WEBVTT - Machine Gun Charges Tossed & Tom Girardi Convicted 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.400 --> 0:00:13.560 It was another victory for gun control advocates at the 0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:17.200 Fourth Circuit on Friday, as the full Court rule that 0:00:17.360 --> 0:00:22.680 Maryland's gun licensing scheme is constitutional and by an overwhelming 0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:26.759 vote of fourteen to two. The gun control measure requires 0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:31.520 applicants to submit fingerprints for a background investigation, complete a 0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:35.040 four hour safety training course, and wait up to thirty 0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:39.159 days to get approval before continuing the process. More than 0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:44.320 forty other states have similar so called shall issue licensing laws, 0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:48.199 under which there's no discretion to deny a handgun license 0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:52.159 to anyone who meets the statutory requirements. Joining me is 0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:55.520 an expert in the Second Amendment, John Donahue, a professor 0:00:55.520 --> 0:00:59.040 at Stanford Law School. It's difficult to keep track of 0:00:59.120 --> 0:01:02.560 all the Second cases in the courts these days. 0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:08.120 Well, of course, the Supreme Court seems to be trying 0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:13.800 to almost deregulate all issues of gun safety, and this 0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:17.119 has become like a snowball going downhill where the gun 0:01:17.240 --> 0:01:21.479 rights groups keep insisting that they need more and more 0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:26.720 freedom to pursue you whatever purchase they want at almost 0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:30.200 whatever age. These guns can be purchased and regardless of 0:01:30.319 --> 0:01:34.039 the fletality of the weapons. And so it's really almost 0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:37.840 remarkable to me to see things that a few years 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:42.720 ago almost everyone would consider as unassailable as necessary gun 0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:46.240 safety measures are now being challenged in court. 0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:50.920 So last Friday, the full Fourth Circuit so on Bank meeting, 0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:54.320 all the judges reversed the decision of a panel last 0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:57.520 year which had voted two to one that the law 0:01:57.760 --> 0:02:00.360 violated the Second Amendment. And it was a fourteen into 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:04.360 two decision reversing that panel and finding the law constitutional. 0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:06.960 Will you explain the majority's reasoning in the case. 0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:12.320 So essentially, the plaintiffs in that case, who were challenging 0:02:12.480 --> 0:02:16.799 the regulations in Maryland, were saying that this was depriving 0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:20.880 them of their immediate ability to access guns. They want 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:23.480 to be able to walk into a store and you know, 0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:26.120 just walk out with a gun, and this was imposing 0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:30.520 a licensing requirement. And essentially what the court said is, 0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:34.959 if you look to the concerns expressed by the US 0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:40.640 Supreme Court, if you have a licensing scenario that doesn't 0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:45.560 involve you know, burdensome delays in access to weaponry, that 0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:50.239 should be presumptively permissible. And so that was the language 0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:54.320 that the Court used in saying that these shall issue 0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:58.600 requirements comported with the standards that the US Supreme Court 0:02:58.639 --> 0:03:02.120 has set for the requirements of the Second Amendment. 0:03:02.360 --> 0:03:06.240 The majority they cited a footnote in the Supreme Court's 0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.400 Ruined decision that said, quote, nothing in our analysis shall 0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:14.320 be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the forty three 0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:19.680 states shall issue licensing regimes. In light of that footnote, 0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:22.280 how did the two judges on the first panel come 0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:27.040 out against this shall issue law because it seems pretty clear. 0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:31.919 Yeah, well, there's always a pathway to complicate Second Amendments decisions. 0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:35.960 What happened there was the Court said that footnote that 0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:40.160 you just alluded to only dealt with shall issue laws 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:44.280 dealing with the right to carry guns, while the regulation 0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:47.920 at issue in the current case that we're talking about 0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:51.680 dealt with access to possess guns in the first instance. 0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:55.200 And so they were trying to draw distinction saying that 0:03:55.800 --> 0:04:00.000 you have greater rights to get immediate access to guns 0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:02.240 that you're going to be taking into your own home 0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:04.480 as opposed to guns that you're going to be carrying 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:08.480 outside the home. And this court said, no, that distinction 0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:13.000 is irrelevant as long as it's a non discretionary judgment 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:17.520 of the administrators of the law. These sort of shallish 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:20.320 your requirements are acceptable in either domain. 0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:24.880 Maybe we should step back for a minute. And since 0:04:25.040 --> 0:04:27.040 you know, the Bruin case seems to be causing a 0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:30.479 lot of confusion in the lower courts, explain what the 0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:33.560 tests set out in the Bruin case in the majority 0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:35.440 opinion written by Clarence Thomas. 0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:40.080 So what Ruin said which has created an enormous, you know, 0:04:40.200 --> 0:04:44.000 chaos literally among courts all across the country, is it 0:04:44.040 --> 0:04:49.920 seemed to suggest if anything in any way infringes on 0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:55.560 access to guns or even accessories to guns, then a 0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:59.600 burden is then imposed on the government to come forward 0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:04.520 and assert that there were similar regulations in place in 0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:08.640 seventeen ninety one when the Second Amendment was adopted, or 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:13.279 maybe sometime close to that. And of course, since the 0:05:13.320 --> 0:05:16.960 world has changed enormously in seventeen ninety one, the legality 0:05:16.960 --> 0:05:20.440 of weapons is vastly greater. The threats of mass shootings, 0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:24.600 which was nonexistent in seventeen ninety one, is very real today. 0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:29.440 It is sort of a nonsensical decision, but that's what 0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:32.880 the Court said, and brew In and many courts have 0:05:33.200 --> 0:05:37.760 felt very constrained by that language, even though more recently, 0:05:38.040 --> 0:05:41.240 with the Rashimi decision of just a couple of months ago, 0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:45.520 the Supreme Court seemed to be signaling that they're not 0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:50.839 going to be invoking the Bruin standard as aggressively as 0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:55.119 many of the judges who decided cases over the last 0:05:55.120 --> 0:05:58.120 two years since Brune was decided have done. 0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:02.520 And just to explain, Rahemi was a June decision by 0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:07.160 the Supreme Court upholding a federal law that bars firearm 0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:11.920 possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders. And the 0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:15.640 vote was eight to one, with Justice Clarence Thomas the 0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:20.000 loan dissenter. Turning back to the Friday Fourth Circuit decision, 0:06:20.360 --> 0:06:23.000 which is another victory for gun control advocates in the 0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:29.479 Fourth Circuit, it's the third on bank decision upholding firearms laws. Recently, 0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:34.680 one upheld regulations for assault rifles, another upheld of federal 0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:38.400 law criminalizing guns without serial numbers. And now this shall 0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:43.560 issue tell us about the decision upholding regulations for assault rifles. 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:48.520 So this was the decision authored by Judge Harvey Wilkinson, 0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:54.240 very conservative Reagan appointed judge who I should note was 0:06:54.400 --> 0:06:57.080 very critical of the Heller decision when it was first 0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:02.039 handed down. Judge Wilkinson wrote a very condemning article of 0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:05.640 the wisdom of the Heller decision. So in some sense 0:07:05.839 --> 0:07:11.119 he is continuing to express his concerns about the Second 0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:15.200 Amendment jurisprudence that the Court has embarked upon since the 0:07:15.480 --> 0:07:18.000 Heller decision was decided in two thousand and eight. And 0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:22.040 essentially he said that weapons such as the assault rifles 0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:25.920 that were banned by the Maryland law are not protected 0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.440 by the Second Amendment. You do not have a constitutional 0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:32.120 right to have a weapon of that level of lethality. 0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:34.760 And I think in terms of wise public policy, that's 0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:40.040 unassailably true. If states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:45.080 and Maryland wants to protect their citizens from the dangers 0:07:45.160 --> 0:07:49.280 of assault weapons, it certainly seems wise policy to allow 0:07:49.320 --> 0:07:50.360 them to do so. So. 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:55.400 The Fourth Circuit has fifteen active judges, nine appointed by 0:07:55.440 --> 0:08:00.000 Democrats and six appointed by Republicans. The two judges who 0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:02.200 voted against the law in the first case we were 0:08:02.240 --> 0:08:06.320 talking about Republican appointees is it surprising that so many 0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:11.560 Republican appointees are agreeing with these gun control laws. 0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:15.239 Yeah, well, you do have a little bit of a split, 0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:19.760 because you know, twenty years ago, Republicans were very pro 0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:23.880 gun safety. You know, Reagan of course endorsed the gout 0:08:23.920 --> 0:08:28.440 aal assault weapon ban, He endorsed the Brady Bill. He's 0:08:28.920 --> 0:08:32.600 as governor of California put into place restrictions on carrying 0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:37.480 of guns. So, you know, even Reagan, who was in 0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:42.640 some sense, you know, the idol of conservative Republicans, was very, 0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:46.360 very strongly in favor of gun safety regulation. But there 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:48.480 has been this shift in the party. So some of 0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:52.840 the older judges, like Judge Wilkinson, continued to conform to 0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:57.520 earlier Republican notions about the need for protecting the citizenry. 0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:02.920 But the newer cadre of Republican judges, many of whom 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:08.200 were appointed by President Trump, have taken on a very 0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:13.720 macho posturing that the stronger the Second Amendments is, the 0:09:13.800 --> 0:09:18.800 more they're conforming to constitutional dictates. And even though that's 0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:22.800 a very controversial position from a legal standpoint, it does 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:27.320 seem to be a very prevalent view among younger Republican judges. 0:09:27.559 --> 0:09:32.400 What's your opinion about the constitutionality of the way the 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:35.840 Supreme Court has been expanding gun rights. 0:09:36.520 --> 0:09:39.720 Well, I do think Bruin will go down in history 0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:44.559 as one of the most poorly reasoned and really absurd 0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:48.680 decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. You 0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:51.360 know there over the years. The dred Scott case is 0:09:51.440 --> 0:09:55.880 obviously something that stands out as a horrible decision, and 0:09:55.960 --> 0:09:59.760 Bruin is definitely up there. It really makes literally do 0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:06.559 sense to constrain government policy today against threats that were 0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:11.080 completely inconceivable in seventeen ninety one. I still remember one 0:10:11.120 --> 0:10:13.960 case that I worked on involving a mass shooting in 0:10:14.000 --> 0:10:17.920 Sutherland Springs, Texas, where a guy stood outside a church 0:10:18.000 --> 0:10:20.760 fired two hundred and fifty four bullets through the walls 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:24.160 of the church and killed twenty six people inside the church. 0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:28.680 This was November twenty seventeen, and that would not be 0:10:28.920 --> 0:10:31.560 at all possible in seventeen ninety one. There was no 0:10:31.600 --> 0:10:34.720 weapon I could shoot through walls that people were carrying 0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:38.160 around and could kill twenty six people back in seventeen 0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:41.800 ninety one. So to look back to what the regulatory 0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:45.319 apparatus was at the time of the adoption of the 0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:50.560 Second Amendment really is nonsensical given the very different threats, 0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:54.480 and weaponry is getting more lethal of course all the time, 0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:58.920 while the history stays exactly the thing. So this mismatch 0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:03.280 between the growing lethality of weaponry and the history of 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:07.840 Second Amendment regulation really renders the Brewing decision, I think 0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:12.200 an incoherent judicial standard, which I think you started to 0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:15.480 get a sense even the Supreme Court realized their mistake 0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:18.240 in their effort to cut back a little bit in 0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:19.560 the Ratheemi decision. 0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:24.400 So in the Rahemi decision in a concurring opinion, just 0:11:24.440 --> 0:11:28.079 as Katanji Brown Jackson quoted a dozen lower court opinions 0:11:28.080 --> 0:11:31.880 complaining that judges can't figure out how Brewin is supposed 0:11:31.920 --> 0:11:36.240 to work. Shouldn't the Court have taken that opportunity in 0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:40.400 Rahemi to set the standard out better, or you know, 0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:44.760 to rework breugh In in some way because the confusion continues. 0:11:44.960 --> 0:11:49.320 Oh yeah, it's I mean, it's disgraceful and embarrassing for 0:11:49.440 --> 0:11:53.880 the Supreme Court that they have allowed this confusion to arise. 0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.520 And you know, if you look across some of the 0:11:57.160 --> 0:12:02.480 articulated decisions of courts across the country explicitly condemning the 0:12:02.559 --> 0:12:05.800 Court and saying, you know, we're quite frankly afraid of 0:12:06.000 --> 0:12:09.960 what you're doing. It's almost unheard of in American history, 0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:15.760 the widespread judicial you know, astonishment at the lack of 0:12:16.080 --> 0:12:19.040 wisdom that the Supreme Court seems to be engaging in. 0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:21.760 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue 0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:26.120 this conversation with Stanford law professor John Donahue, and we'll 0:12:26.120 --> 0:12:29.960 talk about a shocking decision from a Kansas judge, the 0:12:30.040 --> 0:12:33.280 first to find the federal ban on machine guns to 0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:37.559 be unconstitutional. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:42.720 It's a decision that's shocking on many levels. In a first, 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:46.160 a federal judge in Kansas has found that the federal 0:12:46.200 --> 0:12:50.679 ban on machine guns is unconstitutional and tossed out two 0:12:50.840 --> 0:12:54.720 machine gun possession charges against a twenty two year old man, 0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:59.320 which JAW Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, wrote the 0:12:59.400 --> 0:13:03.120 court that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged 0:13:03.200 --> 0:13:06.800 because they are bearable arms within the original meaning of 0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:10.959 the Amendment. The judge pointed out that prosecutors couldn't find 0:13:10.960 --> 0:13:14.600 a historical analog, and that there were no laws similar 0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:17.640 to the modern day ban on machine guns either in 0:13:17.720 --> 0:13:22.240 eighteenth century England or during the period around America's founding. 0:13:22.720 --> 0:13:25.040 Of course, the obvious reason for that is that the 0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:30.040 machine gun wasn't invented until eighteen eighty four. I've been 0:13:30.040 --> 0:13:34.360 talking to Professor John Donahue of Stanford Law School. So, John, 0:13:34.440 --> 0:13:37.440 the judge basically found you have a Second Amendment right 0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:39.920 to own a machine gun. How did he come up 0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:40.880 with that conclusion. 0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:46.600 Well, it's a terrible decision in every respect, except the 0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:48.960 only thing that you can say about it is it's 0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:52.480 not an absurd decision if you believe what the court 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:55.920 said it Brewin the Brewing decision was so nonsensical it 0:13:56.120 --> 0:14:00.000 opened up the ability for plants all across the country 0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:05.559 to challenge every single conceivable gun safety measure that's been 0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:08.120 in existence, no matter how long. You know, we're talking 0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:11.720 about ninety years ago this federal law went into effect, 0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:16.199 and the aftermass of you know, the Tommy gun episodes 0:14:16.280 --> 0:14:19.760 of people getting massacred all across the country during Prohibition. 0:14:20.120 --> 0:14:25.320 So this machine gun van seems tolly unassailable in the 0:14:25.360 --> 0:14:30.000 minds of almost every judge. But after Bruin, it became, 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:34.280 you know, a clear pathway for attacks and literally every 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:38.560 other gun safety measure. So it was an embarrassment for 0:14:38.640 --> 0:14:41.360 the judge that he went down this path, but at 0:14:41.440 --> 0:14:44.120 least he can say, look, I was being faithful to 0:14:44.200 --> 0:14:48.960 what the Supreme Court did in Brewing and making this decision. 0:14:49.680 --> 0:14:52.880 It really was an appalling decision. I think that the 0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:56.720 Supreme Court will realize that they will look so bad 0:14:57.040 --> 0:15:00.000 if this were to be sustained, when you know people 0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:02.000 are going to be mowed down in the street app 0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:05.320 extreme levels that they will not want to have that 0:15:05.560 --> 0:15:08.400 on their plate, and they will not support this decision. 0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:10.480 But it does mean they're going to have to cut 0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:13.840 back on the language that they endorsed in Ruined. 0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.600 So this will go to the Tenth Circuit, which is 0:15:18.680 --> 0:15:24.400 liberal leaning. Democratic appointees outnumber Republicans by seven to five. 0:15:24.800 --> 0:15:26.960 Does it seem likely to you that the Tenth Circuit 0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:28.960 will overturn this judge's decision? 0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:34.280 I think though. You know the problem is that many 0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:38.080 of the Republican judges think the way that I can 0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:40.840 make a name for myself, you know, be the hero 0:15:41.080 --> 0:15:45.120 in the conservative circles that I dwell in now and 0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:48.400 maybe get elevated to a higher court is to take 0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:53.600 the most extreme possible Second Amendment interpretation that I can find, 0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:56.120 And of course it's helped Brett Tavanaugh make it to 0:15:56.160 --> 0:15:59.440 the Supreme Court. He took some the extreme positions when 0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:02.640 he was a lower court judge and encouraged the NRA 0:16:02.880 --> 0:16:07.080 to push for his elevation by Donald Trump. And the 0:16:07.200 --> 0:16:11.200 judge in Kansas might have been taking along these same lines. 0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:15.760 But if there are enough Democratic members on the panel, 0:16:15.800 --> 0:16:18.080 and of course it doesn't necessarily have to go to 0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:21.080 an non bossed decision, so you could get you know, 0:16:21.280 --> 0:16:26.400 two or three Democratic judges on a panel exsemination. So 0:16:27.000 --> 0:16:30.520 it's unclear exactly what would happen. But this decision I 0:16:30.520 --> 0:16:34.760 think will be such a bad case in the mouths 0:16:34.760 --> 0:16:36.920 of so many judges that I think it will be 0:16:37.400 --> 0:16:41.480 overturned ultimately at the circuit court level, and the Supreme 0:16:41.520 --> 0:16:44.440 Court would probably not want to have this one come 0:16:44.520 --> 0:16:45.280 back to them. 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:50.640 Does Bruin make all federal gun control laws subject to challenge? 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:53.960 Yes, I mean it's an absurd decision because what it 0:16:54.080 --> 0:16:57.280 says is if there's any way in which someone can 0:16:57.480 --> 0:17:02.840 argue that the particular measure infringes on, you know, the 0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:06.760 ability to get a gun, or even something related to 0:17:06.840 --> 0:17:11.200 a gun, like a magazine that enters into a gun. 0:17:12.160 --> 0:17:16.920 Then it requires the government to come forward with a 0:17:17.000 --> 0:17:21.280 strong and compelling argument that there was a historical tradition 0:17:21.840 --> 0:17:25.959 of the same type of gun regulation. And you know, 0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:29.960 obviously there were no high capacity magazines in seventeen ninety one, 0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.000 so there were no such restrictions. And you know, there 0:17:33.000 --> 0:17:36.080 were no restrictions on people who battered their wives and 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:38.919 keep them from getting guns at seventeen ninety one. So 0:17:38.960 --> 0:17:41.359 that's what led the Fifth Circuit to say that the 0:17:41.560 --> 0:17:45.520 federal prohibition gun carrying by those subjects to a domestic 0:17:45.600 --> 0:17:49.800 violence restraining order was unconstitutional. Luckily, that part at least 0:17:49.920 --> 0:17:54.320 was overturned in Rahimi, But even Rahimi could have gone 0:17:54.440 --> 0:17:59.399 much farther in trying to cut back on the excesses 0:17:59.560 --> 0:18:01.200 that has invited. 0:18:01.760 --> 0:18:06.080 As far as the Fourth Circuit's decision upholding the Maryland 0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:09.840 assault weapons ban, the Third Circuit in the Seventh Circuit 0:18:09.920 --> 0:18:15.120 have also found such restrictions aren't prohibited under the Bruant approach, 0:18:15.520 --> 0:18:18.960 and the First Circuit has upheld a large capacity magazine ban, 0:18:19.400 --> 0:18:24.560 have any circuit courts ruled against assault weapons bans. 0:18:24.920 --> 0:18:27.919 There has been no such decision. On the other hand, 0:18:28.680 --> 0:18:33.600 Judge Kavanaugh, when he was on the DC Circuit, had 0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:38.399 written that the DCSOL weapon band was unconstitutional. So we 0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:40.280 know that there's at least one person on the three 0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:44.960 court who believed that, and I'm sure that Alito and 0:18:45.040 --> 0:18:51.200 Thomas would follow that particular path as well. The interesting 0:18:51.240 --> 0:18:54.840 thing is that the Fifth Circuit has shown this enormous, 0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:58.879 super zealous attachment to the most extreme version of the 0:18:58.880 --> 0:19:02.000 Second Amendment. But this issue can't come up in the 0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:06.800 Fifth Circuit because no assault weapon ban exists in the 0:19:06.840 --> 0:19:10.760 Fifth Circuit. So all of the states that have a 0:19:10.880 --> 0:19:14.560 saw weapon bans outside of the Fifth Circuit, clearly, if 0:19:14.600 --> 0:19:17.840 there were any such ban in the Fifth Circuit, they 0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:23.439 would render that decision. But the already conservative nature of 0:19:23.520 --> 0:19:28.399 those legislatures has preempted that decision from coming up before 0:19:28.400 --> 0:19:29.159 the Fifth Circuit. 0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:32.800 It's so amazing to me that in Bruin that the 0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:36.760 you know, the five justices signed on to this test 0:19:36.840 --> 0:19:41.119 that Thomas laid out. It sounded absurd upon first hearing, 0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:45.440 and it's proven to be absurd, as the lower courts 0:19:45.560 --> 0:19:47.280 try to make heads or tails of it. 0:19:47.800 --> 0:19:52.440 Yeah, it is absurd. You know, some of these judges 0:19:53.040 --> 0:19:58.040 of the sixth Conservatives are sort of shall we say, 0:19:58.119 --> 0:20:03.719 wacky zellets. But even Robert, who at least was a 0:20:03.760 --> 0:20:09.080 moderate Zellate, you know, has embarrassed himself enormously by signing 0:20:09.119 --> 0:20:11.960 his name on the Brilling decision. You know, this is 0:20:12.040 --> 0:20:16.320 something we will live in infamy for joining such an 0:20:16.359 --> 0:20:22.000 absurd decision. And at some point this decision will be overturned. 0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:25.680 It's going to take a while, obviously, either an expansion 0:20:25.680 --> 0:20:28.520 of the US Supreme Court or just many years until 0:20:28.960 --> 0:20:32.600 the composition of the court changes. It's hard to imagine 0:20:32.640 --> 0:20:35.919 that the sid Zealots will change their mind. But you know, 0:20:35.920 --> 0:20:38.880 if we get enough matt killing who even they might 0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:42.440 realize the folly of the Brillain decision. 0:20:42.600 --> 0:20:45.440 Thanks so much for your insights, John, that's Professor John 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:47.359 Donahue of Stanford Law School. 0:20:48.400 --> 0:20:53.040 Mister Girardi was no champion of justice. In fact, he 0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:57.960 was a perpetrator of injustice, victimizing his own clients when 0:20:57.960 --> 0:21:00.560 they were most vulnerable and most need. 0:21:00.760 --> 0:21:05.199 Tom Girardi has gone from famous legal heavyweight to disgrace 0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:10.280 disbarred lawyer to convicted felon. Girardi was catapulted into the 0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:14.240 national limelight after the two thousand Oscar winning movie Aaron 0:21:14.320 --> 0:21:17.640 Brockovich showcased his role in getting a more than three 0:21:17.720 --> 0:21:21.480 hundred million dollars settlement from PG and E for poisoning 0:21:21.480 --> 0:21:23.399 a California town's drinking water. 0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:25.760 In the interest of putting this whole thing to rest, 0:21:26.200 --> 0:21:28.520 PG and He is willing to offer the Jensens two 0:21:28.640 --> 0:21:32.080 hundred and fifty thousand dollars for their own two hundred 0:21:32.080 --> 0:21:36.240 and fifty thousand in terms of land value out in Hinckley. 0:21:36.960 --> 0:21:39.399 Mister Masery, we feel that's a more than fair price. 0:21:40.200 --> 0:21:43.200 How About in terms of medical expenses, two hundred and 0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:45.359 fifty thousand isn't going to come close to what this 0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:47.080 family is going to have to spend on doctors. 0:21:47.240 --> 0:21:50.639 He was hailed as a pioneer of toxic tort litigation, 0:21:51.160 --> 0:21:56.040 known for getting massive settlements for his clients. This season 0:21:56.160 --> 0:21:59.760 on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and his fame 0:21:59.840 --> 0:22:04.040 was enhanced as the husband bank rolling the extravagant lifestyle 0:22:04.280 --> 0:22:07.920 of one of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. His wife, 0:22:08.040 --> 0:22:09.520 Erica Girardi, I'm. 0:22:09.359 --> 0:22:12.760 An enigma wrapped in a riddle and cash. 0:22:12.960 --> 0:22:18.119 But US attorney Martina Strada says Girardi funded that extravagance 0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:21.879 by embezzling tens of millions of dollars from his clients 0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:24.199 in a ten year Ponzi scheme, and. 0:22:24.280 --> 0:22:28.200 Mister Giardi chose to take advantage those very same clients, 0:22:28.600 --> 0:22:32.640 those vulnerable people, the ones who'd gone through traumatic incidents, 0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:34.600 in order to enrich himself. 0:22:34.640 --> 0:22:38.960 A Los Angeles jury agreed and convicted Girardi of four 0:22:39.080 --> 0:22:42.600 counts of wire fraud. So, now, at age eighty five 0:22:42.760 --> 0:22:46.520 and suffering from dementia, the one's high powered lawyer is 0:22:46.600 --> 0:22:51.280 facing jail time. Joining me is Bloomberg Law correspondent Maya Spodo, 0:22:51.520 --> 0:22:55.280 who covered the trial. Maya, how did the prosecution present 0:22:55.359 --> 0:22:56.919 its case against Girardi? 0:22:57.160 --> 0:23:01.280 So the prosecution's case started rooted in the testimonies of 0:23:01.840 --> 0:23:06.080 these clients, who's missing funds made up the backbone of 0:23:06.160 --> 0:23:09.679 the charges against Girardi. And so the first witness we 0:23:09.720 --> 0:23:15.159 heard from was Joseph Rugomez. His home exploded and his 0:23:15.320 --> 0:23:18.600 body was covered in burns, and his girlfriend died in 0:23:18.640 --> 0:23:21.600 the explosion, and so we saw him limp up to 0:23:21.720 --> 0:23:26.840 the witness stand and explain how Girardi used these excuses 0:23:26.880 --> 0:23:30.320 such as a fake six point five percent interest accruing 0:23:30.680 --> 0:23:34.320 savings account and the sake excuse that he needed approval 0:23:34.359 --> 0:23:38.080 from a judge to justify stalling these payments to Rugoma. 0:23:38.400 --> 0:23:43.120 And we heard these excuses get echoed throughout the remaining 0:23:43.160 --> 0:23:48.160 clients who testified these excuses became ridiculous. There was one 0:23:48.200 --> 0:23:51.960 excuse that Girardi used where he said he was having 0:23:51.960 --> 0:23:54.199 the funds held up because he was working on a 0:23:54.280 --> 0:23:57.439 tax issue which would tax women more than men on 0:23:57.520 --> 0:24:00.280 certain personal injury settlements and he needed to work sat 0:24:00.320 --> 0:24:02.600 out with the irs. And even a lawyer at the 0:24:02.600 --> 0:24:05.120 firm who was freshly out of law school and had 0:24:05.160 --> 0:24:07.479 just passed the bar spotted that excuse and said that 0:24:07.560 --> 0:24:10.720 makes no sense. And so we started the case hearing 0:24:10.760 --> 0:24:13.920 about these excuses and the pain that they caused for clients. 0:24:14.040 --> 0:24:18.840 And then the prosecutors presented their detailed path where they 0:24:18.880 --> 0:24:22.280 followed the money, and we heard from the federal government 0:24:22.440 --> 0:24:25.439 on what these client trust bake accounts really looked like 0:24:25.560 --> 0:24:28.080 and where the funds were going. So that's how we 0:24:28.119 --> 0:24:30.879 got into more of the lavish lifestyle part. Of the case. 0:24:31.080 --> 0:24:35.200 Fans of the Real Housewives know about that extravagant lifestyle, 0:24:35.359 --> 0:24:37.080 how much did the jury learn about it? 0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:42.400 Sure saw so much money being used to purchase different 0:24:42.440 --> 0:24:46.760 categories of luxury items, such as two private jets already 0:24:46.800 --> 0:24:50.800 purchased expensive jewelry. We saw a check written directly out 0:24:50.840 --> 0:24:53.359 of one of the client trust accounts for seven hundred 0:24:53.359 --> 0:24:57.600 and fifty thousand dollars to pay for diamond earrings for 0:24:57.960 --> 0:25:02.200 his now exchanged wife, who's Eric Jane. We also saw 0:25:02.440 --> 0:25:07.240 how funds were taken from Gerardi Keith to pay for 0:25:07.560 --> 0:25:11.480 Girardi's memberships and country clubs. One of the lawyers at 0:25:11.520 --> 0:25:16.800 the firm charged property taxes to his Girardi Keith American 0:25:16.840 --> 0:25:22.080 Express card. And we also heard details about the lavish 0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:26.720 parties that were hosted on the company's dime, which had 0:25:27.240 --> 0:25:30.600 six figure entertainment budgets. There was a Super Bowl party 0:25:30.680 --> 0:25:35.760 where lawyers were given as goodie bags their own personal jerseys, 0:25:36.280 --> 0:25:39.320 and all of these parties were being hosted while some 0:25:39.480 --> 0:25:42.600 clients who were in immense pain still were not receiving 0:25:42.800 --> 0:25:44.840 all of the settlement funds that they were doe. 0:25:44.960 --> 0:25:50.120 The testimony of the client victims was very emotional at times, 0:25:50.440 --> 0:25:52.760 tell us about the most compelling testimony. 0:25:53.040 --> 0:25:55.600 So the one that I found most compelling, and also 0:25:55.760 --> 0:25:58.879 the first client witness that one of the jurors named 0:25:58.880 --> 0:26:03.400 when he spoke to report after the decision was Erica Saldana's. 0:26:03.840 --> 0:26:07.880 She showed up to court actually with COVID and had 0:26:07.920 --> 0:26:11.639 to testify remotely, but she was sobbing for much of 0:26:11.680 --> 0:26:14.520 her testimony. Had to push up her glasses twide away 0:26:14.560 --> 0:26:17.840 her tears because she was crying so hard. Her very 0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:22.720