The Second Amendment after Bruen and the state of the law in California

WEBVTT
00:00:09.679 --> 00:00:10.560
Hello everyone.
00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:14.160
Welcome to another episode of the Sheriff's Mike.
00:00:14.240 --> 00:00:17.199
Clear to talk with me, Sheriff Corey Honey.
00:00:17.679 --> 00:00:22.320
Today we're going to tackle the Second Amendment topic again.
00:00:22.719 --> 00:00:28.239
We had our episode where we talked about the CCW laws here in California.
00:00:28.320 --> 00:00:34.799
But I thought it'd be better to really kind of do a deeper dive on Second Amendment jurisprudence.
00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:47.359
Interestingly enough, you know, from the standpoint of constitutional amendments, the Second Amendment was an amendment that didn't receive much attention or treatment by the courts for many, many, many years.
00:00:47.520 --> 00:00:57.600
But then in uh recent years, there have been some landmark Supreme Court cases that have really shaped how the Second Amendment is being interpreted.
00:00:57.840 --> 00:01:17.200
And we are fortunate enough today to have as a guest Chuck Michelle, who is an attorney who's really on the forefront of addressing the constitutionality of various laws or regulations that are continually trying to be passed here in the state of California.
00:01:17.760 --> 00:01:22.159
He is the author of a really valuable resource.
00:01:22.400 --> 00:01:25.599
It's a resource that I use, and I know a lot of my colleagues use it.
00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:32.400
It is the book called California Gun Laws, The Guide to State and Federal Firearms Regulations.
00:01:32.480 --> 00:01:52.159
And I got to tell you, it takes a very, very hard to follow, hard-to-understand area of the law, even for cops and lawyers, and puts it in a way that makes it much, much uh easier for us to understand as well as the lay uh person.
00:01:52.319 --> 00:01:58.400
So if you have any questions about California gun laws, I highly recommend uh this particular book.
00:01:58.640 --> 00:02:01.200
But Chuck, uh I appreciate you joining me.
00:02:01.280 --> 00:02:07.359
And for those of uh you who've been following this podcast, you'll note that this is a somewhat different format.
00:02:07.599 --> 00:02:12.639
This is our very first remote recording of an episode.
00:02:12.960 --> 00:02:22.319
I'm excited about this because if this works out, we'll actually uh be able to uh widen the scope of guests that we have uh on our podcast.
00:02:22.479 --> 00:02:26.479
But Chuck, you're joining us from uh Southern California, is that correct?
00:02:26.879 --> 00:02:28.879
Actually, I'm in Las Vegas right now.
00:02:29.439 --> 00:02:30.080
Fantastic.
00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:30.800
Fantastic.
00:02:30.960 --> 00:02:32.319
Well, we appreciate that.
00:02:32.560 --> 00:02:48.800
So, Chuck, for those uh people who may not be familiar with uh your body of work, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, uh how you came to be uh in this particular area of litigation, and uh, you know, what you primarily focus on in terms of your firm?
00:02:49.199 --> 00:03:06.479
Well, interestingly enough, and I'll try not to take too long on this, but I I moved to California right out of college, and uh I actually applied to get into law enforcement, LAPD and LA Sheriff, but my eyesight at that time you couldn't correct it with contacts.
00:03:06.639 --> 00:03:11.680
So I couldn't get into uh either of the police departments because my eyes weren't good enough.
00:03:11.759 --> 00:03:16.159
So I went to law school, got out of law school, went to work for a big firm.
00:03:16.319 --> 00:03:24.000
And there were a lot of these big firms, you know, they they cater to democratic politicians so they can get the municipal work.
00:03:24.080 --> 00:03:26.479
So they do this free work for politicians.
00:03:26.560 --> 00:03:32.879
And one of the things that my law firm did was free work for the LA County, for the LA, for the LA City Council.
00:03:33.199 --> 00:03:44.400
And they were anti-gun owner, and there was a a number of us at that firm that were very much pro-Second Amendment, and we'd had some interesting conversations in the lunchroom.
00:03:44.560 --> 00:03:49.520
Uh, but eventually I wanted to get into court more and I started my own practice.
00:03:49.680 --> 00:03:54.159
And to be honest, when I first started, I mean, I've always been an activist as well as an advocate.
00:03:54.319 --> 00:04:00.800
I mean, my chocolate lab's name is Heston, but uh so, you know, my heart's in it.
00:04:00.960 --> 00:04:08.000
But when I got out of that law firm and started my own practice, I was like, where am I going to find a nice group of people that I can, how am I going to market myself?
00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:15.599
And so I started going to gun clubs and gun shows and giving lectures and talking to folks about what the gun laws were.
00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:25.920
Because I had actually worked as a prosecutor for a while and saw how a lot of people got snagged by the complicated laws that it now takes a book 600 pages long to explain.
00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:32.720
You know, gun owners don't have a lawyer, a compliance counsel standing by in their closed closet ready to tell them what's legal and what's not.
00:04:32.879 --> 00:04:34.160
It's that complicated.
00:04:34.480 --> 00:04:38.319
So I started giving these talks, and that built into another bigger practice.
00:04:38.399 --> 00:04:48.319
Then I got involved with the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and uh I sent a letter to the NRA saying I want to do some volunteer work for you guys.
00:04:48.480 --> 00:04:53.839
And between the NRA and the CRPA, they put me to work, and things kind of grew from there.
00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:58.879
Uh uh, I've so I've been doing this now for uh 30 years.
00:04:59.040 --> 00:05:05.199
Uh, and uh uh as I said, I'm just not just an advocate, legal advocate, I'm an activist too.
00:05:05.360 --> 00:05:06.720
So I my heart's in it.
00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:15.120
If I wanted to just keep if I just wanted to make money, I would have stayed at the big firm and represented oil companies and tobacco companies, but this meant something to me.
00:05:15.279 --> 00:05:17.199
So uh I've enjoyed every minute of it.
00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:19.279
Well, that's a that's a cool story.
00:05:19.519 --> 00:05:31.839
Um and uh it's probably, you know, uh looking now in retrospect, the fact that uh you uh weren't able to get into law enforcement uh probably cleared the decks for you to do the important work that you're doing now.
00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:34.240
So I guess uh there's always a pathway for us.
00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:36.560
Um The Lord works in mysterious ways.
00:05:36.959 --> 00:05:37.600
Absolutely.
00:05:37.759 --> 00:05:44.319
But but I am hiring, so if you ever if your dream is to uh to give a little bit of a grain out of that.
00:05:45.680 --> 00:05:46.399
That's okay.
00:05:46.800 --> 00:05:49.759
I could be a reserve in the office, you know, doing paperwork.
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:51.439
We let's talk afterwards.
00:05:51.600 --> 00:05:52.879
Maybe we can find a place for you.
00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:53.759
Definitely.
00:05:54.079 --> 00:06:02.959
So um as it as it stands right now, uh, would you say that that exclusively you are doing Second Amendment or gun-related litigation?
00:06:03.040 --> 00:06:06.160
Aaron Powell Well, my law firm, you're you know, we're a full service law firm.
00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:15.040
We do all kinds of cases, but we definitely have this practice area that's a focus, and we have I have several lawyers that are dedicated to Second Amendment litigation.
00:06:15.120 --> 00:06:30.639
And not just not just on behalf of like CRPA or NRA or Second Amendment Foundation or Firearms Policy Coalition, all these other active advocacy groups, but gun owners who get in trouble, uh uh gun stores that are trying to figure out what the law is, law, uh police departments.
00:06:30.800 --> 00:06:37.120
I mean, we we have representatives at the CCW seminar every year uh from my from my firm.
00:06:37.279 --> 00:06:43.040
Um but we we do we do, you know, I have enough lawyers to do other things too.
00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:44.560
But this is my passion.
00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:51.839
So this is what, and frankly, all the folks in my office that are working on the Second Amendment cases, it's a passion for them too.
00:06:52.240 --> 00:07:10.720
Well, I bet it's a uh really exciting area of the law to be practicing now because as I said at the top of this episode, you know, for uh the majority of uh our history as a country, uh there wasn't a lot of uh jurisprudence or litigation, or there wasn't a lot of jurisprudence relative to the Second Amendment.
00:07:10.800 --> 00:07:14.800
It was it was the the stepchild of the amendments, if you will, right?
00:07:14.959 --> 00:07:16.000
Uh right, right.
00:07:16.160 --> 00:07:23.120
The the Second Amendment I mean in 1939, there was about three cases back in the 39 or before.
00:07:23.199 --> 00:07:24.800
The Miller case was the big one.
00:07:24.959 --> 00:07:25.199
Okay.
00:07:25.360 --> 00:07:35.600
And the Miller case was debated for years about whether or not it created a uh, and that was a case involving a short-barreled shotgun, right, and whether or not it was illegal to possess.
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:35.920
Okay.
00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:41.600
And uh that's a whole nother, we could do a whole segment on the the that case.
00:07:42.639 --> 00:07:47.519
It went to the Supreme Court and there was no defense attorney to uh to write a brief.
00:07:47.600 --> 00:07:49.120
So it was a little lopsided.
00:07:49.279 --> 00:08:08.959
The the argument for years about the Miller case was whether or not it meant that the Second Amendment right was a collective right of a state to form a militia as opposed to an individual right to keep and bear arms to defend your family, or for that matter, for hunting or or target shooting or whatever other lawful lawful uses of a firearm there are.
00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:11.120
And so that, but that sat for years.
00:08:11.279 --> 00:08:13.040
And it wasn't for lack of trying.
00:08:13.120 --> 00:08:17.600
I mean, we tried to get a lot of cases in front of the Supreme Court, but we didn't have the votes.
00:08:17.759 --> 00:08:21.519
Remember, it takes four votes on the Supreme Court to take a case, five votes to win it.
00:08:21.680 --> 00:08:25.759
And even when we had Scalia on there, we didn't have the five votes.
00:08:25.920 --> 00:08:29.120
Uh so a lot of those cases were being turned down.
00:08:29.199 --> 00:08:35.279
We had the four, but they were voting against it because they knew they didn't have the fifth, so they weren't taking Second Amendment cases.
00:08:35.519 --> 00:08:44.559
And then we had some changes on the Supreme Court uh when O'Connor and Rehnquist dropped off the court, uh, and the composition changed.
00:08:44.639 --> 00:08:52.639
And coincidentally, and conveniently, and thankfully, and luckily, that's about the time that the Heller case uh was brought to the U.S.
00:08:52.799 --> 00:08:53.440
Supreme Court.
00:08:53.519 --> 00:09:04.960
So they accepted that case, and then that was 2008, as I recall, and they accepted that case and made it clear that the Second Amendment did protect a fundamental individual right.
00:09:05.200 --> 00:09:18.080
And that was a game changer right there, because before that we'd had to use due process and equal protection and preemption and these other theories that we won some, but not as many as we can win with the Second Amendment.
00:09:18.240 --> 00:09:26.879
Uh but unfortunately, even after Heller, the lower courts are some of the lower courts are very prejudiced against gun owners' rights on the Second Amendment.
00:09:26.960 --> 00:09:41.759
And so the Heller methodology, and this is what it's all about to this day, is whether or not the lower courts are really faithfully applying what the Supreme Court said is the test and how you apply the test to determine whether or not any kind of a gun control law is constitutional.
00:09:41.919 --> 00:09:56.000
Uh so Heller was turned into this interest balancing thing where a court could put its thumb on the scale and and say, you know, that we can we think the safe public safety interest w outweighs the individual right interest.
00:09:56.080 --> 00:10:05.759
Uh and then Bruin came along in 2020 uh 2022 and uh uh reiterated what Heller had said.
00:10:06.480 --> 00:10:10.720
Uh but remember Heller wasn't even a uh that was a federal case.
00:10:10.799 --> 00:10:12.480
That wasn't that didn't apply to the states.
00:10:12.639 --> 00:10:12.720
Right.
00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:14.399
Because it was Washington, D.C.
00:10:14.559 --> 00:10:19.039
So as a federal enclave, there was no uh application to state or local laws.
00:10:19.200 --> 00:10:29.279
So we didn't uh Heller clarified, uh excuse me, McDonald was the next case that came along, challenging the Chicago handgun ban, which uh or or permitting ban, yeah.
00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:35.679
Uh which uh said uh yeah, it it it applied it's incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
00:10:35.919 --> 00:10:45.600
Uh you know, I used to have to take a civics class, and I'm sure you did too, that talked about uh, you know, the how the Bill of Rights works and how the Constitution works.
00:10:45.759 --> 00:11:04.080
And you know, the Bill of Rights is not necessarily applicable to it was selective incorporation, it's called So Um The Second Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights that through the 14th Amendment into the to apply to the states, so that state and local infringements on the Second Amendment were also uh you could strike those down as well.
00:11:04.159 --> 00:11:05.679
They were protected by the Second Amendment.
00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:21.440
So from there we've got we've been running uh we we got into Bruin, and from there we've been running uh uh against we have some great successes, but also some problems with some of the courts like the Ninth Circuit, which we're in.
00:11:21.759 --> 00:11:21.919
Yeah.
00:11:22.159 --> 00:11:34.240
Uh that don't there's a a percentage of the justices on the Ninth Circuit that don't like the Second Amendment, they don't like the Supreme Court, uh, and they don't like uh cases challenging gun control law.
00:11:34.320 --> 00:11:35.840
So we've been had it's been a fight.
00:11:36.240 --> 00:11:37.600
We're having some great wins.
00:11:37.840 --> 00:11:51.440
But what's it's gonna we're gonna have to get another case from the Supreme Court to really sort of put the lower courts in their place and make it clear to them what the test is and how they decide whether or not a gun control law is constitutional or not.
00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:52.399
Interesting.
00:11:52.559 --> 00:11:56.000
I want to kind of go back and unpack a little bit of that because I think there's some fascinating things there.
00:11:56.159 --> 00:12:09.519
You know, one of them you talk about the makeup of the Supreme Court, and obviously uh that has a lot to do with the uh cases that get heard uh than and the law that ultimately gets uh developed.
00:12:09.759 --> 00:12:29.759
And I think uh if I understand correctly, you talked about, you know, there were there were four justices on the Supreme Court that were probably um more open to um applying the Second Amendment to an individual self-defense um rationale as opposed to uh the state's ability to create and maintain militias.
00:12:30.080 --> 00:12:46.559
But you I I believe you said that there was a reluctance on their part to actually uh hear the cases because they didn't ultimately have a sufficient number of votes in the end to advance that particular uh uh uh theory of the law.
00:12:46.960 --> 00:13:20.480
And that's interesting to me, and and it sounds like uh perhaps there was some calculation on the part of those four to keep the cases out of the docket so as not to create a body of uh adverse law, adverse to the notion that the Second Amendment applied to an individual's right to self-defense, which once a body of law is established and the styrodesis uh is in place, it's much, much harder to go back and change that.
00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:23.200
Is that your understanding of how that was playing out?
00:13:23.440 --> 00:13:23.600
Yeah.
00:13:23.679 --> 00:13:30.879
They were pr the the four justices were protecting the Second Amendment by not taking a case that they knew they didn't have the fifth justice to win.
00:13:31.200 --> 00:13:31.279
Yeah.
00:13:31.600 --> 00:13:33.120
That's a fascinating thing, right?
00:13:33.200 --> 00:13:38.960
Uh and I I think people often don't understand the nuances of how this all gets played out.
00:13:39.039 --> 00:13:39.200
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:13:39.279 --> 00:13:40.399
And there was a lot of confusion.
00:13:40.480 --> 00:13:42.879
People thought, why aren't you taking a case to the Supreme Court?
00:13:42.960 --> 00:13:45.600
They the NRA got criticized for this for years.
00:13:45.759 --> 00:13:46.720
They were trying.
00:13:46.879 --> 00:13:47.039
Yeah.
00:13:47.360 --> 00:13:52.000
So was so were every state of all the gun rights advocacy groups, we were trying.
00:13:52.240 --> 00:13:58.159
But we knew that uh some of those swing votes were you couldn't really count on them.
00:13:58.320 --> 00:13:59.200
And so it was risky.
00:13:59.600 --> 00:14:01.279
And it was risky when Heller was filed.
00:14:01.519 --> 00:14:07.039
It was they got lucky that the the composition changed during that court's that case's uh uh progress.
00:14:07.360 --> 00:14:08.000
Yeah, for sure.
00:14:08.080 --> 00:14:15.440
And and I think it also speaks to um you have to be tactical in your approach no matter what you're doing, right?
00:14:15.519 --> 00:14:24.720
You have to keep an eye on what the end goal is, and sometimes that means that you're uh you're taking an approach that people may not pr appreciate or understand, but you're playing a long game.
00:14:24.799 --> 00:14:28.639
And that's certainly what had to happen here with regard to this particular area of the law.
00:14:28.879 --> 00:14:29.279
Yes.
00:14:29.519 --> 00:14:29.679
Yeah.
00:14:30.080 --> 00:15:08.159
The bigger picture that this is you know, the the the conceptual philosophy of of the progressive judges versus the I'll call them conservative judges, uh the the the there's a approach to the constitution where you either approach it from an originalist perspective or you believe in this living constitution where uh all kinds of stuff that wasn't even considered back when the founding fathers were writing up the Bill of Rights uh can be incorporated through uh you know uh magic wishing that that makes all kinds of constitutional rights exist that or come into being that didn't exist.
00:15:08.399 --> 00:15:10.720
Abortion is the probably the primary example.
00:15:10.879 --> 00:15:15.120
Uh they really stretched the Constitution to find a right to abortion.
00:15:15.519 --> 00:15:24.240
Now that's not to say policy-wise that I'm one way or another on abortion, but that's the originalism versus the living constitution is the debate that's going on.
00:15:24.320 --> 00:15:31.840
And the originalists won in Heller and said, we're going by what the founding fathers intended at the time when they wrote this.
00:15:32.399 --> 00:15:33.440
It's words on paper.
00:15:33.600 --> 00:15:34.240
What does it say?
00:15:34.480 --> 00:15:36.080
What were they thinking when they wrote it?
00:15:36.240 --> 00:15:41.919
And not what how does it apply now, or how should we twist stuff to suit some modern-day policy.
00:15:42.080 --> 00:15:42.240
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:15:42.320 --> 00:16:06.000
Yeah, you know, interestingly enough, and I think maybe it's it's worth just pausing momentarily and talking about to my knowledge, and perhaps uh you know something different than I do, but there is no other country in the world that has something akin to the Second Amendment in their governing uh doctrine or their their their constitution.
00:16:06.159 --> 00:16:26.240
The United States is unique in that regard, and it goes back to how firearms were part of the fabric of everyday life and their utilitarian use, their use in self-defense, their use in hunting, all of those kinds of things made it part of our historical tradition.
00:16:26.799 --> 00:16:27.440
Yes.
00:16:27.840 --> 00:16:31.279
And other countries don't have that as as as much as we do, right?
00:16:31.519 --> 00:16:32.960
Yeah, we were we were pioneers.
00:16:33.120 --> 00:16:41.759
We you know, whether it was grizzly bears or Indians or or trying to hunt for food, you know, or tyrannical government.
00:16:41.840 --> 00:16:42.799
There was that piece of as well.
00:16:43.200 --> 00:16:44.960
That was part of it, that was definitely in the mix.
00:16:45.200 --> 00:16:45.679
Right, right.
00:16:45.919 --> 00:16:49.519
But but all of that was uh was part of the uh you know survival.
00:16:49.679 --> 00:16:49.840
Yeah.
00:16:50.080 --> 00:16:58.799
And so it was taken for granted that you would have a firearm and be ready to use it, know how to use it, and and when the time came, take up arms against the king.
00:16:59.039 --> 00:16:59.360
Yeah.
00:16:59.679 --> 00:17:20.880
And I think that is what distinguishes us from other countries in that, you know, obviously they regulate firearms much, much differently than the United States, and and uh it's legal under their system because it's not a foundational element of their from their beginning like it is here in the United States.
00:17:21.039 --> 00:17:21.680
Would you agree?
00:17:22.079 --> 00:17:22.240
Right.
00:17:22.319 --> 00:17:30.880
Well, I don't I can't say for sure that there aren't any other countries that have some kind of a constitutional or a or a right to a firearm.
00:17:31.119 --> 00:17:35.039
There are lots of countries that you can get a firearm, but it's more of a privilege.
00:17:35.279 --> 00:17:35.680
Correct.
00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:38.079
Which means it can be revoked at any time.
00:17:38.240 --> 00:17:42.400
There's no restrictions on the government reining it in or eliminating it.
00:17:42.880 --> 00:17:56.960
Uh but we're fortunate that the the the folks who uh founded this country recognized that uh this was one of the things that, you know, the the uh Charlton Heston needs to say the the the door to freedom is framed with muskets.
00:17:57.039 --> 00:17:57.359
Yeah.
00:17:57.599 --> 00:18:00.319
You know, I mean that's that kind of says it.
00:18:00.400 --> 00:18:06.400
I mean, without guns, you you're at the whim of uh a government that can do whatever it wants.
00:18:06.960 --> 00:18:11.920
Any threat to your person that could come your way, that that would be uh something that you'd be looking for.
00:18:12.240 --> 00:18:35.039
Um I think it's also interesting that uh you know, as the law has developed in terms of the way the the Second Amendment was written, um made it subject to these alternate interpretations because of the inclusion of the language relative to a well-regulated militia, right?
00:18:35.359 --> 00:18:50.160
Uh and then then we got the the right to the bear arms shall not be infringed, and you uh add to that the language about the militia, and it has caused uh decades, yeah, decades and decades of confusion, right?
00:18:50.480 --> 00:18:59.519
That that introductory clause was read by some to mean it's a limit on the second clause, which is the right to keep and bear arms.
00:18:59.680 --> 00:19:09.440
And Heller said, no, that's just like an example of one of the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right.
00:19:09.519 --> 00:19:09.680
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:19:09.759 --> 00:19:09.920
Yeah.
00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:14.319
And so Heller, and I remember when Heller passed, it was a literal game changer.
00:19:14.400 --> 00:19:24.480
Uh it finally settled the question uh as to whether or not the right to possess uh firearm or weapon for self-defense uh in your home.
00:19:25.039 --> 00:19:26.000
In your home, yeah, in your home.
00:19:26.079 --> 00:19:32.480
And and there was that and the two limitations, obviously, is in your home, and also it was in a federal enclave, right?
00:19:32.720 --> 00:19:45.359
And so then it required uh um some further cases, further uh uh direction from the court uh to ultimately say that it applied to the states uh through the 14th Amendment.
00:19:45.680 --> 00:19:54.720
Yeah, and and and the the gun ban lobby immediately seized on the in-your home and said, well, uh the Heller decision only gives you only have a Second Amendment right inside your house.
00:19:54.880 --> 00:19:58.640
You don't have a right, you have a right to keep, but you don't have a right to bear in public.
00:19:58.720 --> 00:20:18.400
And that's when Bruin came along with the CCW analysis in New York State because you had to have a you had to demonstrate a special need, which in some jurisdictions in California, when they had the good cause standard, was you know, we need to see a letter from a stalker with his phone number on there that says giving you a death threat before you're gonna get a CCW.
00:20:18.880 --> 00:20:23.680
So there were many jurisdictions which we're not issuing because the standard was set so high.
00:20:23.759 --> 00:20:24.000
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:20:24.079 --> 00:20:29.119
I'm not even entirely sure that the certified letter from your stalker with the uh threat was gonna get it.
00:20:29.279 --> 00:20:44.640
Sometimes I would I would you know jokingly tell people that I mean you literally have to be chased into the uh the police department or the sheriff's office by a guy wielding a uh uh a knife uh before they would go, okay, well, maybe you've got good cause.
00:20:44.880 --> 00:20:45.039
Yeah.
00:20:45.119 --> 00:20:45.279
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
00:20:45.519 --> 00:20:47.680
That would be LAPD and San Francisco.
00:20:48.160 --> 00:20:49.119
Yeah, it was it was tough.
00:20:49.359 --> 00:21:03.599
I think there was a time when uh I mean early on prior to that, I I think I had issued somewhere around 4,000 concealed weapons permits in in Butte County, which from a you know proportional standpoint given my population was pretty good.
00:21:03.680 --> 00:21:04.000
Yeah.
00:21:04.240 --> 00:21:09.519
And I think uh San Francisco had issued three uh with a substantially larger population.
00:21:09.599 --> 00:21:14.880
So I think an interesting thing happened when the CRPA brought the Peruta case.
00:21:15.119 --> 00:21:15.680
Yeah.
00:21:15.920 --> 00:21:18.079
Uh because we lost.
00:21:19.039 --> 00:21:26.559
But there was dissents, and a lot of sheriffs that were sort of on the fence read that decision.
00:21:26.799 --> 00:21:33.519
The dissents were cut from conservative justices, and the sheriffs read the conservative sheriffs read that decision and they were persuaded.
00:21:33.680 --> 00:21:40.240
They weren't forced, but they were persuaded that it wasn't such a bad idea to issue more CCWs.
00:21:40.319 --> 00:21:46.319
And that's where you got Orange County came out of the uh of closet and really started issuing and some others.
00:21:46.400 --> 00:21:46.480
Yeah.
00:21:46.720 --> 00:21:59.759
But it was even before, even before Heller and McDonald and Bruin uh uh made it mandatory, uh, a lot of minds were changed because of the reasoning of the Peruda decision that challenged that good cause standard.
00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:01.839
The tide was beginning to change.
00:22:02.319 --> 00:22:09.519
The majority of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
00:22:09.599 --> 00:22:17.839
And the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment uh was to ensure that the States didn't, you know, violate rights post-Civil War, right?
00:22:18.079 --> 00:22:28.240
But the Second Am But it took time for the Second Amendment to receive the uh uh Fourteenth Amendment blessing, so to speak, right?
00:22:28.559 --> 00:22:29.200
Right.
00:22:29.440 --> 00:22:33.839
Um But McDonald clearly established that this does apply to the states.
00:22:34.000 --> 00:22:42.319
But now we have the uh can you carry a firearm or or you can you carry a weapon for self-protection beyond the confines of one's home, right?
00:22:42.640 --> 00:22:42.799
Right.
00:22:42.880 --> 00:22:47.200
And that's what Bruin addressed, because that was CCW permitting in New York State.
00:22:47.519 --> 00:22:48.000
Yeah.
00:22:48.319 --> 00:22:56.319
And so they got rid of that subjective uh interpretation and said if you need one for self-defense, you have to be able to get one.
00:22:56.720 --> 00:23:06.160
Yeah, and as it turned out, California's CCW law was almost identical to that of New York, or at least uh the way it was being applied was very, very similar.
00:23:06.319 --> 00:23:09.759
So Bruin had a significant impact here in California.
00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:18.160
I'll tell you that I was the president of the California State Sheriff's Association at the time that Bruin came out.
00:23:18.640 --> 00:23:36.559
And I, along with uh the uh uh general counsel for the State Sheriff's Association and our uh lobbyist spent time um trying to guide the legislation that was gonna come out.
00:23:36.880 --> 00:23:49.920
You know, uh I think within hours after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruin, the California Department of Justice already had uh legislation prepared and ready to go.
00:23:50.480 --> 00:24:18.559
And one of the things that we found there was um it it seemed as though okay, the response from the uh State of California, the legislature, the attorney general was fine if that's what the Supreme Court says, but we're gonna make it really, really hard for you to get it by making you jump through all these administrative hoops, and then if you get it, you can't carry it anywhere because we're gonna make everywhere a sensitive place, right?
00:24:18.799 --> 00:24:19.440
Right, exactly.
00:24:19.599 --> 00:24:30.319
They've but they've tried to they've tried to red tape the right to dread to death, make it so expensive to jump to to go through the procedural and remember it's only a two-year permit.
00:24:30.400 --> 00:24:30.720
Yeah.
00:24:31.039 --> 00:24:32.880
So you got to jump through all these hoops.
00:24:33.039 --> 00:24:38.400
I mean, in in LA in LA County and and LAPD, it was taking two years to to get through the process.
00:24:38.559 --> 00:24:38.799
Yeah.
00:24:39.039 --> 00:24:44.160
So that that but that's in that's by design in some cases.
00:24:44.400 --> 00:24:51.680
In other cases, it's because I mean, I acknowledge the DMV has a hard job issuing driver's licenses.
00:24:51.839 --> 00:24:52.640
Those are licenses.
00:24:52.720 --> 00:24:53.920
It's a licensing agency.
00:24:54.079 --> 00:25:03.920
Licensing is not exactly, I don't, I had if I had my druthers, I'd rather have a deputy in a patrol car rather than sitting behind a desk processing a CCW application.
00:25:04.079 --> 00:25:18.480
But it's a it's a right, so it has to be done, and it has to be done in a way that doesn't make it impossible for a for a guy who you know a guy who obeys the law uh to get that permit quickly and without breaking the bank.
00:25:18.640 --> 00:25:26.720
I mean, people can't afford a two uh we just sued Santa Clara Santa Clara County, they're charging$2,000 to go through the process.
00:25:26.880 --> 00:25:27.359
Wow.
00:25:27.519 --> 00:25:31.279
Well, I mean, that's people a lot of people can't afford that.
00:25:31.359 --> 00:25:34.319
That's a lot of money to you know to anybody.
00:25:34.640 --> 00:25:36.559
So uh that's the obligation.
00:25:36.640 --> 00:25:48.160
Now they're probably gonna have to be some changes, and we're looking at, and actually we're working with the Sheriff's Association, I believe, to come up with some recommendations on how to streamline this process.
00:25:48.319 --> 00:25:52.079
You know, you don't really need to have a psych exam for every single applicant.
00:25:52.240 --> 00:26:05.279
You don't need these character references where wives who are getting divorced or breaking up with a boyfriend who's stalking them really don't want to get a character reference from the guy that they think they might need the gun to protect themselves from.
00:26:05.440 --> 00:26:06.079
You know what I mean?
00:26:06.160 --> 00:26:06.319
Yeah.
00:26:06.640 --> 00:26:11.119
So some of these things that are required really could be discretionary.
00:26:11.279 --> 00:26:18.160
I mean, if the police department sees like a red flag on a guy, then maybe they go out and interview their friends and get a character reference.
00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:20.319
Or maybe they then say a psych exam.
00:26:20.400 --> 00:26:27.039
But all this process could be streamlined and and be and made more made much faster and much less expensive.
00:26:27.279 --> 00:26:30.559
And so that's kind of the bigger picture that we're looking at in Sacramento now.
00:26:30.880 --> 00:26:49.039
It's interesting because um for me, prior to Bruin, you know, my stance was um that any you know, law-abiding, mentally stable individual who uh wanted to have a CCW for self-protection, uh, that was sufficient cause in my view.
00:26:49.519 --> 00:26:55.759
And then we could actually delve into whether or not they were law-abiding, mentally stable individuals.
00:26:56.400 --> 00:27:16.559
With the passage of what was SB2, um in many respects it took discretion away from me to look at the people that I really should spend some time focusing on, because now I have this whole bureaucratic process that is labor intensive, right?
00:27:16.880 --> 00:27:28.559
And you're right, it takes resources to go through and do all of that, especially for people that aren't going to pose any risk to public safety whatsoever, but you still got to check the boxes on all of them as well.
00:27:29.039 --> 00:27:29.440
Exactly.
00:27:29.599 --> 00:27:31.039
Yep, you're checking the boxes.
00:27:31.279 --> 00:27:31.599
Yeah.
00:27:31.759 --> 00:27:51.200
And so uh that was one of the things that was frustrating uh for us because it seemed as though, you know, now we have to water down our scrutiny, I guess, for lack of a better term, um, and not necessarily focus on the ones that we think are gonna pose a threat.
00:27:51.599 --> 00:28:00.640
After all your years uh uh in the in the in law enforcement, you kind of can tell when there might be a problem that you need to kind of take a closer look at.
00:28:00.720 --> 00:28:00.880
Yeah.
00:28:01.119 --> 00:28:09.519
But if you have to spend the same amount of time on it on a thousand people, you can't really focus on the guys that you need to take a closer look at.
00:28:09.759 --> 00:28:11.519
So it's a yeah, it's a problem.
00:28:11.680 --> 00:28:16.400
And I think that, you know, I think that the the whole character reference thing is deliberate.
00:28:16.720 --> 00:28:22.319
The the the psych exam is deliberate, it's designed to discourage people and the costs.
00:28:22.400 --> 00:28:25.519
It's designed to discourage people from getting CCWs.
00:28:25.759 --> 00:28:28.000
And so is the whole sensitive places argument.
00:28:28.160 --> 00:28:36.240
I mean, we had the CCW system, even as bad as it was with good cause, was in place since the 20s.
00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:49.440
Uh and people had CCWs and could go to all the pla that we people who had CCWs could go to all the places which are now deemed sensitive places where your CCW is no longer valid.
00:28:49.680 --> 00:28:52.400
Now, that was never a problem for a hundred years.
00:28:52.640 --> 00:28:55.519
You know, if you have the CCW, you have been vetted.
00:28:55.759 --> 00:29:04.720
And so if you went into a, you know, a park or someplace where the the SB2 now prohibits make CCWs invalid, there was no problem.
00:29:04.799 --> 00:29:05.680
It was never a problem.
00:29:05.759 --> 00:29:14.880
It was designed to try and make the CCW less desirable, less useful uh by the Sacramento politicians who just don't like the concept.
00:29:15.200 --> 00:29:27.440
You know, it's interesting because I uh had the opportunity to be on a number of conference calls with uh AG staffers who were working with the author of the bill, and and that was an area that we spent a lot of time talking about.
00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:56.880
And it was interesting to me because during the course of these conversations, I had this epiphany, if you will, uh recognized that the people that I was talking to that were advocating for these uh sensitive spaces, you know, this expansive sensitive spaces doctrine fundamentally believed that anybody who wanted to carry a gun in public must be a criminal or crazy.
00:29:57.279 --> 00:30:03.599
There was no capacity for them to think that an honest law-abiding citizen would just want to protect themselves.
00:30:04.079 --> 00:30:06.000
They they can't get that into their head.
00:30:06.079 --> 00:30:09.200
And and and probably most of them have never fired a gun.
00:30:09.519 --> 00:30:09.759
True.
00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:18.400
So they they've never been to a range, they've never experienced the the discipline and the recreational aspects of sport shooting at a range.
00:30:18.559 --> 00:30:21.200
But I'll tell you one thing that's good about CRPA.
00:30:21.279 --> 00:30:24.960
Uh Rick Travis is our lobbyist up there.
00:30:25.279 --> 00:30:29.599
He's really uh reaching across the aisle in ways that haven't really been done before.
00:30:29.680 --> 00:30:36.160
He's taking these guys to the range, he's showing the these politicians who who shooters are.
00:30:36.240 --> 00:30:49.599
I mean, we have women uh going to the Capitol on on uh you know uh constituency day and talking to these people, and they see, oh, they're just these are people who are just trying to take care of themselves or their families.
00:30:49.759 --> 00:30:56.960
It it it gets the the demonization uh uh uh out of the out of the mix, and that's making a lot of difference.
00:30:57.039 --> 00:31:06.880
A lot of bills were stopped that uh because once the politicians that were asked to vote on it understood what it really did and and didn't do, uh they didn't support it anymore.
00:31:07.200 --> 00:31:07.920
Yeah, it's interesting.
00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:16.400
You know, uh a little education can go a long way because you know the legislature is not an expert on everything that they uh that they take under consideration, and I think that that helps a lot.
00:31:16.559 --> 00:31:31.519
Uh the other the other thing that I think is you know interesting from this whole standpoint of um sensitive spaces is it's really made it a lot more complicated to understand when you're in compliance with the law and when you're not.
00:31:31.680 --> 00:31:40.559
And also a person who goes to get a CCW, in my view, is an inherently law-abiding individual, right?
00:31:41.200 --> 00:31:43.920
They're putting themselves out there for s for examination.
00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:48.079
Yeah, they're if they have something, felons aren't going in there to try and get one.
00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:48.880
Exactly.
00:31:48.960 --> 00:31:59.359
And that was actually one of the arguments that I was you know making is that they said, well, we don't we don't want them to be able to carry it into you know um a convenience store if it's if they sell liquor.
00:31:59.519 --> 00:32:00.480
So well, why?
00:32:00.640 --> 00:32:01.920
Well, it's gonna be prone to robbery.
00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:08.880
I said uh a person who goes to get a CCW isn't gonna go get a CCW before they commit a robbery.
00:32:09.119 --> 00:32:12.079
A person who's gonna commit a robbery is just gonna go get a gun and commit a robbery.
00:32:12.319 --> 00:32:13.119
Right, right, right.
00:32:13.279 --> 00:32:13.359
Right.
00:32:13.680 --> 00:32:23.119
I mean, the the statistics show that CCW holders are among the most I mean, they're far and above the general population in in uh being law-abiding.
00:32:23.680 --> 00:32:23.920
Absolutely.
00:32:24.319 --> 00:32:28.880
They're they're they're unique in the how many crimes they don't commit.
00:32:29.359 --> 00:32:29.839
Absolutely.
00:32:30.079 --> 00:32:36.160
And my experience as sheriff is I have very, very few CCW holders who violate the law.
00:32:36.400 --> 00:32:43.519
And almost never, if there is a violation of the law, does it have anything to do with a firearm?
00:32:43.839 --> 00:32:46.720
Um occasionally you get a DUI, things like that.
00:32:46.799 --> 00:32:51.359
Um I'm not suggesting that DUI is not a serious crime and that we shouldn't, you know, deal with that.
00:32:51.519 --> 00:32:57.039
But you don't have these people out there brandishing firearms and getting involved in road rages.
00:32:57.680 --> 00:33:04.160
The legacy of most of California's gun laws and all the people I've represented, and I don't really represent people who pull the trigger.
00:33:04.319 --> 00:33:07.519
You know, I it's all technical offenses, possession offenses.
00:33:07.759 --> 00:33:16.079
The legacy is accidental criminals because overnight a gun that was in their safe for 20 years became an assault weapon the next day at the stroke of a politician's pen.
00:33:16.319 --> 00:33:16.480
Yes.
00:33:16.720 --> 00:33:17.599
I mean, they didn't know it.
00:33:18.240 --> 00:33:26.880
They don't, like I said, they don't have, you know, they don't have a regulatory compliance advisor uh at their house ready to tell them your your gun just became illegal.
00:33:27.039 --> 00:33:28.240
You got they have to stay plugged in.
00:33:28.319 --> 00:33:33.599
It takes a lot of work to really stay uh up to speed on on what the laws are.
00:33:33.759 --> 00:33:39.039
I mean, I hope one day that book will be uh a pamphlet, you know, but right now it's 600 pages long.
00:33:39.200 --> 00:33:39.519
Yeah.
00:33:39.680 --> 00:33:51.839
Uh so well, even even uh law enforcement professionals uh sometimes have a very challenging time determining whether a a gun, a rifle, is an assault rifle that's prohibited in the law versus one that's gone.
00:33:52.480 --> 00:33:54.240
The experts at DOJ didn't know.
00:33:54.400 --> 00:33:54.559
Yeah.
00:33:55.359 --> 00:34:00.079
There have been so many, you know, it's because it was always based on mean looks.
00:34:00.799 --> 00:34:02.079
That's how they picked them.
00:34:02.160 --> 00:34:04.240
But they had to get more specific than that.
00:34:04.400 --> 00:34:04.640
Yeah.
00:34:04.880 --> 00:34:13.920
But if you take a look at a gun that's perfectly legal and put it next to a gun that's not, you have to be pretty savvy to know the difference that it makes one legal and the other not.
00:34:14.239 --> 00:34:15.119
Yeah, it's funny.
00:34:15.519 --> 00:34:28.559
The example I often use uh with that is that you know, have uh you have a rifle that shoots 223 uh at it on an AR platform uh next to a um uh mini 14 Ruger Mini 14 that shoots the same round.
00:34:28.800 --> 00:34:29.280
Right, exactly.
00:34:29.599 --> 00:34:33.039
One looks really scary and the other one looks like a cowboy gun, right?
00:34:33.199 --> 00:34:39.840
Uh one is uh illegal and the other one isn't, but they shoot the exact same round at the same rate of fire, right?
00:34:40.239 --> 00:34:51.440
You know, I'd be interested in in what you've experienced as you issue more CCWs, because we have 40 states now that have basically uh even before Bruin had uh shall issue.
00:34:51.599 --> 00:35:03.920
Uh and in those states, as people become used to or accustomed to people carrying, they come to realize that these people are not something you need to be afraid of.
00:35:04.239 --> 00:35:04.800
I would agree.
00:35:04.960 --> 00:35:15.760
And so the as the public carry becomes more normalized, uh the the whole sense of urgency to ban things uh drops out.
00:35:15.920 --> 00:35:24.000
Uh so you you know, somebody goes into a store carrying a gun, uh, people don't freak out like they used to, you know, in the in at least in a lot of those states.
00:35:24.079 --> 00:35:30.079
So and and that's something that really will make a difference in California as more people carry.
00:35:30.559 --> 00:35:42.400
And by the way, you know, I have a Nevada license, and I don't, I I it's in my car, but I I came to realize that carrying is literally a pain in the bottom.
00:35:42.639 --> 00:35:43.119
It is.
00:35:43.360 --> 00:35:44.000
I agree.
00:35:44.159 --> 00:35:44.559
Yes.
00:35:44.800 --> 00:35:48.000
I don't want to, I'm I'm like I'm borderline scoliosis.
00:35:48.159 --> 00:35:49.599
You got to figure out how to balance it.
00:35:50.000 --> 00:35:54.639
By the way, it's there's it takes more time to pick the holster than it does to pick the firearm.
00:35:55.039 --> 00:35:55.599
Agreed.
00:35:55.760 --> 00:35:56.159
Agreed.
00:35:56.320 --> 00:35:58.960
I mean, so most people imagine carrying a base.
00:35:59.360 --> 00:36:03.920
I tell this to judges, imagine carrying a baseball around with you 24 hours a day.
00:36:04.079 --> 00:36:04.239
Okay.
00:36:04.559 --> 00:36:05.280
Where do you put that?
00:36:05.360 --> 00:36:05.840
You know what I mean?
00:36:06.079 --> 00:36:06.239
Right.
00:36:06.400 --> 00:36:11.440
Especially when you when you have to carry it so that no one sees it until it's time for them to see it, right?
00:36:11.599 --> 00:36:24.079
And I think, you know, that's interestingly enough, the vast majority of CCW holders probably uh aren't don't come to the attention of people around them because they they genuinely they genuinely conceal it appropriately.
00:36:24.239 --> 00:36:25.119
But you're right about that.
00:36:25.199 --> 00:36:37.760
And you know, I've been a cop for 34 years now, and uh it is there's a lot of times where it's like when I'm off duty and I go, man, I just want to run to the store.
00:36:37.920 --> 00:36:44.079
I don't really feel like you know, putting on a shirt that I have to then cover up a gun.
00:36:44.239 --> 00:36:50.480
It is, it takes a lot of thought and it can be a real pain in the butt, as you said, to to conceal a firearm.
00:36:50.960 --> 00:36:58.000
So I think a lot of people want to have it, a CCW, that is, so that they can, if necessary, right.
00:36:58.159 --> 00:37:05.840
They're they're in compliance with the law, but they're not out there running around with multiple guns waiting for the gunfight to happen.
00:37:06.159 --> 00:37:06.880
Right, exactly.
00:37:06.960 --> 00:37:07.280
Exactly.
00:37:07.840 --> 00:37:08.559
Yeah, yes.
00:37:09.039 --> 00:37:10.000
Let me ask you something.
00:37:10.159 --> 00:37:13.920
So you you do a traffic stop, you walk up to the window.
00:37:14.079 --> 00:37:18.400
Now, every radar, every spidey sense is tingling, because you don't ever know.
00:37:18.639 --> 00:37:18.880
Okay.
00:37:18.960 --> 00:37:22.239
Yeah now the guy reaches out, gives you his license, and his CCW.
00:37:22.400 --> 00:37:23.280
What do you think then?
00:37:23.599 --> 00:37:30.400
Okay, I'm so glad you asked this question because uh this is a question that actually I get asked a lot here in Butte County.
00:37:30.639 --> 00:37:57.599
My rule in Butte County is if you uh receive a CCW from the Butte County Sheriff's Office and you are involved in an enforcement contact with a law enforcement officer, like you uh described where you got pulled over for speeding, um my requirement is that the CCW holders advise the law enforcement officer that they have a CCW if they are carrying the weapon with them in the vehicle.
00:37:57.840 --> 00:38:05.679
And the reason for that is I don't want there to be uh any surprises on the part of the law enforcement officer.
00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:19.119
If they see the butt of the gun or they see something and the person hasn't told them that they have a CCW, they're gonna assume that they are potentially a threat.
00:38:19.360 --> 00:38:35.039
And from my perspective and the cops that I talked about, when you pull a person over and they immediately say, Officer deputy, here's my driver's license, here's my CCW permit, I have my firearm, it is located on my hip.
00:38:35.199 --> 00:38:37.360
Let me know how you want to handle the situation.
00:38:37.519 --> 00:38:44.079
What that tells me is one, the person is an inherently law-abiding citizen because they took the time to get a CCW.
00:38:44.320 --> 00:38:51.920
And two, they care about my safety because they don't want me to become concerned that they have a firearm.
00:38:52.159 --> 00:38:58.960
And the tempo of the enforcement action changes because now I know, okay, I got this.
00:38:59.119 --> 00:39:01.280
Now, maybe I leave them where they're at.
00:39:01.360 --> 00:39:03.760
I said, just don't touch your gun, we're gonna take care of everything.
00:39:03.920 --> 00:39:06.639
Maybe we go through something where I make sure they don't have the gun.
00:39:06.880 --> 00:39:14.960
But that is a much, much better situation than you not saying anything and I seeing the gun and now, crap, why do you got a gun?
00:39:15.360 --> 00:39:31.039
Now, I will tell you that a lot of my CCW holders express concern about how a law enforcement officer in another part of the state will react when they're told that this person is CCW.
00:39:31.199 --> 00:39:47.440
And I I default to the position that uh as a cop, um, I'd rather you tell me that there's a gun in the situation, other than the one I'm carrying, of course, um, so that we can make a decision about how to proceed as opposed to being uh surprised by that whole thing.
00:39:47.679 --> 00:39:47.760
Right.
00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:55.199
But you don't want to be that yeah, you don't want to be this is why I, you know, if I was in a constitutional carry state, I'd still get a CCW.
00:39:55.679 --> 00:39:59.599
Because I I I don't want it just makes you a good guy.
00:39:59.679 --> 00:40:07.599
You know, absolutely in the eyes of uh because they know you've gone through the background check and you've you you cleared this and you're being responsible and you're disclosing.
00:40:07.679 --> 00:40:12.000
I mean, I I think constitutional carry carries some risks in that respect.
00:40:12.320 --> 00:40:14.480
Yeah, and I I just I think it sets the tone.
00:40:14.559 --> 00:40:19.599
Uh, and again, it tells me you're a law body service, it tells me that you're probably a competent gun owner.
00:40:19.679 --> 00:40:22.400
You you at least know how to use the thing safely.
00:40:22.559 --> 00:40:28.000
Uh, it conveys a whole lot of information that I think I'd want to know uh whenever I make a contact with somebody.
00:40:28.400 --> 00:40:37.440
The up in in most of the shell issue states, about 5% of the people uh wind up getting a permit uh and they don't carry all the time.
00:40:37.599 --> 00:40:42.159
But the criminals never know which guy is armed and who isn't.
00:40:42.400 --> 00:40:47.280
So, you know, nobody that's why violent crime goes down, because it's a deterrent.
00:40:47.360 --> 00:40:51.920
Property crimes go up because they'll break into your car when nobody's there to defend it.
00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:52.320
Yeah.
00:40:52.480 --> 00:40:56.960
But you know, bad guys aren't nobody's going duck hunting when 5% of the ducks might shoot back.
00:40:58.800 --> 00:41:02.880
Well, and then you know, we could address property crime if we have better public policy in other areas.
00:41:02.960 --> 00:41:05.840
So there's a way, there's a way to address both concerns, right?
00:41:06.159 --> 00:41:12.239
The other thing that I think is interesting with regard to Bruin is um the test that was developed.
00:41:12.400 --> 00:41:32.159
And, you know, uh most constitutional amendments, when uh the court is determining whether or not a regulation or a law that would implicate those constitutional uh uh rights, you know, either apply the strict scrut scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis test.
00:41:32.400 --> 00:41:39.599
But Bruin came up with a unique test, right, based on the historical uh uh landscape, right?
00:41:39.760 --> 00:41:40.880
Can you explain that a little bit?
00:41:41.280 --> 00:41:47.039
Well well, it was really pretty much laid out in Heller as well, not as clearly as Bruin.
00:41:47.280 --> 00:41:52.000
But Bru Bruin basically it's uh it's it's not a two-step test.
00:41:52.480 --> 00:41:52.639
Okay.
00:41:52.960 --> 00:41:55.760
It's a one-step test that involves two questions.
00:41:55.920 --> 00:42:06.480
The first question is whether or not the conduct, either the firearm or the conduct related to the firearm, is covered by the right to keep and bear arms.
00:42:07.280 --> 00:42:08.559
And that's almost everything.
00:42:08.719 --> 00:42:16.320
Any bearable arm for offense or defense, pretty much everything is covered, you know, uh at least discriminatory stuff.
00:42:16.480 --> 00:42:24.960
As soon as you start getting into hand grenades or something that's not discriminatory, it's discriminatory, that's not really a the same kind of thing.
00:42:25.119 --> 00:42:28.639
And the court's gonna wind up drawing the line somewhere in there.
00:42:28.960 --> 00:42:31.280
Uh but it's still an arm.
00:42:31.440 --> 00:42:37.039
So the test is not whether or not it's covered by the text of the Second Amendment.
00:42:37.119 --> 00:42:46.400
The test is whether or not the there's a historical tradition for regulating the type of arm or the type of conduct that the law is regulating.
00:42:46.719 --> 00:42:53.039
And that's where you look back at what the founding fathers intended, that's where that's where the originalism comes in.
00:42:53.199 --> 00:43:01.199
That's where you look back to the to the intent of the founders when they wrote this amendment up, what kind of laws existed at that time that they tolerated?
00:43:01.440 --> 00:43:16.400
And is there some some historical analog law that's similar in some way uh in in how it regulates and why it regulates modern day conduct, so that a modern-day law will survive the constitutional challenge?
00:43:16.719 --> 00:43:18.719
And that's very, very rare.
00:43:18.800 --> 00:43:21.840
And that, for example, the Heller case talked about common use.
00:43:21.920 --> 00:43:28.559
If there's guns are in common use, then they can't be dangerous and unusual because they're commonly owned.
00:43:28.639 --> 00:43:38.800
So the historical tradition was only to ban particular firearms that may have been unusually dangerous and not commonly possessed, dangerous and unusual.
00:43:38.880 --> 00:43:43.519
Uh if so, if it's commonly possessed, there's no historical tradition for banning it.
00:43:43.679 --> 00:43:50.400
That's why all these semi auto laws have to fail if this if the Supreme Court stays faithful to what it said in Bruin.
00:43:50.880 --> 00:43:54.239
And currently they're composed in a way that they will.
00:43:54.320 --> 00:43:59.760
We have at least four, uh, at least five, maybe six uh votes uh on the court that are.
00:44:00.239 --> 00:44:28.000
gonna uh you know uphold the the challenges to these laws they're they're looking at 30 there's 30 cases in the Supreme Court right now not not of them not that have been accepted there's two that have been accepted there's another 30 or so that have asked for this court to review one of which is the CRPA's Duncan case uh which is the magazine capacity limitation okay uh which is supposed to be heard on December 12th so we'll see what happens.
00:44:28.079 --> 00:44:30.079
I've got all my digits crossed on that one.
00:44:30.880 --> 00:45:16.400
Uh but uh one way or another those two cases that they have they've got a prohibited people case who with a uh marijuana user who can't own uh possess yeah and unfortunately you know bad facts make bad law that's not a real sympathetic defendant right there are some other defendants who are just purely you know they get high once in a while they're not high while they're carrying their gun but they so can this law that says if you smoke marijuana at all you can't own a gun is that constitutional and then the other one is the the case out of Hawaii where the law that said that not not that you have to post a sign that says no guns allowed they require you to post a sign that say guns are allowed to be allowed no nobody's gonna do that.
00:45:16.639 --> 00:45:16.960
Right.
00:45:17.199 --> 00:45:26.559
You know the the the people the some guy running a a uh a clothing store is not going to post a sign that says guns are allowed.
00:45:26.800 --> 00:45:32.400
If and if he wants to it's his private property he can post a sign that says no guns allowed it's his private property.
00:45:32.480 --> 00:45:35.920
There's no govern government action and the constitution only restricts the government.
00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:52.800
Some people don't realize that oh for sure you're right yes the First Amendment free speech is you any you you can have a contract an employment contract that says you can't say certain things because that's just a private employer say governing your conduct as part of your employment contract.
00:45:53.039 --> 00:45:57.440
But the government can't restrict your free speech or your Second Amendment rights.
00:45:58.000 --> 00:46:07.760
So if a private property owner doesn't mind if someone brings a firearm into this store that's up that's their decision for a church or for that matter a school.
00:46:07.920 --> 00:46:13.679
I mean it's it should be the decision of the of the person that manages or people that manage the property.
00:46:14.079 --> 00:46:25.280
Yeah you're right about that that goes back to that civics class that uh we should have everybody uh take and maybe they forget that you know again the the Constitution is a check on governmental action, right?
00:46:25.679 --> 00:46:27.599
Um but I want to unpack some of that.
00:46:27.760 --> 00:46:32.159
So you go back to the as a the as the Duncan case with regard to the the semi-automatic case, right?
00:46:32.239 --> 00:46:48.400
That's the um if I understand correctly the the position is that if a if a particular kind of firearm is in common use then it should not run afoul of the Constitution.
00:46:50.159 --> 00:46:57.360
And um that would apply both to semi-automatic handguns as well as rifles, correct?
00:46:58.079 --> 00:46:58.719
Any arm.
00:46:59.119 --> 00:46:59.519
Any arm.
00:46:59.920 --> 00:47:05.119
And by the way that's not the only thing that makes a a law constitutional or unconstitutional.
00:47:05.360 --> 00:47:44.400
You know there's there's uh high accuracy uh marksmanship rifles that a lot of people don't own but they're still protect marksmanship is still a protected conduct so that firearm unless there's something weird about it that that that makes it suitable for something nefarious more so than target shooting uh that rifle is still protected because the support of marksmanship is protected uh so but but but the one that's everybody's talking about and got all the attention in Heller and Bruin was uh well mostly Heller because it was a handgun ban.
00:47:44.480 --> 00:47:59.840
Yeah they said handguns are the most commonly used uh firearm for self-defense and so you can't ban them and they didn't get into you know the Glock versus the Beretta versus you know different caliber guns like they try and do with semi-auto bands.
00:48:00.239 --> 00:48:06.000
They just said that class of firearm is chosen by people to defend their houses so you can't ban them.
00:48:06.559 --> 00:48:16.239
Yeah and I want to come back to that in a minute but I mean for that matter the uh rifles at the AR-15 platform are in common use throughout the United States.
00:48:16.719 --> 00:48:20.320
It's it's more it's more that's the sporting modern sporting arm.
00:48:20.400 --> 00:48:22.239
That's what people want to shoot at the range.
00:48:22.480 --> 00:48:25.280
I mean I shoot clays but okay that's me.
00:48:25.360 --> 00:48:28.000
I mean I have a couple of ARs in my gun safe.
00:48:28.239 --> 00:48:38.000
Yeah but uh well and the problem is you know they regulate them based on the various features right which makes it extraordinarily complicated and difficult for people to understand.
00:48:38.639 --> 00:48:55.760
The definition has changed at least three times in the last 20 years because manufacturers you know it started out making models so your your specific model uh was illegal but one that was named something differently exact same gun named something different was legal.
00:48:55.920 --> 00:48:56.079
Right.
00:48:56.239 --> 00:49:08.639
And then they realized well we got to put a stop to that so then they came up with the features test and then people started making uh you know a pistol grip that that you can't put your hand all the way around so it's not considered a pistol grip.
00:49:08.719 --> 00:49:15.119
And so it you know it it the this is the ingenuity of of of firearm manufacturers.
00:49:15.280 --> 00:49:30.079
And so they just had to get more and more and more uh extreme in what they banned to the point where they banned lots of guns that are very very useful for lots of different things.
00:49:30.320 --> 00:49:37.519
I mean if you own a farm you got an AR for coyotes or whatever varmits may be coming around.
00:49:37.599 --> 00:49:40.559
I mean it's not just self-defense.
00:49:40.960 --> 00:49:55.039
Yeah and the problem is every time they do this they I think create a scenario where uh there are workarounds that produce more firearms and people then go out and buy more guns.
00:49:55.360 --> 00:50:04.000
So the whole the whole idea about you want to you know curtail or limit the number of people who are in firearms, every time you regulate in this area you have the opposite effect.
00:50:04.159 --> 00:50:23.119
And a good example is you know one of the arguments that we had uh at State Share Association with the uh Department of Justice in uh under SB2 was this notion that uh the firearm on your CCW permit has to be in essence registered to you, right?
00:50:23.360 --> 00:50:23.519
Right.
00:50:23.840 --> 00:50:34.800
And we brought up the whole well what about in a community property state where if I buy a firearm, well my wife has a community property interest in that firearm.
00:50:34.960 --> 00:50:44.559
Why can't she also put that firearm on her CCW permit so that if it's in the car and we're together, she has a lawful right to have it as well, right?
00:50:44.800 --> 00:50:44.960
Yeah.
00:50:45.280 --> 00:50:50.159
And that fell on deaf ears and what I said was okay well here's what's going to happen.
00:50:50.400 --> 00:50:55.039
More people now now you're gonna go out and my wife is going to buy another gun now.
00:50:55.199 --> 00:50:56.880
So now we have more guns on the street, right?
00:50:56.960 --> 00:51:00.960
Because you won't allow her to carry the gun that's registered to me on her permit, right?
00:51:01.360 --> 00:51:04.079
Yeah the politicians don't always think that far ahead.
00:51:04.320 --> 00:51:04.559
Yeah.
00:51:04.880 --> 00:51:13.920
Yeah and and and there's a famous expression up there don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good which is another way of saying close enough for government work.
00:51:14.480 --> 00:51:14.719
Yep.
00:51:15.280 --> 00:51:17.199
The problem is I'd like to see just some good.
00:51:17.360 --> 00:51:19.199
Let's just let's just see some good, right?
00:51:19.280 --> 00:51:22.559
Because I think a lot of the a lot of the stuff doesn't even hit that mark.
00:51:23.039 --> 00:51:30.480
I want to talk a little bit about the the magazine uh the 10 round magazine or high capacity magazine stuff because I know that you're working on that.
00:51:31.440 --> 00:51:34.239
You know there's a lot of confusion around that as well.
00:51:34.400 --> 00:51:43.679
And um the first thing is it seems like a rather arbitrary number 10.
00:51:43.920 --> 00:51:46.880
Somehow 10 is okay 11 is not right?
00:51:47.280 --> 00:51:47.679
Exactly.
00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:48.159
Right.
00:51:48.239 --> 00:51:51.280
And we're Jersey tried to do seven and that was struck down.
00:51:51.360 --> 00:51:58.480
But if because if they'd have got away with that then the next time it would have been six then five you know and next thing you know it's a single shot Derringer is all you can have.
00:51:59.039 --> 00:52:27.920
Well here's a here's something I've I've wondered I mean I realize from a uh from a mechanical standpoint uh creating a revolver uh with a cylinder that would hold 20 rounds is probably not feasible given how big and unwieldy it would be but um arguably the under the state of the law you could have a revolver with 20 rounds and it wouldn't run afoul of the law but if you have a semi-automatic with 11 rounds you you're in violation, right?
00:52:28.239 --> 00:52:28.559
Mm-hmm.
00:52:28.880 --> 00:53:16.320
Yeah yeah so that that's you know that's that's just one example of the uh it's inconsistencies uh logical inconsistencies in all of California most of California's gun laws and that's the problem when when there's absurdity inherently baked into law then people begin to lose respect for the law and when the the three judge panel uh in the Duncan case uh ruled on this uh or excuse me the on bunk panel one of the justices you know there's basically a a civil war going on between the justices in the Ninth Circuit now the Trump appointees and the older school uh Democratic presidential appointees uh because the Trump appointees are calling them out for being biased.
00:53:16.559 --> 00:53:16.880
Okay.
00:53:17.119 --> 00:53:42.639
And Judge Van Dyke did a great video where he actually had his uh uh he had a six SIG 320 I think and he took it apart and he's like this is how these go together this is a magazine that holds 10 rounds this is a magazine that holds five rounds that you know he and he's like if you can regulate between these different magazine capacities why can't you then say you have to have a certain kind of trigger or a certain kind of barrel or a certain kind of grip?
00:53:42.800 --> 00:54:17.360
I mean you you basically get into designing the firearm which is a whole nother problem that now we're talking about the roster of of guns that you can that can be handguns that can be sold in California and how arbitrary that is yeah that is that's frustrating as well um and you know obviously law enforcement can purchase guns that aren't on the roster but it's very confusing and there doesn't seem to be a rational basis for why a gun is precluded uh from being on the list or not.
00:54:17.519 --> 00:54:21.280
I think to this point there's some manufacturers that are pulling out of California altogether.
00:54:21.599 --> 00:54:32.000
But I don't know that that's ultimately going to solve the maybe that's the design of the the uh the intent behind the legislation that in its beginning is well that was definitely the intent of microstamping.
00:54:32.719 --> 00:54:43.280
Yes and probably the loaded chamber indicator and the magazine disconnect lock too because that's something that that's just another thing that can go wrong you know with your gun.
00:54:43.360 --> 00:54:52.960
But the microstamping was so ridiculous Ruger and Smith Wesson both just said we're we can't make these guns this way so we can't sell them in the California market.
00:54:53.119 --> 00:55:34.000
Now that we've struck down the microstamping requirement although they pass a new law they're going to try and do it a different way now but a CRPA uh case struck down that requirement uh now a bunch of guns have come on the market with the loaded chamber indicator in the magazine disconnect because they didn't have to deal with micro stamping right but those two those two things don't really make a gun the the reality is that roster has now made the most latest designs of firearms cannot with the safest with the best function with the you know the all the the the uh things that a modern firearm has and that a modern firearm owner wants they can't buy them because they're not approved on the roster.
00:55:34.079 --> 00:55:40.800
So the safest best guns you handguns you can't get in California because they don't pass the test to get on the roster.
00:55:41.039 --> 00:56:08.400
Yeah yeah again uh when absurdity is baked into the law then people begin to lose respect for the law right uh let's uh let's talk about the uh you have to show uh well before we leave the magazine so the other the other thing that I constantly get questions on uh there was the the the uh the period of time where the law was no longer in effect they call it Freedom Week I believe where people could go out and purchase uh high capacity magazines and I I routinely get people asking me questions.
00:56:08.559 --> 00:56:15.760
As a matter of fact, this was a question that came up as a result of my last podcast episode related to CCWs about this high capacity magazine.
00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:28.719
And people are have this notion of belief that somehow the simple possession of a high capacity magazine is a violation of the law.
00:56:28.880 --> 00:56:40.559
And that uh now that uh the there's been a ban put on the importation and sale and so forth of high capacity that the that they're somehow violating the law by possessing them.
00:56:40.719 --> 00:56:54.480
Now my understanding of the law and if if yours is different let me know but uh if you lawfully obtained the high capacity magazine then it's not unlawful for you to possess it and it's not unlawful for you to use it and carry it in your firearm.
00:56:54.559 --> 00:56:55.519
Is that your understanding of the law?
00:56:56.079 --> 00:56:56.719
That's correct.
00:56:56.800 --> 00:57:05.440
If if you had the magazine before the law passed or if you bought the magazine during that one week freedom week period, then you lawfully acquired that magazine.
00:57:05.599 --> 00:57:15.519
Now the law if the law uh the Enbank panel wants to put both back into effect so the possession will be illegal too.
00:57:15.599 --> 00:57:22.480
There's two separate laws one on possession and there's exceptions to that they were grandfathered in and then one is acquisition.
00:57:22.559 --> 00:57:47.119
You can't import them or buy them so the the importation and uh uh purchase law is still in effect you can't import them you can't you can't have uh but you can possess them as long as you've got as long as you purchased them when it wasn't illegal to purchase them but that could change and that's one of the reasons why we've told the Supreme Court they need to take the Duncan case because there's millions of these things.
00:57:47.280 --> 00:58:02.480
During Freedom Week when it was legal for a like a seven day period to buy these magazines the the UPS and FedEx planes were flying into California uh with a cargo full of magazines because the demand was so high.
00:58:02.639 --> 00:58:10.400
I went to the Bass Pro here in in Las Vegas during that time and the entire magazine display rack was empty.
00:58:10.800 --> 00:58:12.400
Gone they'd all gone to California.
00:58:12.800 --> 00:58:44.960
They took them all yeah well and that's the other piece of this that you could have lawfully obtained uh a a magazine that holds more than 10 10 rounds and then if the uh the court decides that overnight it's illegal to possess them you're automatically now a criminal and there's something inherently wrong with that there's the overnight accidental criminal exactly yeah it's really unfortunate all right let's turn to the whole ammo thing and you got to have an ID to to buy ammo.
00:58:45.360 --> 00:58:46.559
Where are we at with that?
00:58:46.960 --> 00:59:52.800
Okay well that's the Roadie case uh our lead plaintiff in that is Kim Roadie who everyone should know and love the Olympic target uh clays shooter okay wonderful woman does a lot of work for CRPAN NRA uh and obviously a pretty damn good shot yeah uh and so she's our lead plaintiff because her needs you know as a competitive she she shoots she orders ammo by the pallet you know yeah I mean she goes through hundreds of thousands of rounds uh but the the law requires you to get a background check you when you try to buy ammunition and you can't import the ammunition from another state you have to buy it through a licensed ammunition dealer which sets up another whole level of regulation over uh it's not this quite the same as an of as a gun dealer an FFL and an ammunition license is a state license so that uh has resulted in thousands and thousands of people because the the California criminal records database is not 100% accurate it's woefully flawed.
00:59:53.440 --> 00:59:53.760
That's true.
00:59:54.079 --> 01:00:01.760
And so people are are accused of being prohibited when they're not or not or they are prohibited and and the state doesn't recognize it.
01:00:01.920 --> 01:00:11.360
And so but a lot of people who were prohibited or not prohibited went to buy ammunition couldn't get it and they they basically give up because it's so hard to like try and get your record fixed.
01:00:11.519 --> 01:00:19.119
This is another thing we do for people all the time uh is restore their right to to to possess firearms because they've been somehow classified.
01:00:19.199 --> 01:00:22.239
There's a lot of ways you can be classified and never even know it.
01:00:22.559 --> 01:00:53.760
But so anyway it's a big problem and and not to mention there's a tax a you know fee to do the background check which the DOJ now wants to increase uh and so we won that case in the district court then we won it again in front of the three judge panel the state as they always do asked for on banque review to try and get a different mix on an 11 judge panel and the state and the and the Ninth Circuit just recently granted review in that case so there will be en banc review.
01:00:54.559 --> 01:01:03.280
And if that's if history is the same, you know that doesn't bode well for us but the composition of the court has changed.
01:01:03.360 --> 01:01:09.119
It's supposed to be a random draw of 11 judges so it won't be the same En Bonc panel that decided Duncan.
01:01:09.360 --> 01:01:09.679
Okay.
01:01:10.159 --> 01:01:19.760
And and we are working right now with the United States Department of Justice to get them to join uh in that case file an amicus brief like they did out in Illinois.
01:01:19.920 --> 01:01:33.760
They actually came in and and Harmite Dylan we're gonna need to make a bronze statue of her one of these days uh actually appeared at the oral argument on behalf of the people that were challenging the Illinois uh semi-auto ban.
01:01:34.239 --> 01:01:38.719
So I think they're going to get involved in the Roadie case and that will that will get some people's attention.
01:01:38.880 --> 01:01:45.119
And then if the on banque panel rules against us that's the next case that goes to the United States Supreme Court.
01:01:45.199 --> 01:01:51.920
And when you've got the federal government asking the Supreme Court to take a case they usually take it.
01:01:52.159 --> 01:01:55.840
The Hernava law is still in effect the ammo background check law is still in effect.
01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:57.920
Yeah but uh we're hopeful.
01:01:58.320 --> 01:02:15.840
Yeah it's interesting I it's it is uh I mean I I've heard stories of uh you know law enforcement officers uh being denied because uh they walked into the store and the database suggests that they can't carry, you know, uh that they can't get a f uh ammunition it's very frustrating.
01:02:16.079 --> 01:02:28.000
But it also it just goes back to that at every single turn there is this effort to make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens it's a it's a war against the gun culture.
01:02:28.159 --> 01:02:36.719
They don't want people that's that was part of the the the effort where they banned marketing to anything about firearms to minors to to to junior shooters.
01:02:36.880 --> 01:03:04.239
So they get because they want to wipe out the next generation of people of folks kids uh juniors that appreciate the shooting sports that understand the self-defense value of a firearm they understand they they go to the range they learn the discipline they learn safety they it's it's such a great and fun experience they don't want kids to realize that because then they'll become gun owners as an adult and then they get politically active and they vote.
01:03:04.320 --> 01:03:22.239
So this is a way you know they want to ban as many guns many types of guns from as many types of people from as many places as they possibly can and make it as hard to get a firearm as and as expensive as they possibly can so that people give up because they want to murder the gun culture.
01:03:22.320 --> 01:03:34.239
And then Gavinusum has said that you know he wants to put gun owners just stop having gun owners to the maximum extent possible and then that weakens them as a political force too.
01:03:34.719 --> 01:03:57.440
Yeah it is interesting and and the one of the frustrating things for me as a cop is um you want to prevent mass shootings, you want to prevent prevent gun violence, which is an interesting thing I I've always kind of taken exception to this term gun violence because it characterizes an inanimate object as being violent.
01:03:57.519 --> 01:03:58.480
And that's not what it is.
01:03:58.800 --> 01:04:03.039
It's a human being who uses an object to commit violence, right?
01:04:03.199 --> 01:04:19.199
But there's this whole notion we need to address the underlying causes why why do we have people who find it acceptable to act out violently let's address that problem as opposed to the instrument that they used.
01:04:19.360 --> 01:04:30.480
Because as you well know in Great Britain which you know guns are not uh readily available but it's quite common for them to have stabbings, right?
01:04:30.719 --> 01:04:30.880
Right.
01:04:31.119 --> 01:04:34.239
And now they're trying to prevent people from carrying knives.
01:04:34.719 --> 01:04:47.039
Right and that's where that inevitably goes with less and less but you're you're you're bringing up the mental mental health issue and that is a that's something that frankly as a society we've fallen down on the job.
01:04:47.440 --> 01:04:47.920
Agreed.
01:04:48.320 --> 01:04:55.519
And I don't know exactly where that started some people say it was when Reagan closed down uh mental health like asylums.
01:04:55.679 --> 01:05:08.719
Yeah uh I I don't know if there's if we've become too tolerant of certain behaviors uh you know in school or in su in public that maybe we should be taking a closer look at the people that exhibit some of these things.
01:05:08.960 --> 01:05:11.760
All I know is the gun didn't cause the problem.
01:05:11.920 --> 01:05:15.280
The person that had the problem caused the problem.
01:05:15.440 --> 01:05:24.800
And yeah we need to really do something to try and to to recognize that and help those people if you can or segregate them if you can't.
01:05:25.280 --> 01:05:39.119
Yeah you're absolutely right about that and I've had a lot of episodes where I've I've talked about uh mental health issues in the intersection of mental health and the criminal justice system you throw on top of that the intersection of mental health and drug addiction in the criminal justice system.
01:05:39.440 --> 01:05:51.679
And um what concerns me is if we're not addressing those issues effectively, then all we're doing is just going to trade one problem for another.
01:05:51.840 --> 01:06:03.920
And so yeah you could take away the guns but if someone because of uh either addiction or mental health or just an evil nature decides that they're going to commit a violent act, they don't need a gun to commit a violent act.
01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:05.280
They could commit a violent act anyway.
01:06:05.599 --> 01:06:07.519
And and and you can ban all the guns you want.
01:06:07.679 --> 01:06:29.360
I mean, uh I grew up in New Jersey and uh uh and and you know you you can make a zip gun out of a two by four rubber band a couple nails and a and a and a cartridge case you know I mean and now there's machine shops and CADCAM so you're never going to be able to ban firearms because the bad guys that are determined to get one will find a way to get one.
01:06:29.599 --> 01:06:31.119
If they can't steal it, they'll make it.
01:06:31.440 --> 01:06:33.280
Well that's what we come back to this whole thing.
01:06:33.440 --> 01:06:45.679
People intent upon committing crimes don't give a crap about CCW laws, about being uh a prohibited person, about they're not going to follow the law anyway.
01:06:45.840 --> 01:06:49.840
They're going to go find a way to get a gun and they're going to use it in an inappropriate way.
01:06:49.920 --> 01:06:55.519
Aaron Ross Powell Exactly if they're if they're thinking about killing someone they're not really worried about the laws they break getting the gun to do it.
01:06:55.840 --> 01:07:25.440
100% correct exactly right exactly so uh what other cases uh are you closely watching uh that you think are going to be uh really uh important for us to keep an eye on going forward well the supreme court list uh as I said there's 30 cases on there that the two hottest cases are the ones the Supreme Court's already taken that's the Holford case and the marijuana case okay because they they could they have the opportunity to really clarify the methodology that Bruin laid out that a lot of courts are ignoring.
01:07:25.599 --> 01:07:25.920
Yeah.
01:07:26.159 --> 01:07:39.920
That's sort of the the the evolution of the of the Second Amendment jurisprudence it's interesting from a scholarly perspective but we want to know how it hit how the rubber hits the road you know and so that's a question of are we going to be able to knock down magazine bands?
01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:42.880
Are we going to be able to knock out semi-auto bands?
01:07:43.360 --> 01:07:56.320
Are we going to be able to uh have a CCW where when and where you need it uh and make it possible to get one without having to spend too much or wait too long.
01:07:56.880 --> 01:08:04.079
Uh there's a couple cases I mean the Illinois case actually is probably the Illinois semi-auto ban case is probably coming up soon.
01:08:04.159 --> 01:08:13.519
That's been argued as I mentioned earlier uh Harme Dillon from the US DOJ Civil Rights Division actually went and appeared in front of the Seventh Circuit court.
01:08:14.079 --> 01:08:36.720
Uh that should could be coming down any time uh that's and that's that the the Supreme Court the cases that are fully developed where they've had a trial and then all the evidence was introduced and then there was a final judgment those are the cases that the Supreme Court looks for um and especially if there's a split in the circuits where one circuit says it's legal and another says it isn't right.
01:08:37.039 --> 01:08:38.399
They want to resolve that split.
01:08:38.479 --> 01:08:43.279
So those are the things that make a case attractive to the Supreme Court and so there's a several cases.
01:08:43.439 --> 01:08:52.800
The Illinois case stands out the Roadie case as I we've talked about and there but there are so many cases I can't keep up with them all that big because there's so many cases across the country.
01:08:52.880 --> 01:09:00.399
This is there this is an evolving area of of law that really it's a historic time for this area of law.
01:09:00.560 --> 01:09:40.319
I mean there was there's been these these uh great shifts in law you know in the in the segregation context in the First Amendment contract uh all of these now some of the stuff with with uh Trump with regulatory uh actions that he's taking and and what's the extent of executive power some of these things are just seismic changes in in the way our culture uh uh operates and that's what we're in the middle of I think there's going to be some when it comes to the Second Amendment, I think there's going to be some huge uh changes in the way people in the way lawmakers can approach uh gun control and in the way people think about gun ownership.
01:09:40.640 --> 01:09:42.720
Yeah that's it is it's a fascinating time.
01:09:42.880 --> 01:10:20.239
Again uh uh the area uh this area of the law was dormant for many many many many years and now it's really exploded so it's it's interesting you know it'll be interesting on the on the on the um the marijuana side of that thing um I think from my perspective so long as marijuana continues to be unlawful to possess under federal law um it makes it challenging on the other side of it and I think if they dealt with that issue it might make it it's a Schedule one yeah come on it's it's it's not the same as heroin as bad as some it may maybe it's bad in some ways and then other ways it's not as bad.
01:10:20.399 --> 01:10:21.760
But uh it's not heroin.
01:10:21.840 --> 01:10:31.039
You know I mean well it's it's interesting you know the the f the the potency of marijuana today is different than that of in the past and we certainly see problems with that.
01:10:31.279 --> 01:10:42.079
But from my perspective as as a sheriff it's hard for me to say yeah it's okay for you to lawfully carry a gun when you're routinely violating federal law.
01:10:42.239 --> 01:10:45.600
I mean there's just some something incongruent about that to me.
01:10:46.079 --> 01:10:52.399
Yeah I get it yeah that's a dilemma yeah yeah we all have to live by what the law is if you don't like the law you gotta change it.
01:10:53.600 --> 01:10:59.600
Could you say that again for the people in the back row if you don't like the law then work on getting it changed.
01:10:59.680 --> 01:11:01.439
You just don't get to ignore it, right?
01:11:02.399 --> 01:11:17.279
Yeah look at the immigration laws see the federal government's the first place that ought to obey the law exactly let's figure that out and there's a terrible example of the the federal government setting a terrible example for not obeying it the the law itself it didn't because it doesn't like the policy.
01:11:17.760 --> 01:11:20.000
So what are people supposed to do when they don't like a policy?
01:11:20.159 --> 01:11:21.359
I mean that's right.
01:11:21.600 --> 01:11:42.239
But I don't get me wrong I I understand and and you know you know there's there's officer discretion there's prosecutorial discretion you know that there's but but still it's it's a pro it's always going to be a problem when they treat marijuana like as as serious as at the federal level as serious as some of the other Schedule I drugs.
01:11:42.479 --> 01:11:52.880
Well interestingly enough I think the other area of the law that has enjoyed as much of a state of confusion as gun laws is the law related related to marijuana, right?
01:11:53.039 --> 01:12:00.720
I mean you have it started off with uh you know medicinal use and then now recreational in the states but still in violation of federal law.
01:12:00.880 --> 01:12:08.960
So there's a lot of uh similarities in terms of the way the the the uh and then and then and then just leave it to the government to screw up a program.
01:12:09.119 --> 01:12:19.920
I mean the LA City Council uh you know they they they give these licenses to stores but they regulate them so extensively that the black market outsells the the retail stores.
01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:31.039
Aaron Ross Powell Absolutely yeah and then and the problem with the black market of course is the black market at least in California with regard to cultivation marijuana is often controlled by the cartels out of Mexico.
01:12:31.199 --> 01:12:36.479
And so you bring with that a whole host of ancillary criminal problems, right?
01:12:36.800 --> 01:12:37.119
Yeah.
01:12:37.359 --> 01:12:37.680
Yeah.
01:12:37.920 --> 01:12:42.239
So who knew we'd get to that topic on our podcast today.
01:12:43.279 --> 01:12:44.800
I'm not an expert in that one.
01:12:44.880 --> 01:13:32.479
But uh I I I thank you for having me on here and I hope folks will look at the CRPA think about joining and uh uh support us because we have a lot more lawsuits to file and I you know the one thing I will say it's very frustrating and believe me I live that frustration every day for it to take so long to make yeah to to get these cases through the courts but we are making progress and we are going to we've we're winning battles we're ultimately going to win a war and then it'll get it'll become more and more smaller issues you know sure uh that that'll have to be fleshed out just like First Amendment it's still they're still litigating First Amendment issues this to this day we're gonna keep plugging at it and keep keep uh knocking them down as quick as quick as they pass them.
01:13:32.720 --> 01:13:38.640
Well and I think again going back to the beginning of our conversation which is you have to be strategic you have to be tactical.
01:13:38.880 --> 01:13:44.720
And um that's the only way to to you know if as you say you know wage war is to be tactical.
01:13:44.800 --> 01:13:49.760
So I really appreciate uh the fact that you took your time to come on uh my podcast.
01:13:49.920 --> 01:13:54.640
I think um my listeners will certainly enjoy uh the information you provided.
01:13:54.800 --> 01:13:59.680
Real quickly if they're interested in uh getting your book uh how do they do that?
01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:07.119
Calgunlawsbook.com uh I I stopped doing the print editions oh because they were so expensive to print.
01:14:07.359 --> 01:14:07.680
Okay.
01:14:07.760 --> 01:14:10.399
Uh but you can get an ebook and then you can print it yourself.
01:14:10.560 --> 01:14:12.000
I have the ebooks up there for less.
01:14:12.399 --> 01:14:15.279
Or you could carry it on your phone and have it with you whenever you need it, right?
01:14:15.439 --> 01:14:22.800
Uh yeah it's it's actually there's a lot of advantages it's searchable so it's it's actually you can find answers put more quickly.
01:14:23.039 --> 01:14:27.760
But sometimes I'm I'm definitely I definitely was a little conflicted about stopping the print.
01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:32.319
I was just shocked at how much it costs to actually print a paper book.
01:14:32.479 --> 01:14:43.600
You know so it's so much easier and you can just actually there are advantages and people are adapting to the technology of you know I'm I'm old school I'm I still like the paper in my hand.
01:14:43.840 --> 01:14:49.359
It's the 2023 edition but I still refer to it when I when I have a question I go to it.
01:14:49.439 --> 01:15:24.000
So by all means uh if you have a question about California gun laws a great resource check it out uh Chuck thank you very very much uh it was a huge honor to have you on there really do appreciate it um and I hope that um uh our listeners enjoyed this um if you did uh please like share and follow uh also uh if you have a uh another topic that you'd like to have us take on you can email me at sheriffsmike at buttecounty.net uh but until then uh stay safe uh stay healthy and as always you're clear to talk thank you