership in an Indian tribe, the state basically can't

148
00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:42,800
Speaker 1: do that, and federal law basically prohibits them from being

149
00:07:42,840 --> 00:07:47,480
Speaker 1: adopted by adults of other races. It's a really scandalous

150
00:07:47,520 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: and disgraceful law that imposes literal separate, separate, but equal

151
00:07:51,960 --> 00:07:54,520
Speaker 1: on really these on Indian children, who are the most

152
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:57,440
Speaker 1: at risk demographic in the United States. So the Supreme

153
00:07:57,480 --> 00:07:59,960
Speaker 1: Court has been asked to take up whether that's concert

154
00:08:00,040 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 1: tuitional or not, and they keep postponing that decision. So

155
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:06,120
Speaker 1: I was hoping that this morning they would announce whether

156
00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:07,840
Speaker 1: they were going to hear that case, and it turns

157
00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 1: out will have to wait at least another week. But

158
00:08:09,640 --> 00:08:11,720
Speaker 1: so that's what we're really keeping an eye on. Yeah,

159
00:08:11,760 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 1: that's a good one, and keep us updated on that.

160
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:15,920
Speaker 1: Is it a big deal that the Supreme Court announced

161
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:18,400
Speaker 1: today that they're going to take up the case on

162
00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: racial preferences for universities and and will that get into

163
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: the whole affirmative action thing in general. Absolutely, that is

164
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:28,679
Speaker 1: a huge deal. Uh. You know the that's the lawsuit

165
00:08:28,720 --> 00:08:31,960
Speaker 1: against Harvard which has been excluding Asians in order to

166
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:35,040
Speaker 1: promote other races. And that case has been you know,

167
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:37,320
Speaker 1: rejected by the lower courts. But I think the Supreme

168
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:39,160
Speaker 1: Court is going to take that a lot more seriously.

169
00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:41,959
Speaker 1: Another case that was that the Supreme Court announced today

170
00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:44,560
Speaker 1: that it will take is a case that's being litigated

171
00:08:44,559 --> 00:08:47,280
Speaker 1: by our friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is

172
00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:50,400
Speaker 1: called sack At versus Environmental Protection Agency. Now what's really

173
00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: amazing is this case is more than a decade old.

174
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:56,400
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has already decided one aspect of this

175
00:08:56,440 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: case ten years ago, and now it's back again. And

176
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:04,360
Speaker 1: this case involves the federal government's authority to regulate what

177
00:09:04,360 --> 00:09:07,199
Speaker 1: they call wetlands. That's the Clean Water Act, which allows

178
00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 1: the federal government to regulate not just water, but land

179
00:09:11,080 --> 00:09:14,840
Speaker 1: that occasionally gets wet. And in this case, these property

180
00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 1: owners try to build a house on perfectly dry land

181
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,560
Speaker 1: that the federal government said was a wet land and

182
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:22,680
Speaker 1: the first time around, they just wanted to get a

183
00:09:22,760 --> 00:09:24,840
Speaker 1: hearing in court. The Supreme Court said, yes, you get

184
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 1: us hearing in court. And now they're back again at

185
00:09:27,760 --> 00:09:30,880
Speaker 1: the conclusion of that hearing to ask whether what limits

186
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:34,160
Speaker 1: are there on the federal government's power to regulate land

187
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:37,600
Speaker 1: that it claims is a wet land. Yeah, I know

188
00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:40,079
Speaker 1: that that. I remember that case vividly, and some of

189
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:42,320
Speaker 1: the particulars of it were enough to make you insane.

190
00:09:42,679 --> 00:09:45,680
Speaker 1: These poor people, it's a it's a lot in a

191
00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:49,480
Speaker 1: subdivision erroneously described as a wet land, and they just

192
00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:51,360
Speaker 1: there was nobody to talk to too, so they just

193
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:55,760
Speaker 1: kept finding them and finding them. And federal federal power

194
00:09:55,920 --> 00:09:59,520
Speaker 1: under federal environmental laws people think of it as like

195
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:02,679
Speaker 1: protect the animals and Bambi and and all that sort

196
00:10:02,679 --> 00:10:05,440
Speaker 1: of thing. But what federal power under the environment laws

197
00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:10,200
Speaker 1: really is is basically federal zoning. It basically allows federal

198
00:10:10,240 --> 00:10:13,800
Speaker 1: bureaucrats in Washington, d C. To decide what gets built

199
00:10:13,880 --> 00:10:16,240
Speaker 1: in what neighborhood win, as long as they can come

200
00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:20,040
Speaker 1: up with some vague notion of federal authority. And their

201
00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:22,439
Speaker 1: vague notion is, well, this land is a wetland. What

202
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:25,640
Speaker 1: is a wetland, it's basically whatever the federal government says

203
00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:27,920
Speaker 1: it is. Or when it comes to the environment, the

204
00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:32,080
Speaker 1: Endangered Species Act. If there's an endangered bug or an

205
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:36,120
Speaker 1: endangered fern on your property, now it falls under federal authority,

206
00:10:36,120 --> 00:10:39,520
Speaker 1: and federal bureaucrats get to decide basically at will what

207
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:41,720
Speaker 1: you are and aren't allowed to do with that property.

208
00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:45,080
Speaker 1: It's something the Constitution does not contemplate at all. And

209
00:10:45,160 --> 00:10:47,640
Speaker 1: yet that's basically the law that we live under today.

210
00:10:49,040 --> 00:10:51,679
Speaker 1: General question, and if you want to take a pass

211
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:52,920
Speaker 1: on it, you gan because I don't want to get

212
00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:55,280
Speaker 1: you any sort of trouble. But now take a pass.

213
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:59,640
Speaker 1: That's a football reference, right, throw one you don't take.

214
00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:06,240
Speaker 1: But yeah, you have expressed that the only thing, the

215
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:10,120
Speaker 1: only thing that bothers you at all about the fact

216
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:12,000
Speaker 1: that you don't follow sports at all, as you miss

217
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:14,480
Speaker 1: out on some references that are regularly used, you know,

218
00:11:14,559 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 1: in court for instance, which so again I'm trying to

219
00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:19,560
Speaker 1: remember the name and it's out of my head right now.

220
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:23,440
Speaker 1: A libertarian guy with Kato I think, wrote a column

221
00:11:23,520 --> 00:11:26,800
Speaker 1: recently on how originally, even as a libertarian, he thought

222
00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:29,000
Speaker 1: the government was fine getting involved in all kinds of

223
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:32,520
Speaker 1: things that he usually didn't like because the unique circumstance

224
00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 1: of the COVID pandemic. But in retrospect he looks back

225
00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:38,800
Speaker 1: on it and thinks, now, we'd have been better off

226
00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:41,760
Speaker 1: if they hadn't in the long run. Where are you

227
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:43,160
Speaker 1: on it? Because I know in the beginning you were.

228
00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:44,959
Speaker 1: You are also making the argument as a guy who

229
00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:46,920
Speaker 1: doesn't like a lot of government control. But this is

230
00:11:46,920 --> 00:11:51,199
Speaker 1: a unique situation. Do you think maybe where we've ended up?

231
00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,439
Speaker 1: Do you feel any differently now? I have? I don't,

232
00:11:55,480 --> 00:11:58,200
Speaker 1: but remember that that I have a different situation than

233
00:11:58,320 --> 00:11:59,959
Speaker 1: a lot of people because I live in Arizona. We

234
00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:02,600
Speaker 1: didn't have a big statewide shutdown in Arizona like a

235
00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:05,200
Speaker 1: lot of other states did. I thought shutdowns were a

236
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:08,400
Speaker 1: bad idea to begin with. But other kinds of regulations,

237
00:12:08,679 --> 00:12:12,120
Speaker 1: you know, uh, for example, if employers want to require

238
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: their employees to be vaccinate, there was something like that.

239
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:17,400
Speaker 1: That's perfect consistent with libertarian principles, nothing wrong with that.

240
00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:20,320
Speaker 1: So it depends on what kind of restriction or regulation

241
00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:23,320
Speaker 1: you're talking about. I think, for the most part, typically

242
00:12:23,360 --> 00:12:27,320
Speaker 1: the government has a role in in setting basic safety standards,

243
00:12:27,360 --> 00:12:30,040
Speaker 1: and if that means requiring greater safety standards in the

244
00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:33,720
Speaker 1: time of pandemic than otherwise. I'm okay with that in principle.

245
00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:36,520
Speaker 1: Whether they actually work or not is a different question,

246
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:38,680
Speaker 1: and the answer is problems. What about the businesses can't

247
00:12:38,720 --> 00:12:40,760
Speaker 1: be closed down? I know it didn't do in Arizona,

248
00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:43,439
Speaker 1: but it just seems in retrospect now you know, people

249
00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:45,120
Speaker 1: would have made the decision on their own to not

250
00:12:45,200 --> 00:12:47,840
Speaker 1: go to the to the barbershop, and maybe the barbershop

251
00:12:47,840 --> 00:12:49,920
Speaker 1: would have closed down because they didn't have enough business

252
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:51,760
Speaker 1: to stay open. But that seems like a better way

253
00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:54,120
Speaker 1: that that's true. We know that's true because in a

254
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 1: lot of places when the when the shutdowns were lifted,

255
00:12:56,960 --> 00:12:59,680
Speaker 1: the businesses did not go back to full People still

256
00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:01,760
Speaker 1: didn't come to the businesses because a lot of people

257
00:13:01,760 --> 00:13:04,400
Speaker 1: worth choosing on their own to stay home rather than

258
00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:07,040
Speaker 1: go to the business. And that's perfectly legitimate, and the

259
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 1: businesses then have a pressure to come up with safer

260
00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:12,320
Speaker 1: ways to operate, which is how the market ought to work.

261
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:14,320
Speaker 1: So in the long run, yes, I don't think that

262
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,520
Speaker 1: those kinds of government interference were very effective, and they

263
00:13:18,640 --> 00:13:23,720
Speaker 1: probably transgressed libertarian principle to innovate, not regulate. Final thought

264
00:13:23,720 --> 00:13:25,680
Speaker 1: for me, very briefly, Tim, someday we ought to have

265
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:30,440
Speaker 1: a talk about how, you know, the realities of an

266
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,640
Speaker 1: equity society where the government picks winners and losers, assigns

267
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 1: rights based on historical wrongs, the rest of it. What

268
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:38,480
Speaker 1: that would actually look at it that look like at

269
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:40,840
Speaker 1: the legislative level, the lobbyist level. That's sort of thing,

270
00:13:40,840 --> 00:13:43,079
Speaker 1: But we're totally out of time. Tim Sander for Vice

271
00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:46,200
Speaker 1: President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute. Tim, thanks a million, Always

272
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:48,800
Speaker 1: a pleasure. Thanks guys, we got more on the way

273
00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:50,360
Speaker 1: to stay with this text line four one five to

274
00:13:50,559 --> 00:13:51,440
Speaker 1: nine five KFTC