Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: This is a deeply disturbing day. The President, myself, many
Speaker 1: of us are deeply concerned and trouble die. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's ruling cannot allow New York to become Wow Wow West.
Speaker 1: On this vote, the yeas are sixty five the May's
Speaker 1: or thirty four. Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and Perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top name. This idea that they don't have
Speaker 1: oil to drew simply not true. Is urging oil companies
Speaker 1: to use their profits to increase output. Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The Supreme Court strikes
Speaker 1: down the New York gun control law. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics. As the High Court rules even
Speaker 1: as the US Senate prepares to pass the first gun
Speaker 1: safety law in decades, and as the White House today
Speaker 1: meets with big oil executives to ask for more production.
Speaker 1: We focus this hour on gas and guns and will
Speaker 1: be joined by Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, ranking member
Speaker 1: of the House Ways and Means Committee, as well by
Speaker 1: Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, one of the fourteen Republicans
Speaker 1: who have endorsed the gun bill. Analysis from our signature
Speaker 1: panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Chanzano and Rick Davis will
Speaker 1: be with us for the hour and we have twin
Speaker 1: leads today. Thanks for joining us to lead stories that
Speaker 1: will be discussing in a moment with Congressman Kevin Brady.
Speaker 1: The first a six three ruling by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: that broke the middle of the day on New York's law,
Speaker 1: New York's gun law that limited who could carry a
Speaker 1: handgun in public. Here, New York was one of at
Speaker 1: least six states, as you've been hearing on Bloomberg, California, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii with laws that prevented most
Speaker 1: people from legally carrying a handgun. So this could have
Speaker 1: sweeping effects on those states that I just mentioned. We
Speaker 1: just got reaction from President Biden, who was attending another
Speaker 1: event and at the White House asked about this. Gun
Speaker 1: laws in forty these states are still in place based
Speaker 1: on the decision. Not good enough, but it's I think
Speaker 1: it's a bad decision. I think it's and I think
Speaker 1: it's not reasoning accurately. But I'm disappointed, disappointed as deeply disappointed,
Speaker 1: were the words in the formal White House statement earlier,
Speaker 1: President Biden writing that it contradicts both common sense and
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and he's urging states to continue to enact
Speaker 1: laws that he says will make their citizens and communities
Speaker 1: safer for gun violence. This comes on the same day
Speaker 1: the White House met with the heads of the big
Speaker 1: oil companies. And this is where we begin with Congressman
Speaker 1: Kevin Brady of Texas, of course, ranking member on the
Speaker 1: House Ways and Means Committee. It's great to have you back, Congressman,
Speaker 1: if we can pick through these one at a time.
Speaker 1: In terms of the Supreme Court ruling, first of all,
Speaker 1: do you agree with that ruling? And what do you
Speaker 1: see happening in terms of a legislative answer if there
Speaker 1: is one. Yeah, Jill, thank you, thanks for having me
Speaker 1: of being on so you know, first, I do think
Speaker 1: it was the correct um decision. UM. Clearly second Amendment
Speaker 1: does UM apply and is available for those who want
Speaker 1: to carry a weapon self defense outside their home. I
Speaker 1: think that makes sense. But let me give you my experience.
Speaker 1: So Texas has had a concealed weapon um law for
Speaker 1: more than a court of a century, more than a
Speaker 1: million people have have gone through the courses and do
Speaker 1: carry concealed weapons. You know, the concerns. The truth of
Speaker 1: matter is, um, isn't that ability to arm yourself has
Speaker 1: been key in stopping a number of shootings uh in
Speaker 1: in our state, UH and for self defense. UH. All
Speaker 1: the concerns that were raised about there being you know,
Speaker 1: rage type shootings or abuse of just never has never
Speaker 1: occurred in a quarter of a century uh in our state.
Speaker 1: UH to that point. And so you know, I think
Speaker 1: the President's uh concerned that this is dangerous or Recklessit
Speaker 1: just in real life in real states where h this
Speaker 1: has been around for an awfully long time. You know,
Speaker 1: none of those concerns have occurred. Well, I know there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of worries about increased crime rates and
Speaker 1: particularly gun violence in our cities. And when you look
Speaker 1: at the states that are at issue here California at
Speaker 1: l A and San Francisco, Massachusetts, You've got Boston, Newark,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, think of Baltimore, Maryland. They could all be
Speaker 1: in that that scene. Group, do you have faith that
Speaker 1: those cities will remain secure if that happened? If not
Speaker 1: more secure? I I don't understand the correlation, and we
Speaker 1: haven't seen. For example, um, of the eight most deadly
Speaker 1: cities in America the last two years, seven of those
Speaker 1: cities are in those modeled gun control states New York, California, Maryland, Illinois,
Speaker 1: and others. Only one, Houston is out side that. We've
Speaker 1: seen a major increase in crime. We think part of
Speaker 1: it time to our to our proximity to the border
Speaker 1: here the last two years. So no, I I don't
Speaker 1: think there are concerns to be raised, frankly in those cities.
Speaker 1: People who get a concealed carry license, who do the training, uh,
Speaker 1: go through the legal process. Uh, they're not the ones
Speaker 1: committing crimes. We have many of those guns are coming
Speaker 1: in illegally, of course, and we still haven't gotten to that, Congressman,
Speaker 1: how do you do it? Well, So run that by
Speaker 1: them again, not for those who have concealed carry weapons
Speaker 1: or you don't have to have a weapon. You know,
Speaker 1: the majority of them when they start the training for
Speaker 1: the lesson, for the for the license itself, tend to
Speaker 1: have their own things. So those aren't Those are not
Speaker 1: bought illegally and you're going through a process. So it's uh, no,
Speaker 1: I just mean in terms of the amount of illegal
Speaker 1: guns that are used in uh in crimes in cities. Uh,
Speaker 1: we never we never quite get there with whether it's
Speaker 1: this bill that's going through the Senate right now, that
Speaker 1: wouldn't be well to get to it. And obviously, uh,
Speaker 1: well this Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant because he who
Speaker 1: guns are already on the street. Yeah. Well, one thing
Speaker 1: we do know, I think nationwide is that unfortunately, gun
Speaker 1: laws you know, tend to affect. Gun control laws tend
Speaker 1: to affect those who are eligible and in law abiding.
Speaker 1: The criminals tend to ignore all of that. I do
Speaker 1: think when I look at the gun control bill coming
Speaker 1: out the Senate, what I think is is helpful is
Speaker 1: the money for mental health in crisis innovation intervention, if
Speaker 1: it is used properly. In Joe, we are the things
Speaker 1: being kind of rushed, so we're you know, spending a
Speaker 1: lot of time figuring out what will that help? I
Speaker 1: hope it does. Secondly, I think hardening the schools makes
Speaker 1: good sense. And uh, third, I think, uh, opping the
Speaker 1: penalties on those who straw purchase, who are buying specifically
Speaker 1: to give to someone you know who is ineligible normally
Speaker 1: criminals there you know, I really think that is that
Speaker 1: is very helpful. So would you vote for it in
Speaker 1: the House if it was a similar version? No, the
Speaker 1: red uh. I think the red flag laws. One, they're
Speaker 1: unconstitutional uh and and will be litigating the course forever. Two.
Speaker 1: I didn't notice that of those seven of the eight
Speaker 1: uh most violent cities in America, most of them are
Speaker 1: states with red drawn laws. So it's not curtailing either
Speaker 1: or violence or mass shootings in those states. Well, so
Speaker 1: you're a no vote. Congressman Brady. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about the oil picture today as well. This is
Speaker 1: normally where we begin our conversation, uh and, and it's
Speaker 1: just been one of those days. Today. You've got the
Speaker 1: CEOs of exx On, Chevron, bp On down, all the
Speaker 1: seven top refiners at the White House today, not with
Speaker 1: President Biden but with Secretary Granholm. We just got a
Speaker 1: little bit of a readout of from the Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Karine Jean Pierre on exactly what was discussed in the
Speaker 1: room is an ongoing dialogue. I think you've heard some
Speaker 1: of you may have heard from the oil companies themselves
Speaker 1: are saying it was productive and so what what Secretary
Speaker 1: Granholm has called on is for her team to continue
Speaker 1: having conversations with the oil companies. It doesn't sound like
Speaker 1: there was much of a conclusion. We did hear from
Speaker 1: the CEO of Chevron congressman who also did say that
Speaker 1: it was a productive meeting, but nobody is getting exactly
Speaker 1: what they want here. What does the White House need
Speaker 1: to do to help these companies increase production? Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: I you know, I think most people's takes on that
Speaker 1: this was just a show pony type of of meeting
Speaker 1: arranged by administration that's playing both sides of the fans
Speaker 1: has been condemning and trying to kill these jobs and
Speaker 1: oil and gas in the US, but but also working
Speaker 1: with the Climate Change UM leaders outing the fact that
Speaker 1: they are going after these industries and these jobs. So,
Speaker 1: I don't know it has credibility on the fuel price
Speaker 1: or production area. I do know this, UH. The one
Speaker 1: country right now that is UH benefiting the most is Russia,
Speaker 1: whose production now has increased dramatically, telling more now than
Speaker 1: they did before the their war on UKRAINI. It's frustrating
Speaker 1: because they just feel like in Texas, we feel like
Speaker 1: we can do more on traditional oil and gas uh
Speaker 1: here in America. But it just seems like we're stymied
Speaker 1: between cancering the leases onshore and offshore, pausing the permitting
Speaker 1: for this. The Biden White House makes it awfully tough
Speaker 1: to produce more here in America. Congress Been Kevin Brady,
Speaker 1: Republican from Texas, the ranking member of the House Ways
Speaker 1: and Means Committee, thanks for being with us. There's always
Speaker 1: it's always a pleasure. We're gonna be speaking next with
Speaker 1: Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, who again is one
Speaker 1: of the more than a dozen Republican members of the
Speaker 1: Senate who actually signed on to that bill, which today
Speaker 1: moved forward in the Chamber. On this vote, the yeas
Speaker 1: are the days or thirty four three fifths of the
Speaker 1: Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative,
Speaker 1: the motion is agreed to culture having been invoked, the
Speaker 1: motion to refer the amendments there to fail, and so
Speaker 1: it moves on to a final vote. Next. As we
Speaker 1: assemble our panel Blueberg Politics contributors Jeanie Schanzano and Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: I just want to hear from both of you quickly
Speaker 1: on this, and we'll start Genie with you on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruling happening at the same time as this
Speaker 1: vote in the Senate. There's something about two Americas here.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can write the column though. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: and I think big questions obviously remained. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has decided that Second Amendment has been a second class
Speaker 1: right and citizen for too long. Now they're moving it
Speaker 1: and they want it to be a first class right.
Speaker 1: But of course that raises many questions as to what
Speaker 1: is going to be allowed in terms of regulation and
Speaker 1: what's not and that is left to come. And the
Speaker 1: Senate is working on this bill. It's going to be
Speaker 1: ensure there is litigation for years to come on this
Speaker 1: question of break elation of this right with this conservative court. Yeah, Rick,
Speaker 1: your thought on this. The President is encouraging states to
Speaker 1: start enacting laws u now to mitigate the impacts of
Speaker 1: of this ruling by the Supreme Court. Is that going
Speaker 1: to unleash kind of a new movement in blue states
Speaker 1: or or have that? Has that already happened, They've already
Speaker 1: gotten ahead of This is the rest of the country
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Yeah. I think Congressman Brady uh painted
Speaker 1: the right picture, which is in states that can pass
Speaker 1: these kinds of laws that limit concealing carry. Um, they
Speaker 1: have already done so, right and and but the vast
Speaker 1: majority of states have have have pasted laws that allow
Speaker 1: that and have some kind of regulatory regime around it.
Speaker 1: So so it's not like this hasn't been a debate
Speaker 1: going on for some time. In fact, some of these
Speaker 1: laws or twenty years old. As he pointed out, they've
Speaker 1: had concealed carry in Texas for twenty five years. So
Speaker 1: so for the President go out and say, wow, let's
Speaker 1: unleash of a flurry of regulation around this, well, that's
Speaker 1: what these states have been doing. And and part of
Speaker 1: actually why the Supreme Court took up this case is
Speaker 1: because you have a patchwork quill of laws around this
Speaker 1: one issue. Regardless of whether you like it or not,
Speaker 1: it has created a lot of confusion within the community
Speaker 1: around what is the law, and courts are choked with
Speaker 1: these kinds of appeals that will now lessen because the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has made a decision. We heard from New
Speaker 1: York Governor Cathy Hokel on this today. I'm prepared to
Speaker 1: call the legislature back in a session to deal with this.
Speaker 1: We've been in contact with the leadership. We're just looking
Speaker 1: at dates. Everyone wants a little bit of time to digestice.
Speaker 1: We know as well. She spoke with the President today, Jeanie.
Speaker 1: He said so when he was talking with reporters, he
Speaker 1: had just spoken with the governor of New York earlier.
Speaker 1: What's the next step in that state? Specifically, specifically in
Speaker 1: New York, they are going to come back into session,
Speaker 1: I believe, and they are going to try to rewrite
Speaker 1: this law so it meets the Supreme Courts requirement, which
Speaker 1: is that they impose objective criteria. Right now, in my state,
Speaker 1: we have subjective requirements, which means an individual decides whether
Speaker 1: you meet it or not. Objective criteria, according to at
Speaker 1: least Thomas, is the letter of what he wrote, are
Speaker 1: are going to be allowed. And that's what I think
Speaker 1: New York is going to try to meet in this
Speaker 1: next go around. Jennie Chantano and Rick Davis our signature
Speaker 1: panel with us for the hour, and we'll be back
Speaker 1: to speak with them about the gas component of our
Speaker 1: Gas and Guns Hour. But what we're gonna do next
Speaker 1: is bring you inside the Senate here in a special
Speaker 1: conversation that I had today with Senator Rob Portman, Republican
Speaker 1: from Ohio, who again back the gun bill. We had
Speaker 1: just learned at this point when we were speaking about
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruling, and I began by asking him
Speaker 1: if this ruling could impact the text, the language of
Speaker 1: the bill itself, or the outcome in the vote. You know,
Speaker 1: I've just briefly looked at the Supreme Court decision, but
Speaker 1: I don't think it has any bearing at all on
Speaker 1: the legislation. Uh. The Supreme Court focused on the fact
Speaker 1: that the New York law did not have the proper
Speaker 1: protections because it required uh cause in order to to
Speaker 1: to get a license to to have concealed carry. We
Speaker 1: don't get into those issues at all. Our bills focused
Speaker 1: only on three things. One is the mental health issue,
Speaker 1: which I think everybody agrees now is something that needs
Speaker 1: to be addressed by the way I believe it needed
Speaker 1: to be addressed, whether we're doing this in the context
Speaker 1: of a gun safety bill or not. It's a substantial
Speaker 1: part of the bill, it's the majority of the funding.
Speaker 1: It's about the fact that there are people, including this
Speaker 1: young man who committed these horrific acts and Texas who
Speaker 1: are mentally ill need treatment. And somehow they're able to
Speaker 1: get weapons and they shouldn't be able to. So it's
Speaker 1: it's providing more access to mental health and also make
Speaker 1: sure those mental health records are in the national background system.
Speaker 1: And then second, school safety, which I think again parents
Speaker 1: all over the country agree with we need a part
Speaker 1: in our schools and protect our kids. And then third,
Speaker 1: there are some very specific things that relate to the
Speaker 1: kinds of problems we've seen in relationship to these mass shootings.
Speaker 1: One would be maturing that people's records who are between
Speaker 1: eight and twenty one years old are actually provided to
Speaker 1: the background system, and of course they should be. These
Speaker 1: are records of prim all activity, records of mental health history.
Speaker 1: Right now, many of these records are not being provided.
Speaker 1: They're sealed or even expunge. They need to be provided
Speaker 1: specifically to the system. So that those are the main
Speaker 1: parts with the bill. There is no new red flag
Speaker 1: at the national level that's been misinterpreted by some are
Speaker 1: you find that some of your Republican colleagues, though, are
Speaker 1: either no votes or skeptical because of the language in
Speaker 1: the in the red flag component. I know you spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time on due process. What would you
Speaker 1: tell them about their concerns before they in some respects
Speaker 1: working with some of the groups that support the right
Speaker 1: of people, you know, to be able to bear arms.
Speaker 1: There is more protection now because you do have this
Speaker 1: due process in place for state psych Ohio, but we
Speaker 1: do not have a red flag law. Just does not
Speaker 1: create a red flag law. There's no federal red flag law.
Speaker 1: It would give Ohio the ability to access more funding
Speaker 1: for things like drug courts, for other interventions, things like
Speaker 1: Veterans Court, um. But if they did that provided that, uh,
Speaker 1: if they got the funding for that, then they would
Speaker 1: have to ensure that there were due process rights in
Speaker 1: place even for those programs. So it's not a new
Speaker 1: red flag law at the federal level. That's that's something
Speaker 1: that people have incorrectly said about the legislation. But it
Speaker 1: does help in terms of this mental health issue. And
Speaker 1: I think that's probably the biggest impact this is going
Speaker 1: to have on because like, you're one of fourteen Republicans
Speaker 1: supporting the bill at this point. Could that number be higher?
Speaker 1: And when is this done tomorrow? I think I'd be
Speaker 1: done tonight or tomorrow and the number will be higher
Speaker 1: than four. Team. We don't know how much higher. Um.
Speaker 1: But there's one person who is absent who expressed his
Speaker 1: support for the legislation and has worked with Senator Corner
Speaker 1: and Senator Tillis on it all along the way, and
Speaker 1: then there are a couple other members who are are
Speaker 1: considering supporting. So, um, we'll see. But look, it's it's
Speaker 1: important to do something, and I think that is part
Speaker 1: of what this process has been about, is to show
Speaker 1: the American people that these horrific acts of violence that
Speaker 1: we saw in the places like Texas or Buffalo, that
Speaker 1: we have some some response. And again it changes in
Speaker 1: mental health access through these community health centers, I think
Speaker 1: may and then be the most significant part of the legislation.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this bill, assuming it becomes a law,
Speaker 1: could have prevented Vivaldi or Buffalo? Possibly? Yeah, yeah, through
Speaker 1: the background checks, through the background checks, and through identifying
Speaker 1: this individual through his mental health history. Coasts a suicide
Speaker 1: and by the way, the vast majority more of them
Speaker 1: are the mass shootings, So they are both a horrific
Speaker 1: mass shooting of in this case kids and teachers, but
Speaker 1: also they're suicides. This young man absolutely intended to be
Speaker 1: killed in this process, and that was part of why
Speaker 1: he did this, according to what we know, but that
Speaker 1: would be typical of all these other mass shootings. So
Speaker 1: people sometimes ask me back home, what's the mental health
Speaker 1: component here? Well, it's it's clear to me these are
Speaker 1: people who are in effect committing suicide um and taking
Speaker 1: other people with them. It's not a department. I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about reports that Intel is reportedly telling
Speaker 1: some lawmakers that it's going to delay the groundbreaking for
Speaker 1: this massive computer chip plant that it's planning to put
Speaker 1: in in Ohio. I'm wondering if you've got a heads
Speaker 1: up on this and if you're concerned they're pointing to
Speaker 1: the delay and passing the chip backed as part of
Speaker 1: the bipartisan innovation law that just seems to be grinding forever.
Speaker 1: I did get it heads up, and of course I'm disappointed,
Speaker 1: because I'm really excited about this commitment to Ohio. It
Speaker 1: would be the largest economic development project in our Faith
Speaker 1: States history, and as important, it's about the future, because
Speaker 1: semi conductor production is about the future economy, and it's
Speaker 1: critical to our national security to have the ability to
Speaker 1: reshore some of that infrastructure UM for making chips back
Speaker 1: to America. We designed these semiconductors. Originally, we used to have,
Speaker 1: you know, forty years ago, thirty seven percent of the
Speaker 1: production here in America, and now we're down to twelve.
Speaker 1: And if this legislation as I've passed, I believe we'll
Speaker 1: be down to single digits before long. I didn't realize
Speaker 1: this project this campus though hinged on the chip backed.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a commitment that Intel made or
Speaker 1: you can certainly pull out altogether. No, I think from
Speaker 1: what I've heard that they plan to move forward. The
Speaker 1: question is timing um and they have other countries around
Speaker 1: the world that are offering them, you know, huge incentives
Speaker 1: to build fabs in their countries. And that's because other
Speaker 1: countries in Europe and in Asia in particular, understand that
Speaker 1: this is part of the future. It's sort of like,
Speaker 1: you know, the countries that had the oil in the
Speaker 1: ground benefited a lot over the last several decades. Countries
Speaker 1: that have semiconduction production will benefit a lot going forward.
Speaker 1: You see in places like Ohio UH trucks or cars
Speaker 1: you know, parked at UH large parking lots in a
Speaker 1: raceway northern Kentucky as an example, I saw recently as
Speaker 1: I flew into our airport in Cincinnati and they're just
Speaker 1: waiting for semi conductors. I mean, so this is an example.
Speaker 1: If you've got a car on order, probably you're waiting,
Speaker 1: and probably it's because the semiconductors. The supply chain is
Speaker 1: being constrained. Uh. That's it's it's an enormous problem for
Speaker 1: us right now. What our senators serious about getting this done?
Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah. I've had lots of conversations even
Speaker 1: today about it, UM, and my hope is that we
Speaker 1: will make all the big decisions even before we go
Speaker 1: out on breaking here today or tomorrow, and then over
Speaker 1: the next two weeks, you know, finalize some of those
Speaker 1: decisions so we can put the bill to a vote
Speaker 1: when we get back. It's certainly is important to UM
Speaker 1: to move forward because of the competitive issue with our
Speaker 1: Asian competitors and our European competitors. UM. That's also very
Speaker 1: important to my home state of Ohio. It's going to
Speaker 1: create not just thousands of great paying jobs eventually, but
Speaker 1: immediately thousands of construction jobs. Other companies will come in
Speaker 1: as suppliers, which will create more and more opportunity. These
Speaker 1: are good, high paying jobs, so it's important we get
Speaker 1: this done. Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, speaking with
Speaker 1: us a little bit earlier today on Capitol Hill, we
Speaker 1: covered a lot of ground there. I want to get
Speaker 1: back to where we began, though, and that is with
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruling on guns and of course the
Speaker 1: gun legislation that is moving through the Senate. You just
Speaker 1: heard from a Republican on this. Of course, this is
Speaker 1: Rob Portman, uh, and his positions are not necessarily shared
Speaker 1: by the entire Republican caucus, as he is one of
Speaker 1: the fourteen GOP members supporting this gun safety law. We're
Speaker 1: joined right now. This hour is really becoming, uh, quite
Speaker 1: a conversation here as we're joined by Senator John Ausof,
Speaker 1: Democrat from Georgia, who has very strong feelings about all
Speaker 1: of this. Senator, welcome back to Bloomberg. It's great to
Speaker 1: have you. Were normally asking you about the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: which was of course part of your day yesterday talking
Speaker 1: to j. Powell. But this ruling today is significant on
Speaker 1: many levels. The White House says it's disappointed. President Biden
Speaker 1: is urging states to get things moving on the legislative
Speaker 1: level to mitigate the impact of this and a lot
Speaker 1: of Republicans, like we heard from earlier Kevin Brady, the
Speaker 1: congressman from Texas, say this is a good thing. What's
Speaker 1: your reaction to the Supreme Court today, Joe, thank you
Speaker 1: for having me in. Good afternoon. I'm still reviewing the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's ruling in full. Uh. Not yet in a
Speaker 1: position to comment on their decision, having not been through
Speaker 1: it in detail. I do want to discuss, however, the
Speaker 1: action that the Senate's poised to take with bipartisans support
Speaker 1: as early as this evening. Does this have any impact
Speaker 1: on it significant? Well, I think it's quite significant that
Speaker 1: the Senate is going to take action and bipartisan action
Speaker 1: to advance gun safety legislation for the first time in decades.
Speaker 1: Um and uh, that we're poised to have significant Republican
Speaker 1: as well as Democratic support for legislation that is aimed
Speaker 1: at making it more difficult for those who pose a
Speaker 1: threat to their family members, their loved ones, their domestic partners,
Speaker 1: and two children in our community who are seeking access
Speaker 1: to firearms. Uh and UH. I want to commend Senator
Speaker 1: Murphy of Connecticut, Senator Cornin of Texas, and the bipartisan
Speaker 1: negotiators who brought this over the finish line for their
Speaker 1: tireless efforts to that end. What do you tell Republican
Speaker 1: members UH Senator who are concerned about due process? They say,
Speaker 1: the red flag component of this law is the problem.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's not a federal red flag law. It's
Speaker 1: incentivizing states to start their own. But what would you
Speaker 1: tell them to assuage their concerns about what's in the language. Well,
Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons that there is such
Speaker 1: broad bipartisans support for this language is that it is
Speaker 1: supportive of state efforts to implement red flag laws where
Speaker 1: states see fit to implement them, and that provision, as
Speaker 1: well as the provisions that slow down the process when
Speaker 1: an eighteen to twenty one year old, for example, seeks
Speaker 1: to purchase some automatic rifle, are intended to reduce risk,
Speaker 1: imminent risk to family members, to domestic partners, to schools
Speaker 1: and two children. When those who intend to do harm
Speaker 1: or are suffering from acute mental illness seek access to
Speaker 1: a firearm, potentially to um embark upon one of these
Speaker 1: horrific UH spree killings that we see all to open
Speaker 1: in our society. Do you worry that this Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision today could could make more of a challenge for
Speaker 1: law enforcement, make more gun violence in our cities. When
Speaker 1: you look at the states that have similar laws, it
Speaker 1: means l A. San Francisco, Boston, New Work and so forth, Baltimore. Senator,
Speaker 1: there are concerns by mayors in those cities that this
Speaker 1: could and in the words of Eric Adams, create a
Speaker 1: wild wild West kind of situation. Well, look, one of
Speaker 1: the things that I hear consistently across the state of
Speaker 1: Georgia is strong support from law enforcement for common sense
Speaker 1: gun safety measures. Uh. It's our law enforcement officers who
Speaker 1: um typically have to enter these scenarios where a suspect
Speaker 1: or an active shooter is heavily armed, and its law
Speaker 1: enforcement who are among the most vocal advocates for reform.
Speaker 1: We're spending time with Senator John Austuff, Democrat from Georgia,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of things we don't get
Speaker 1: to speak with you too often, Senator, that I love
Speaker 1: to ask you about. And of course, high gas prices,
Speaker 1: high oil prices, and the story of inflation is one
Speaker 1: that we talk a lot about here, and I know
Speaker 1: you do certainly on the Banking Committee in a direct
Speaker 1: conversation yesterday with with J. Powell. Uh, it's interesting to
Speaker 1: see what's going on here because it's been so stubborn
Speaker 1: that that a lot of lawmakers, a lot of your colleagues,
Speaker 1: think the White House and the FED are running out
Speaker 1: of tools here. What do you want to see happen
Speaker 1: with regard to high oil and gas prices that that
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve can't seem to impact. The White House
Speaker 1: today is asking oil executives to pump more? Is that
Speaker 1: the solution to this? Well as for the FED stance,
Speaker 1: I don't think we're seeing that they lacked the tools
Speaker 1: in their toolbox. I think it's clear that they were
Speaker 1: late to apply those tools and got behind the curve
Speaker 1: last year while insisting that the threat was transitory UM
Speaker 1: and are now having to play catchup and in plane
Speaker 1: catchup having to move more swiftly, therefore having a greater
Speaker 1: impact on market volatility. One of the questions that I
Speaker 1: asked share Powell yesterday was his assessment of where he
Speaker 1: may see some systemic risk or threats to financial stability
Speaker 1: and financial markets because the FED is now moving quickly
Speaker 1: with seventy basis point hike and potentially more to come.
Speaker 1: What kind of major trade may unwind? What kind of
Speaker 1: financial activity at two was sustainable but at three percent
Speaker 1: is not? Uh, you know, we have to be wary
Speaker 1: of where bubbles may have emerged in financial markets and
Speaker 1: capital markets after such a prolonged period of extraordinary low
Speaker 1: rates and a lot of bond buying on top of it.
Speaker 1: Of course, you know they as as He's made the
Speaker 1: point though, getting to oil and food prices. Energy and
Speaker 1: food prices is very difficult just by hiking interest rates.
Speaker 1: But I wonder your thoughts on tariffs as well. Should
Speaker 1: we be dropping, for instance, China tariffs if we're trying
Speaker 1: to do everything we can to lower inflation. I know that,
Speaker 1: for instance, UH, you're working on reducing tariffs against the
Speaker 1: US when it comes to Pecans an important industry in
Speaker 1: Georgia with regard to to India tariffs, is this an
Speaker 1: avenue Senator, we should be taking? Well, Look, I think
Speaker 1: that the administration should be actively considering the use of
Speaker 1: trade policy to uh stabilize the price level for products
Speaker 1: for American consumers. And I do want to highlight and
Speaker 1: I think it's important that there is attention to the
Speaker 1: major breakthrough that I've made with the U. S. Trade
Speaker 1: Representatives Office in the last twenty four hours with respect
Speaker 1: to the barriers that India has erected to US agricultural exports.
Speaker 1: My home state of Georgia produces one third of America's pecans,
Speaker 1: and UH farmers in Georgia are seeking access to the
Speaker 1: Indian market, a massive market. India has a thirty six
Speaker 1: percent tariff on pocan imports but no domestic production. I've
Speaker 1: raised the issue repeatedly in recent weeks with India's ambassador
Speaker 1: to the United States. Yesterday had a very productive call
Speaker 1: of an ambassador Byankee at the U. S. Trade Representative's Office,
Speaker 1: and we announced this morning my office and the Biden
Speaker 1: administration through the U S tr that we are going
Speaker 1: to put India's pecan terraffs at the very top of
Speaker 1: the U. S. India trade agenda. That's a significant shift
Speaker 1: in our stance with respect to that bilateral trading relationship
Speaker 1: and something that I'm gonna be pursuing in months to come.
Speaker 1: All Right, you're clearly doing what you can for pecan
Speaker 1: farmers and Georgia Senators. The White House behind that effort
Speaker 1: is the Biden administration doing what it can well. I
Speaker 1: was really encouraged by the confirmation from the administration today
Speaker 1: from the U s Trade Representative, the chief trade negotiator
Speaker 1: for the Biden administration, um that we are now going
Speaker 1: to put India's pecan tariffs at the very top of
Speaker 1: our trade agenda with India, and there will be upcoming
Speaker 1: talks in July. I'm considering leading a delegation to work
Speaker 1: toward accelerating a resolution of this victory. By no means assured,
Speaker 1: but for farmers in my state, those thirty six percent
Speaker 1: tariffs are a major obstacle and and so I think
Speaker 1: it needs to be noted and represents a significant shift
Speaker 1: in our posture with respect to that by lateral trade
Speaker 1: relationship that now the Biden administration, the US Trade Representative
Speaker 1: are putting Indian pecan tariffs at the very top of
Speaker 1: our bilateral trade agenda. It's the politics of Pecans. I
Speaker 1: hope you appreciate Senator this Yankee not calling them pecans
Speaker 1: to embarrass you on the air today. Well, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what you need to come down and we can
Speaker 1: do a live show in the pecan orchard. Some of
Speaker 1: Georgia's finest products. We can talk about agricultural trade policy.
Speaker 1: All there sounds great, we can we can want out
Speaker 1: on the farm. Senator John Ausa, thank you, Democrat from Georgia,
Speaker 1: weighing in unexpectedly on this special edition as it turns
Speaker 1: out of Bloomberg Sound on the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington will hear from the panel
Speaker 1: coming up as we balance our twin leads today, the
Speaker 1: Scout is ruling on guns and the White House meeting
Speaker 1: with oil executives. We have a lot more on that
Speaker 1: ahead as well. We'll reassemble the panel next with Rick
Speaker 1: and Genie as we work our way through a very
Speaker 1: busy day here in the nation's capital. Thanks for joining
Speaker 1: us here, uh Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano on the
Speaker 1: politics of pecans. I think I can trust you on that,
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, as an Alabama boy, nothing better than a
Speaker 1: little pecan pie like well, Yankees call it pecans. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the peacans. You wouldn't even know what I was asking
Speaker 1: you for in this particular case. Though. That's just one example.
Speaker 1: When you when we're talking about the inflation story here
Speaker 1: in the many tariffs that this White House is considering
Speaker 1: right now that that could have a meaningful impact on prices. Rick. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: I mean there there's a laundry list of items, especially
Speaker 1: with China, where we have tariff's already in place that
Speaker 1: are making consumer goods more expensive, and this administration has
Speaker 1: it within their power uh to sort of ignore the
Speaker 1: geopolitical consequences of why those um UH tariffs were put
Speaker 1: in place to begin with and lower um that will
Speaker 1: you know, have an impact on the cost of goods
Speaker 1: coming out of China. That's a little bit different of
Speaker 1: an issue than you know, demanding that India open up
Speaker 1: its markets to our agriculture, which is a very good
Speaker 1: thing to do too. But I just don't get the
Speaker 1: impression that this administration has a comprehensive attack on inflation.
Speaker 1: I mean, we you talked earlier to Kevin Brady and
Speaker 1: and we're talking about the oil industry, and he may
Speaker 1: I think a very salient point. You have a bunch
Speaker 1: of executives in your White House today and there's no
Speaker 1: evidence that they asked them to do anything other than
Speaker 1: can you produce more? While at the same time, the
Speaker 1: Interior Department is limiting their access to offshore drilling, so
Speaker 1: I honestly, uh uh struggle to understand what the administration's
Speaker 1: postures on on inflation. The meeting today was an important one.
Speaker 1: Ginnie will have a little more time for this later on.
Speaker 1: But Jennifer Granholm, the Energy Secretary, we talked about it
Speaker 1: with Kevin Brady earlier this hour, asking for more production,
Speaker 1: for more oil, and no real conclusions to come from
Speaker 1: that meeting. We understand it was only about an hour long.
Speaker 1: What do you read into that? Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean that the fact is that I've all along criticized
Speaker 1: the administration for going out on things like this holiday,
Speaker 1: um and making statements. You know, the president's sort of
Speaker 1: chastising some of these oil executives without meeting with them,
Speaker 1: and of course you know he sends Graham Holme in
Speaker 1: there today. Um. At the very least, if they're going
Speaker 1: to get asked for this you know, gas holiday, they
Speaker 1: could secure some agreement that that those costs would be
Speaker 1: or the savings would be passed on to consumers. They
Speaker 1: didn't do that. She has a short meeting today, So
Speaker 1: I think the problem for the White Houses it comes
Speaker 1: off seeming very scatter shot, like they're just throwing things
Speaker 1: to the wind and seeing what sticks. And that's a
Speaker 1: problem because their base and Americans as a whole want
Speaker 1: a consistent effort to address inflation, and they want honesty
Speaker 1: here and even his own Democratic Party pushing back on
Speaker 1: his his latest efforts with the holidays. So, you know,
Speaker 1: for the White House, I think this has been a
Speaker 1: misstep in the last few days and and and you know,
Speaker 1: I hope they're able to get back on track. And
Speaker 1: in terms of tariffs, we've already heard that the President
Speaker 1: is going to announce not going to announce before he
Speaker 1: goes to the G seven um. And I think in
Speaker 1: part that has to do with the base of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party in labor. Should the President have gone in
Speaker 1: that meeting today, Rick, I think if I were advising
Speaker 1: the President that I'm the last guy they're going to
Speaker 1: ask for advice, Um, I think I would tell them
Speaker 1: to have them into the Oval office and lock the
Speaker 1: door and don't come out until they're planned to UH
Speaker 1: increase production, increase refining and uh in lower gas prices.
Speaker 1: Is that everybody in lockstep, That's what they should have done. Jeanny, Well,
Speaker 1: you know the Democrats, we don't tend to lock people
Speaker 1: in offices. The way, Rick David stuff. I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about it. We don't know anything about that. We
Speaker 1: just like our peacans. But you know, I could see
Speaker 1: what Rick Davis is saying, So I got it. I'm
Speaker 1: from the northeast. All right, We're gonna get back to, uh,
Speaker 1: the gun story here, the SCOTUS ruling here. Uh, in
Speaker 1: a special conversation that we've been looking forward to with
Speaker 1: Adam Winkler, law professor from u c l A, who
Speaker 1: is joining us in the middle of the flurry, about
Speaker 1: what we should understand from this ruling, the precedent that
Speaker 1: it's setting for other states, what legislation might emerge here.
Speaker 1: But I'm just curious to talk with Adam, and then
Speaker 1: we'll reassemble the panel so they can have a little
Speaker 1: more time to weigh in on this. Professor Winkler, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us. A lot of folks saw this
Speaker 1: ruling coming. Uh, now that it's here. Is Eric Adams,
Speaker 1: the Governor of New York correct when he predicts wild
Speaker 1: wild west in in inner cities where gun violence is
Speaker 1: already such a problem. Well, let's hope not. I do
Speaker 1: think that we all are going to see an increasing
Speaker 1: number of restrictions on conceialed carry. Even in these states
Speaker 1: where the may issue permitting has been overturned, We're going
Speaker 1: to see states broadly define sensitive places to restrict where
Speaker 1: people can carry guns. And I think states like New
Speaker 1: York and California are not just going to throw up
Speaker 1: their hands and surrender to the Supreme Court, but are
Speaker 1: gonna try to interpret this opinion in ways that allow
Speaker 1: them to continue to restrict concealed carry. Is it automatic
Speaker 1: essentially that the laws in the states uh that are
Speaker 1: at issue here, those with similar laws to the one
Speaker 1: in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and California
Speaker 1: will all be in the same boat. It's not automatic,
Speaker 1: but it's all but automatic. We're going to see lawsuits
Speaker 1: filed against the concealed cares carry policies in those states,
Speaker 1: and those lawsuits will be successful in the long run. So, um,
Speaker 1: we are seeing states already take up the mantle of reform,
Speaker 1: and I'm talking about different ways to start regulating concealed carry.
Speaker 1: The New York governor has already called for a special
Speaker 1: session of the legislature to figure out how they can
Speaker 1: continue to limit the number of guns on our streets.
Speaker 1: In a concurring opinion, Justices Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts
Speaker 1: said the ruling did not prevent states from requiring handgun
Speaker 1: owners to get a carry license. Kavanaugh said the decision
Speaker 1: did not affect the shall issue systems. The President referred
Speaker 1: to this todays shall issue in dozens of states that
Speaker 1: we're talking about where licenses have to be issued to
Speaker 1: anyone who meets set criteria. So how much will actually change, Well,
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see the law change significantly
Speaker 1: in the half dozen or so states like California, New York,
Speaker 1: and Massachusetts that do require have many issue permitting systems
Speaker 1: that give government some discretion. But I also think that
Speaker 1: part of the importance of understanding this ruling is that
Speaker 1: it will have a broad effect on other gun laws,
Speaker 1: to beyond concealed carry restracts. That's what I'd like to
Speaker 1: hear about. What are you what are you looking at? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: the Court said that the only gun laws that are
Speaker 1: constitutionally permissible are ones that were either in effect in
Speaker 1: the seventeen or eighteen hundreds, or are sufficiently similar to
Speaker 1: laws that were in effect in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: And that closes a real risk for really the entire
Speaker 1: gun safety reform AGAINDA bands on high capacity magazines, bands
Speaker 1: on military style rifles, even the red flag laws that
Speaker 1: are supposed to be encouraged by the Senate Gun Bill
Speaker 1: maybe unconstitutional. We didn't have any law like that in
Speaker 1: the seventeen or eighteen hundreds. Uh. You mentioned this is
Speaker 1: going to be tied up in courts for some times.
Speaker 1: There going to be a lot of lawsuits that come
Speaker 1: from this. What does that look like? How long could
Speaker 1: this be tied up? We're going to see lawsuits for
Speaker 1: years to come. You know. Opinion in two thousand and eight, Well,
Speaker 1: what he was getting to something good there. It always
Speaker 1: happens right when they're getting to something good. Maybe we
Speaker 1: can reconnect with the Professor Winkler, Adam Winkler of the
Speaker 1: u c l A Law School. Uh, somebody said his
Speaker 1: phone needed a background check. I'm Joe Matthew and Washington.
Speaker 1: This is the fastest hour in politics. It goes by
Speaker 1: so fast sometimes you just wish you could get a
Speaker 1: couple of seconds back. Why don't we take the time
Speaker 1: we have right now take advantage of this. This has
Speaker 1: been quite a flurry. This hour. We're just breaking all
Speaker 1: the rules today, and I'm certainly gonna get in trouble
Speaker 1: as soon as I'm off the air, but that that
Speaker 1: is why we have live radio. I'm glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: If you're showing up late here, you've missed a lot already,
Speaker 1: and that's why I'll encourage you to subscribe to the
Speaker 1: sound on podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Can we
Speaker 1: get the professor back? Is he with us? We lost
Speaker 1: the line with the Professor Adam Winkler, who was making
Speaker 1: an important point that I really would love for him
Speaker 1: to finish before we reassemble the panel. Rick and Jeannie
Speaker 1: are standing by and he is with us now. Professor.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry somebody got in the way. We'll blame will
Speaker 1: blame the telecom gods on this one, but I just
Speaker 1: wanted you to finish your points, specifically about how this
Speaker 1: ruling could impact other gun laws. If you could continue,
Speaker 1: that's right. Well, the court said that only those gun
Speaker 1: laws that were in effect in the seventeen and eighteen
Speaker 1: hundreds are likely to be constitutionally permissible, or laws that
Speaker 1: were sufficiently similar to those, and so it's like California,
Speaker 1: we've got things like it's that hundreds, we have bans
Speaker 1: on military style rifles that weren't in effect in the
Speaker 1: eight In the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, we have bans
Speaker 1: on high capacity magazines. UH, and those were of course
Speaker 1: not in effect in the seventeen or eighteen hundreds. Exactly,
Speaker 1: we didn't even have high capacity magazines. You're not going
Speaker 1: to lead to a lot of litigation and a lot
Speaker 1: of gun laws are going to be second guests in
Speaker 1: the coming years. Thank you for humoring me and coming
Speaker 1: back to finish your point. Adam Winkler, Law professor. You
Speaker 1: see l A with us on sound on. I'm Joe,
Speaker 1: Matthew and Washington, and we reassemble our panel with Rick
Speaker 1: and Genie as we started off with this, and we
Speaker 1: have tackled a few other topics along the way. Jeanie
Speaker 1: Schanzana when Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributors, Rick, your thought
Speaker 1: on this after hearing from the professor and the precedent
Speaker 1: that's being set, Yeah, I think that his point about
Speaker 1: the proliferational litigation around this is gonna be really overwhelming
Speaker 1: for a lot of state courts. UH. This cracks the
Speaker 1: door open for UH. People both on the side of
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment and looking at opportunities now to lessen
Speaker 1: the requirements like what he was talking about around high
Speaker 1: capacities and red flag laws. I mean, while the United
Speaker 1: States Senate has a biparsan bill that's gonna encourage red
Speaker 1: flag laws, it just shows you how disconnected, uh, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is with what's happening in the United States Congress.
Speaker 1: Although you heard Kevin Brady before, we heard Senator Rick
Speaker 1: Scott as well, Rick that this has become the line
Speaker 1: for a lot of Republicans who want to say no
Speaker 1: to this bill, that you know what, the red flag
Speaker 1: component is just a bridge too far, sure, and and
Speaker 1: and states are willing to do it. And so maybe
Speaker 1: we continue to do this patwork quilt of state laws
Speaker 1: around these kind of red flag laws. But now we
Speaker 1: have a Supreme Court decision that says, well, you know,
Speaker 1: if these things weren't uh settled law back in the
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds, and you know, maybe they're not constitutional. So again,
Speaker 1: I mean, his point about the proliferational litigation is disappointing
Speaker 1: because the last thing the courts need to do is
Speaker 1: spend all their time litigating on the Second Amendment and
Speaker 1: not worrying about putting criminals away. What's your thought on that, Jennie,
Speaker 1: that that the red this is not even a red
Speaker 1: flag law, it's an incentive for states to have their
Speaker 1: own red flag laws. Where's the unconstitutional component here? What
Speaker 1: would what would your answer be to those concerned? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, the question. I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: more questions coming out of this decision than there are answers,
Speaker 1: because if I read the decision and I read you
Speaker 1: know what, I found Kavanaugh's very confusing concurrence and they
Speaker 1: those two seem to conflict. And of course Kavanaugh and
Speaker 1: Roberts are in the majority because if you read what
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and Roberts say, they say, this isn't going to
Speaker 1: impact you know, so many types of restrictions, including background checks.
Speaker 1: Yet you listen to what the professor said, you read
Speaker 1: Thomas's decision, and there is a huge component in there.
Speaker 1: If anybody has a lot of time tonight about originalism
Speaker 1: and what the professor said, which is that only laws
Speaker 1: that were in effect or similar to those in effect
Speaker 1: at the founding would be considered constitutionally permissible. So right there,
Speaker 1: you have a conflict between the concurrence and the majority,
Speaker 1: And to Rick's point, and to the professor's point, you
Speaker 1: raise a whole host of litigation. You know, I think
Speaker 1: for many Republicans they are saying in a restricted sense,
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court is just saying that you can't
Speaker 1: have subjective requirements for gun per mid's like New York had.
Speaker 1: That is, you know a little bit more uh, you know,
Speaker 1: understandable to many people. But it's when you expand outside
Speaker 1: of that that it becomes problematic, because of course background
Speaker 1: checks are objective. Yeah. Look, this is not a legal show,
Speaker 1: and god knows, I am not a lawyer, Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: but it does strike me this concurring opinion. To Genie's point,
Speaker 1: it certainly argues with the with the majority opinion, Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: and Roberts say the ruling did not prevent states from
Speaker 1: requiring handgun owners to get a carry license. Don't they
Speaker 1: cancel each other out in a way, Well not really.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, what what New York was getting away
Speaker 1: with was was having this law that says that you
Speaker 1: may have one and that, but you had no real
Speaker 1: subjective right. It was a subjective criteria that was left
Speaker 1: up to government. Bureaucrats decide whether or not you could
Speaker 1: have one or not. So and in fact, they didn't
Speaker 1: have a law that allowed it. Um, and so what
Speaker 1: the what the Supreme Court did, which I think is
Speaker 1: the part that's very clear, it's I set out your criteria,
Speaker 1: make it, make it very clear, um as part of
Speaker 1: your regulations. We're not opposing that you do regulations around
Speaker 1: this issue. Texas has regulations pass. The states that that
Speaker 1: have concealed carry have regulations, and so promallgate those. It
Speaker 1: shouldn't be left up to a state bureaucrat to decide
Speaker 1: how the second man was gonna apply. The government in
Speaker 1: New York and the City of New York has to
Speaker 1: set up criteria that everyone can see and follow and
Speaker 1: determine whether it's constitutional. Getting back to the President's response
Speaker 1: to this earlier, this was off the script. He was
Speaker 1: asked about it in the meeting that had to do
Speaker 1: with green energy. This was his answer, There are the
Speaker 1: gun laws in forty of these states are still in
Speaker 1: place based on the decision. Not good enough. But it's
Speaker 1: I think it's a bad decision. I think it's and
Speaker 1: I think it's not reasoning accurately. But I'm disappointed. So
Speaker 1: he doesn't like this obviously, Genie. But as he says,
Speaker 1: forty states will have no change. The concern is this
Speaker 1: half does and uh that have some pretty big cities
Speaker 1: inside them. That's right, And and questions remain. For instance,
Speaker 1: you know this was brought up in the ole oral
Speaker 1: arguments in New York City in Times Square on New
Speaker 1: Year's Eve? Are you allowed to conceal and carry a
Speaker 1: weapon now? And of course you know a whole host
Speaker 1: of sensitive areas like churches and government offices. You know,
Speaker 1: some of those Thomas spoke to many he did not,
Speaker 1: you know, for instance, sports stadiums and other things. And
Speaker 1: you know, just on Rick's point about this subjective criteria,
Speaker 1: you know, I am a proponent of red flag laws,
Speaker 1: but what I'm hearing from some of my more conservative
Speaker 1: friends is that those are also subjective to this question
Speaker 1: of due process. Somebody has said that you are not
Speaker 1: stable to be carrying your gun, and a judge in
Speaker 1: that case hopefully will be making that determination based on
Speaker 1: your background. I have conservative friends who say that that
Speaker 1: is problematic when it comes to subjectivity. So this I think,
Speaker 1: does I know you spoke to Portman, and you spoke
Speaker 1: to aus of both said, this isn't going to impact
Speaker 1: you know, what the Senate is doing. I think it
Speaker 1: may impact what the House does on this, which would
Speaker 1: derail the whole thing, Which would derail the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I think you may find you you only need five
Speaker 1: or six of them Democrats who say enough is enough.
Speaker 1: We're not letting conservatives get away with passing a pr
Speaker 1: bill to say they did something on Uval Day when
Speaker 1: it's a watered down gun safety not gun control bill,
Speaker 1: especially after this ruling. So I think we watch for that,
Speaker 1: is you need getting warmer rick. Uh, you know, I
Speaker 1: think that that obviously, uh, in this kind of interpretation
Speaker 1: is going to have ramifications maybe with the red flag laws.
Speaker 1: But but again, you know when you've properly set up
Speaker 1: the regulations around it. I mean the point she makes about,
Speaker 1: you know, carrying guns into sporting events and stuff. All
Speaker 1: these states that have concealing carry that do have regulations
Speaker 1: set up location restrictions in their state from where you
Speaker 1: cannot bring a gun. It's not a Wild West situation.
Speaker 1: It is a regulated situation, and so you can't bring
Speaker 1: them within forty ft of a certain building. Schools and
Speaker 1: government buildings. You can't bring him into you know, certain
Speaker 1: locations of public buildings, but you can't make a city
Speaker 1: a sensitive right. You have to be more specific, so
Speaker 1: that won't be an option for for Mayor Eric Adams
Speaker 1: in New York, who spoke to this again today, we
Speaker 1: have been preparing for this decision and will continue to
Speaker 1: do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and
Speaker 1: local partners to protect our city. We will collaborate with
Speaker 1: the mayor's, municipality leaders and governors and will leave no
Speaker 1: unturned stone as we seek to undo and mitigate the
Speaker 1: damage that we are witnessing today. A lot of lawyers
Speaker 1: are about to make a lot of money here, genie lobbyists.
Speaker 1: I suspect will as well. But what what can New
Speaker 1: York do to mitigate the law in the In the
Speaker 1: words of the mayor, you know, it's going to be difficult.
Speaker 1: I think the legislature comes back. I think they try to,
Speaker 1: you know, adjust to the Supreme Court has done. And
Speaker 1: I think there are ways, examples and over forty states
Speaker 1: to do that. But I do think there is a
Speaker 1: real difference between you know, New York upstate and downstate.
Speaker 1: Ten million people in New York City a gun, you know,
Speaker 1: arrest up twenty eight percent in the last year alone.
Speaker 1: They are fighting hard to keep crime down, and this
Speaker 1: takes away is the feeling of many law enforcement officials
Speaker 1: their ability to do that or at least makes it
Speaker 1: harder for the moment. And that's what Eric Adams is
Speaker 1: responding to. What do you think about that, Rick, in
Speaker 1: terms of big cities like New York who are just
Speaker 1: in a different world, They're they're dealing with a different reality,
Speaker 1: uh than than states with rural areas that also have
Speaker 1: representatives arguing about this in the capitol. No, for sure,
Speaker 1: I think I can't even have fathom the complexities around
Speaker 1: policing and and and and fighting crime in a city
Speaker 1: like New York City. I would say that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of big cities, nowhere near the size of
Speaker 1: New York City in states that have concealed carry and
Speaker 1: and and they've managed it. Uh. There are cities that, um,
Speaker 1: I think, regulatorially UM have have done a good job
Speaker 1: with this kind of UH law. So UH, New York
Speaker 1: is gonna have certain things that they're gonna have to
Speaker 1: do and it will be tested in the courts, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: But it doesn't mean that they're defenseless, and yet uh,
Speaker 1: you know, uh, I think it goes without saying, like
Speaker 1: what Congressman Brady said was that the experiment of like
Speaker 1: the eight largest crime cities in America, you know, only
Speaker 1: one of them is in a state with a concealed carry. So,
Speaker 1: I mean it may be oversimplification. And I and I
Speaker 1: and I feel for people who have to navigate the
Speaker 1: legal framework that the Supreme Court has just given us.
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's I don't think it's undoable.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's not done. Guys. Um, we're gonna get a
Speaker 1: ruling here on Roe v. Wade that is apparently imminent.
Speaker 1: We saw the reaction to this gun ruling today in
Speaker 1: the media. We saw it with lawmakers in town. When
Speaker 1: that Row decision comes down, Genie, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of concerns about what's going to happen. There are groups
Speaker 1: threatening all kinds of stuff. Is this this night of rage?
Speaker 1: You might have heard about that. The White House even
Speaker 1: acknowledged yesterday that some activists are promising if this comes
Speaker 1: down the wrong way. Is Washington ready for this? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we are, and I'm not sure Washington
Speaker 1: is I noted in the Descent. You know, Justice Brier
Speaker 1: starts out talking about the reality the number of Americans
Speaker 1: killed by firearms in overt thousand Americans. And what many
Speaker 1: people see is they look at a decision like Bruin,
Speaker 1: and they look at a potential decision like the Mississippi
Speaker 1: case on abortion. Is that a Supreme Court out of touch? Again?
Speaker 1: You read Justice Thomas's decision, he spends an inordinate amount
Speaker 1: of time talking about the seventeen and eighteen hundreds in history. Now,
Speaker 1: I love that stuff, and I love myself some James Madison,
Speaker 1: but when you're talking about issues on the ground in reality,
Speaker 1: it feels like they may be a bit divorced. And
Speaker 1: that's what Brier and the dissenters tried to touch on.
Speaker 1: And you know, so if they're gonna do what Rick
Speaker 1: is talking about, they've got to make sure their decisions
Speaker 1: are relevant to what people are going through and out
Speaker 1: of touch Supreme Court becomes a Supreme Court like the
Speaker 1: one that walked us into the Civil War and some
Speaker 1: of the other low points in the Supreme Court's history,
Speaker 1: of which there have been a few. Wow, Rick, if
Speaker 1: you're preparing a lawmaker or the president for that matter. Uh,
Speaker 1: what's the process here? Knowing that the Court could rule
Speaker 1: on this even tomorrow. Yeah, I think actually one of
Speaker 1: the best things that's happened is the leak. And I'm
Speaker 1: not for leaks out of the Supreme Court, but at
Speaker 1: least we've had some time to prepare the American public
Speaker 1: for what is likely to be a rebuke of Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: and and and and So I think the fact that
Speaker 1: there's no transparency in this process around the Supreme Court, right,
Speaker 1: there's no like um ability to try and prepare the
Speaker 1: public for what comes down. And these are seismic events
Speaker 1: in public. Let's see that affect millions, hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of people all at one time. Uh. So I think
Speaker 1: that that from that perspective, we have to maintain the conversation.
Speaker 1: We have to keep talking about what the remedies are
Speaker 1: going to be. We have to be talking about like
Speaker 1: how states can adjust to this. Uh. Like Professor Winkler
Speaker 1: was saying, there, there's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: litigation around this, and some of it will be successful.
Speaker 1: But from a political perspective, you're already writing that news release, correct,
Speaker 1: You've written the speech for the Senator you're advising. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know where you're, where your member is going to
Speaker 1: be the next day, and what that news conference is
Speaker 1: gonna look like. Oh yeah, you've got this thing sitting
Speaker 1: on the desk, waiting, just like the media is waiting
Speaker 1: for all the stories that are going to roll out
Speaker 1: of here. We know what those stories are gonna be,
Speaker 1: We know those interviews are going to take place. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I would say it's not insignificant. I mean abortion
Speaker 1: went from not even the top ten issues of this
Speaker 1: election cycle to number one in many states because of
Speaker 1: this leaked abortion ruling. Is the White House ready, Genie?
Speaker 1: They should be ready. I'm not sure they are, but
Speaker 1: they should be. Gene Shenzano and Rick Davis. What a conversation.
Speaker 1: We haven't taken a breath for an hour. Thanks to
Speaker 1: Charlie Pellett, we made our way on the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics. That's gonna be one big honkin podcast. Aren't
Speaker 1: you glad you subscribed? We'll meet you back here tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg