Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:03.600]  Warning, the following show contains explicit language.
[00:03.600 --> 00:07.720]  Certain people should not listen to this show, such as children and panty-waist adults who
[00:07.720 --> 00:15.160]  cry like 12-year-old little girls when they hear profanity.
[00:15.160 --> 00:17.720]  Welcome back, my friends, to the Dr. Reality Podcast.
[00:17.720 --> 00:22.180]  I'm Dave Champion, and today I want to talk with you about the United States Supreme Court
[00:22.180 --> 00:27.120]  having accepted an appeal from two New York residents in the New York State Rifle and
[00:27.120 --> 00:32.720]  Pistol Association concerning the inability for people in the state of New York to get
[00:32.720 --> 00:35.200]  a concealed carry permit.
[00:35.200 --> 00:39.600]  Let's start our discussion by going all the way back to 1840 to the Tennessee Supreme
[00:39.600 --> 00:44.040]  Court in a case called Amet v. State.
[00:44.040 --> 00:50.160]  In that, a gentleman who was carrying a bowie knife concealed within, as they say in the
[00:50.160 --> 00:55.800]  document, within the folds of his clothes was arrested and convicted for carrying a
[00:55.800 --> 00:56.800]  concealed weapon.
[00:56.800 --> 00:58.160]  This went to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
[00:58.160 --> 01:02.840]  The Tennessee Supreme Court said carrying around any sort of arms, including a bowie
[01:02.840 --> 01:05.640]  knife, is acceptable as long as you can see it.
[01:05.640 --> 01:11.360]  But the state has the authority to tell you, no, you can't put a jacket over it.
[01:11.360 --> 01:16.800]  The – I don't know if I can call it logic – of the Tennessee Supreme Court was that
[01:16.800 --> 01:22.040]  you can't have criminals and ruffians running around terrorizing citizens with concealed
[01:22.040 --> 01:23.320]  weapons.
[01:23.320 --> 01:30.320]  So if they have an exposed weapon, then they can't run around terrifying people?
[01:30.320 --> 01:35.840]  Isn't that an argument against firearms generally that their very presence is dangerous
[01:35.840 --> 01:37.800]  to the community according to anti-gunners?
[01:37.800 --> 01:43.320]  So way back in 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court was making an absurd argument that could
[01:43.320 --> 01:47.360]  very well be brought forward today by the anti-gunners and oftentimes is.
[01:47.360 --> 01:51.760]  Interestingly, the Amet case was mentioned in the United States Supreme Court Heller
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.560]  decision, which is I think the actual decision itself that details the history of the right
[01:57.560 --> 02:01.280]  to keep and bear arms is like 42, 43 pages.
[02:01.280 --> 02:03.740]  And in there, Amet is discussed.
[02:03.740 --> 02:10.400]  And the Supreme Court does not refer to that decision in a particularly flattering way.
[02:10.400 --> 02:14.440]  So I doubt – although they mention Amet, and I'm presuming – it doesn't say this
[02:14.440 --> 02:19.080]  – but I'm presuming they mention it because it's one of the more significant concealed
[02:19.080 --> 02:21.880]  carry cases, even though Heller didn't deal with concealed case.
[02:21.880 --> 02:23.540]  They were looking at the history.
[02:23.540 --> 02:26.880]  So you'd go down a bullet item of right to keep and bear arms issue, concealed carry
[02:26.880 --> 02:27.880]  would be it.
[02:27.880 --> 02:32.200]  And I'm guessing that the Amet case was probably one of the first major cases – because
[02:32.200 --> 02:36.000]  it was heard by a Tennessee Supreme Court – concerning concealed carry.
[02:36.000 --> 02:40.520]  So the Heller Court mentioned it unflatteringly.
[02:40.520 --> 02:47.160]  I say that it was mentioned unflatteringly because that leads me to believe that perhaps
[02:47.300 --> 02:50.520]  The current Supreme Court – we're going to get into that composition in a minute – the
[02:50.520 --> 02:54.560]  current Supreme Court may look back – if Amet is considered one of the primary cases
[02:54.560 --> 03:00.120]  – may look back and say, no, that was just absurd logic.
[03:00.120 --> 03:04.240]  And that set the foundation for how concealed carry was looked at after that.
[03:04.240 --> 03:05.880]  And that was just wrong.
[03:05.880 --> 03:11.440]  We probably need to own up to the fact that in the United States, the vast majority of
[03:11.640 --> 03:18.640]  gun control laws came into being in order so that white America had some sort of control
[03:18.640 --> 03:23.640]  over black Americans post-Civil War possessing and carrying firearms.
[03:23.640 --> 03:25.960]  You remember the – well, maybe not.
[03:25.960 --> 03:28.600]  People don't really read too much history these days.
[03:28.600 --> 03:32.120]  But after the Civil War, there were things in the South called the Black Codes.
[03:32.120 --> 03:36.720]  And then, of course, we know that rolled into – when the Black Codes were declared illegal,
[03:36.720 --> 03:38.460]  then it rolled into Jim Crow laws.
[03:38.460 --> 03:40.480]  But the way that used to work was, yeah, white guys?
[03:40.640 --> 03:41.960]  There was no laws for white guys.
[03:41.960 --> 03:44.760]  White guys could do whatever they wanted with arms.
[03:44.760 --> 03:52.080]  But a black man had to go get a permit, which was always issued by a white man – or, I
[03:52.080 --> 03:54.800]  should say, was never issued by a white man.
[03:54.800 --> 03:58.520]  So the black man had to go to the white man to get permission to exercise the same right
[03:58.520 --> 03:59.780]  that the white man had.
[03:59.780 --> 04:02.560]  That is the origin of the vast majority of gun control laws.
[04:02.560 --> 04:07.880]  So when you look at gun control laws today and you're like, this shit sucks – well,
[04:08.000 --> 04:13.140]  yeah, its origin was ugly and its origin was immoral and its origin was unethical and its
[04:13.140 --> 04:14.760]  origin was un-American.
[04:14.760 --> 04:16.240]  So here we are.
[04:16.240 --> 04:19.920]  You might think that when I refer to this, you know, the white man didn't want the black
[04:19.920 --> 04:24.920]  man carrying guns around, you might think that I'm talking about ancient history.
[04:24.920 --> 04:26.360]  I'm not.
[04:26.360 --> 04:31.880]  When Ronald Reagan was the governor of California, a group of blacks that were considered somewhat
[04:31.880 --> 04:36.480]  militant marched in front of the California Capitol building with long guns, peacefully.
[04:36.920 --> 04:37.920]  They didn't do a thing.
[04:37.920 --> 04:38.920]  They just marched.
[04:38.920 --> 04:39.920]  They had their slogans.
[04:39.920 --> 04:40.920]  They had their long guns.
[04:40.920 --> 04:44.920]  It was like two days later, the California legislature enacted a law saying there would
[04:44.920 --> 04:50.360]  be no exposed carry in the state of California and, yeah, Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
[04:50.360 --> 04:53.000]  It wasn't intended to be applicable to white people.
[04:53.000 --> 04:56.480]  I mean, I guess you have to sort of apply it to everybody, but I think the mindset of
[04:56.480 --> 04:59.880]  the legislators and Reagan was, well, when it's a white guy, the cops will look the
[04:59.880 --> 05:05.160]  other way, but this gives us a tool to stop the black man from having equal rights.
[05:05.160 --> 05:07.760]  So here's one of the kind of crazy things about concealed carry laws.
[05:07.760 --> 05:14.760]  If you don't have a CCW, a concealed carry permit, you're wearing your firearm exposed
[05:14.760 --> 05:17.480]  and a cold wind comes up.
[05:17.480 --> 05:21.560]  So you put on a windbreaker.
[05:21.560 --> 05:25.200]  Now you're a criminal in the state where I live right now, Nevada.
[05:25.200 --> 05:26.200]  You're a felon.
[05:26.200 --> 05:29.200]  If you don't have a CCW, you walk around all day long with an exposed handgun on your hip
[05:29.200 --> 05:33.960]  or wherever, the minute you get cold and put on a jacket, you're a felon.
[05:34.000 --> 05:37.200]  That is just fucking insane.
[05:37.200 --> 05:41.680]  And as I sit here talking to you in 2021, I think one of the biggest problems is we
[05:41.680 --> 05:45.740]  have this ever-growing portion of the United States population that's a bunch of candy
[05:45.740 --> 05:52.240]  asses that believe if somebody's carrying exposed, oh my God, I feel so threatened because
[05:52.240 --> 05:57.200]  he just walked by with a gun on his hip, but then in the same breath, they're like, no,
[05:57.200 --> 05:58.600]  you can't cover that shit up.
[05:58.600 --> 06:02.680]  Well, I've commented on what I consider to be the insanity of any sort of concealed carry
[06:02.680 --> 06:04.440]  laws to begin with.
[06:04.440 --> 06:06.560]  That is not the issue in the New York case.
[06:06.560 --> 06:12.840]  The case that has just been accepted by the Supreme Court is not about whether it is okay,
[06:12.840 --> 06:17.520]  whether it is constitutionally permissible to have a permit scheme.
[06:17.520 --> 06:22.360]  The question that has been taken before the United States Supreme Court is that the state
[06:22.360 --> 06:28.760]  of New York has made it by the standards it has imposed under its law, has made it virtually
[06:28.760 --> 06:33.880]  impossible for an ordinary law-abiding citizen to get a permit.
[06:33.880 --> 06:38.200]  So then if they want to carry concealed outside the house, they're instantly a criminal.
[06:38.200 --> 06:39.200]  I know how they feel.
[06:39.200 --> 06:43.120]  I used to live in Los Angeles County where it was the exact same way.
[06:43.120 --> 06:49.880]  The New York statute being challenged requires an applicant to show good cause to be granted
[06:49.880 --> 06:52.440]  a permit for concealed carry.
[06:52.440 --> 06:54.600]  See, good cause.
[06:55.600 --> 07:00.040]  Could it possibly be any more subjective?
[07:00.040 --> 07:04.080]  Barbara Underwood, the New York State Solicitor General, recently said in an interview responding
[07:04.080 --> 07:11.280]  to the media about this issue that under the statute you have to have an actual and articulatable
[07:11.280 --> 07:12.280]  reason.
[07:12.280 --> 07:19.960]  Okay, so Underwood is full of shit, she should be publicly flogged, and let me explain why.
[07:20.440 --> 07:26.920]  If your actual and articulatable reason is, I'm out and about on the street and there's
[07:26.920 --> 07:33.480]  street crime in New York, so I could be at risk for life or limb when out on the street
[07:33.480 --> 07:34.480]  going about my business.
[07:34.480 --> 07:39.520]  I would like to be able to use the most efficacious means of defending myself against loss of
[07:39.520 --> 07:42.360]  limb or loss of life, so I would like to carry a handgun.
[07:42.360 --> 07:46.800]  The state of New York automatically says, fuck you, that's not good cause.
[07:46.800 --> 07:52.480]  So if self-defense from the threat of life or limb is not good cause, what the fuck is?
[07:52.480 --> 07:56.520]  So if we cut to the chase on what's really happening in New York, it's a smokescreen,
[07:56.520 --> 08:00.880]  it is a contrivance so that the authorities in the state of New York can just say no to
[08:00.880 --> 08:01.880]  everybody.
[08:01.880 --> 08:06.600]  And that's why the suit has now arrived to the United States Supreme Court to challenge
[08:06.600 --> 08:12.040]  the fact that it is in reality a contrivance, meant to deny the citizens of New York their
[08:12.040 --> 08:14.520]  right to keep and bear arms when they're out and about.
[08:14.520 --> 08:19.080]  Let me read to you Governor Cuomo's statement that defines New York's position, quote,
[08:19.080 --> 08:24.880]  The streets of New York are not the okay corral in the NRA's dream of a society where everyone
[08:24.880 --> 08:30.640]  is terrified of each other and armed to the teeth is abhorrent to our values.
[08:30.640 --> 08:40.000]  Okay, so first of all, every single state that has a vibrant CCW program, yeah, there's
[08:41.000 --> 08:46.880]  So I have to do is look at like all the other states that have CCW programs and yeah, there's
[08:46.880 --> 08:48.560]  no okay corral.
[08:48.560 --> 08:53.760]  The second thing is though, I kind of get where Cuomo's coming from.
[08:53.760 --> 08:54.760]  You don't need a gun.
[08:54.760 --> 08:55.920]  I mean, look at what he did.
[08:55.920 --> 09:01.240]  He killed hundreds or was it thousands of elderly people in New York nursing homes without
[09:01.240 --> 09:06.280]  a gun, which certainly gives him a moral position to talk about defending yourself on the street
[09:06.280 --> 09:08.240]  against violent attack, right?
[09:08.240 --> 09:14.880]  Let's take a look at what the law means when you have to have a permit falls into two categories.
[09:14.880 --> 09:17.720]  One is that just basically it's not a right.
[09:17.720 --> 09:22.760]  It is and always has been a government privilege and absent permission from the government.
[09:22.760 --> 09:24.600]  You can't do it.
[09:24.600 --> 09:29.120]  An example of that would be distilling alcohol from the very beginning of the United States
[09:29.120 --> 09:30.320]  history.
[09:30.320 --> 09:33.120]  Distilling alcohol was considered at least by the federal government to be a privilege
[09:33.120 --> 09:36.420]  something no one in America had a right to do.
[09:36.420 --> 09:42.580]  The second category is a thing which is right, but in its nature, it is so dangerous to
[09:42.580 --> 09:47.980]  the public that the government has the duty, the authority, the power to regulate it.
[09:47.980 --> 09:51.460]  An example of that, whether you or I agree is irrelevant, but an example of that is how
[09:51.460 --> 09:53.020]  the government sees driving.
[09:53.020 --> 09:58.500]  If you're hurtling down the road in a 4,000 pound thing, the government says that is so
[09:58.500 --> 10:02.380]  inherently dangerous to have millions of people swirling around the roadways in these big
[10:02.380 --> 10:03.380]  heavy chunks of steel.
[10:03.620 --> 10:08.420]  It is so inherently dangerous that while you have a right to do it, it is considered a
[10:08.420 --> 10:13.260]  privilege in the sense that we have a duty to regulate it.
[10:13.260 --> 10:16.520]  Number one, it's not a right at all.
[10:16.520 --> 10:18.780]  It's always been and remains a privilege.
[10:18.780 --> 10:20.260]  We can throw that out the window.
[10:20.260 --> 10:24.180]  I think we all know that we have the right to keep and bear arms.
[10:24.180 --> 10:27.020]  Plus, take a look at the Heller decision, the McDonald decision out of the United States
[10:27.020 --> 10:28.020]  Supreme Court.
[10:28.020 --> 10:32.620]  It's absolutely an individual right, so says the Supreme Court.
[10:32.620 --> 10:35.540]  We can take this thing that it was never a right, it's not a right, it's never going
[10:35.540 --> 10:37.220]  to be a right, and we can throw that one out.
[10:37.220 --> 10:41.660]  That leaves us with number two, that it is a right, but it is so inherently dangerous
[10:41.660 --> 10:44.020]  that the government must regulate it.
[10:44.020 --> 10:49.580]  Yeah, that's not remotely true, and I'm going to prove it to you right now.
[10:49.580 --> 10:54.300]  There are 15 states in the union right now that have what's called constitutional carry.
[10:54.300 --> 10:57.740]  In other words, you can carry open, you can carry concealed, whatever way you want.
[10:57.740 --> 11:00.380]  You can carry open, and then you get caught, and you put a jacket on, it's all good, and
[11:00.380 --> 11:03.140]  you don't need a government permission slip.
[11:03.140 --> 11:05.860]  In those 15 states, what's happened?
[11:05.860 --> 11:07.860]  Not a fucking thing.
[11:07.860 --> 11:08.860]  They're fine.
[11:08.860 --> 11:13.020]  There's been no increase in crime, there's been no increase in gun violence, a favorite
[11:13.020 --> 11:14.020]  liberal term.
[11:14.020 --> 11:15.020]  None of that.
[11:15.020 --> 11:17.100]  Those states are doing great.
[11:17.100 --> 11:24.600]  The idea that carrying concealed is inherently dangerous to the public, yeah, that's totally
[11:24.600 --> 11:27.220]  been disproven by constitutional carry.
[11:27.260 --> 11:32.020]  If we combine the evidence provided by the states that have constitutional carry along
[11:32.020 --> 11:37.820]  with research after research after research paper that says those people who have concealed
[11:37.820 --> 11:44.540]  carry permits commit less violent crimes than the population generally.
[11:44.540 --> 11:48.620]  Whether you're carrying concealed in a state where they have constitutional carry without
[11:48.620 --> 11:52.420]  a government permission slip or whether you do have a government permission slip, there
[11:52.820 --> 12:00.820]  violence by those people as where it is taking place informs us than the population generally.
[12:00.820 --> 12:06.020]  The New York legislature and people like Cuomo have absolutely no game.
[12:06.020 --> 12:12.420]  The question becomes, does the New York legislature have the ability, the right, the power just
[12:12.420 --> 12:19.640]  to say, well, we don't care what all of those real world circumstances inform us of.
[12:19.640 --> 12:20.820]  We don't care about that.
[12:20.820 --> 12:26.020]  We're just going to say, because we're the legislature, we're just going to say it's
[12:26.020 --> 12:30.580]  a danger to the people of New York and we say this law is legit and we're going to
[12:30.580 --> 12:34.380]  defend it that way because we say it's a danger.
[12:34.380 --> 12:36.780]  That's mature, isn't it?
[12:36.780 --> 12:37.780]  The answer is no.
[12:37.780 --> 12:41.020]  The New York legislature cannot do that and here's why.
[12:41.020 --> 12:45.300]  The United States Supreme Court has said when a government intrudes upon a fundamental
[12:45.300 --> 12:48.140]  right, which is the right to keep them under arms, has been declared as such by Heller
[12:48.140 --> 12:49.580]  and in the McDonald case.
[12:50.460 --> 12:59.620]  When a state is intruding on a fundamental right, it has to show a compelling state interest.
[12:59.620 --> 13:02.340]  For instance, in the case we've been talking about in the argument that New York City is
[13:02.340 --> 13:08.020]  going to make is that it's a danger to the public to allow more people to have guns concealed
[13:08.020 --> 13:09.780]  on their person running around.
[13:09.780 --> 13:13.060]  We've also discussed that all you have to do is look around at the real world where
[13:13.060 --> 13:16.340]  it's already taking place to see that's a nonsense argument.
[13:16.340 --> 13:21.140]  If the standard of compelling state interest is to actually have any meaning at all, then
[13:21.140 --> 13:25.620]  the state that's claiming they have a compelling state interest, they have to place evidence
[13:25.620 --> 13:30.860]  upon the record in the court where their actions are being challenged showing that it is a
[13:30.860 --> 13:32.820]  danger to the public.
[13:32.820 --> 13:37.180]  New York State cannot do that for the reasons I just shared with you.
[13:37.180 --> 13:40.260]  There could not be a better time for a case like this to reach the United States Supreme
[13:40.260 --> 13:44.740]  Court because as you likely know, six of the nine justices are members of the Republican
[13:44.740 --> 13:50.180]  Party, which is typically thought to be pro-gun, but they're not always, sadly.
[13:50.180 --> 13:52.500]  In many cases, it's more rhetoric than it is substance.
[13:52.500 --> 13:59.860]  If we take those six Republican jurists and we take Robertson, move him out because he's
[13:59.860 --> 14:00.860]  not really.
[14:00.860 --> 14:05.940]  So we've probably got five justices we can actually rely upon in a case like this.
[14:05.940 --> 14:10.800]  And of course, five to four gets us what we want.
[14:10.800 --> 14:15.720]  If you find this sort of analysis enjoyable and interesting and fascinating, do please
[14:15.720 --> 14:18.400]  go to DrReality.News.
[14:18.400 --> 14:20.900]  Take a look at Income Tax Shattering and the Mists.
[14:20.900 --> 14:21.900]  Please read the reviews.
[14:21.900 --> 14:24.600]  I always say don't believe me about anything.
[14:24.600 --> 14:26.960]  And Body Science, again, don't believe me.
[14:26.960 --> 14:28.520]  Read the reviews.
[14:28.520 --> 14:33.780]  Either one you purchase, you will be absolutely blown away.
[14:33.780 --> 14:35.120]  You have my word on that.