Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:02.400]  Welcome to the vodcast.
[00:02.400 --> 00:08.040]  On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court released its Bruin decision, ruling
[00:08.040 --> 00:12.360]  that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right under the Second
[00:12.360 --> 00:13.640]  Amendment.
[00:13.640 --> 00:17.320]  But the Bruin Court went further than just the outcome of the case.
[00:17.320 --> 00:22.200]  Bruin set an entirely new standard the federal courts are to use when deciding cases involving
[00:22.200 --> 00:23.400]  the right to keep and bear arms.
[00:23.400 --> 00:28.420]  Although it has only been a year since the court released the decision, Bruin is already
[00:28.420 --> 00:32.620]  changing the legal landscape in terms of federal court decisions and cases involving the right
[00:32.620 --> 00:34.580]  to keep and bear arms.
[00:34.580 --> 00:37.140]  As you'll see, the impact has been profound.
[00:37.140 --> 00:46.140]  Some Americans will be thrilled, others will be beside themselves.
[00:46.140 --> 00:57.540]  The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion.
[00:58.420 --> 01:02.420]  I'm going to keep this brief because it isn't my goal today to discuss every firearms-related
[01:02.420 --> 01:04.620]  case since Bruin was decided.
[01:04.620 --> 01:08.300]  I simply believe we've reached a point where a pattern is emerging and people might care
[01:08.300 --> 01:12.380]  to know in what direction the decisions are heading.
[01:12.380 --> 01:16.460]  When Bruin was released, I began telling my audience that the decision was essentially
[01:16.460 --> 01:20.820]  a death knell for the vast majority of gun control laws across the United States.
[01:20.820 --> 01:25.100]  It wasn't just that the court struck down New York State's May issue concealed carry
[01:25.100 --> 01:26.580]  permit scheme.
[01:26.580 --> 01:32.100]  It was that in doing so, the court also established a new test for lower courts to use when considering
[01:32.100 --> 01:36.740]  whether a state or federal statute violates the right to keep and bear arms and is thus
[01:36.740 --> 01:38.580]  unconstitutional.
[01:38.580 --> 01:41.460]  I dubbed that the Bruin test.
[01:41.460 --> 01:47.700]  The pre-Bruin test in most firearms-related cases pivoted on the vague notion of public
[01:47.700 --> 01:52.340]  good, which is, of course, absurd because you could light up 10 federal judges and ask
[01:52.340 --> 01:58.780]  them to explain public good relating to firearms and get 10 different answers.
[01:58.780 --> 02:03.700]  The public good standard was an absurd paradigm because our unalienable rights are never to
[02:03.700 --> 02:09.220]  be ruled upon by a court on the basis of the personal opinion of an individual judge or
[02:09.220 --> 02:10.940]  even a group of judges.
[02:10.940 --> 02:15.260]  I think we can all agree that no matter which unalienable right is being considered by a
[02:15.260 --> 02:20.900]  court, individual personal opinions of judges isn't the correct standard.
[02:20.900 --> 02:23.420]  In fact, it's not really a standard at all.
[02:23.420 --> 02:28.940]  Allowing judges to rule based on their personal opinions creates an impermissible judicial
[02:28.940 --> 02:30.700]  free-for-all.
[02:30.700 --> 02:35.260]  Bruin put an end to that by establishing a new, different standard.
[02:35.260 --> 02:38.620]  Before I get into the new standard established by Bruin, you should know Bruin didn't just
[02:38.620 --> 02:40.700]  suddenly pop up out of nowhere.
[02:40.700 --> 02:45.500]  Bruin is part of the lineage that began with the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008
[02:45.500 --> 02:48.460]  and the McDonald decision in 2010.
[02:48.500 --> 02:52.340]  So what is the Bruin test?
[02:52.340 --> 02:53.820]  It is essentially this.
[02:53.820 --> 02:58.100]  In Bruin, the court said the right to keep and bear arms had a discernible meaning and
[02:58.100 --> 03:02.540]  character at the time the founders ratified the Bill of Rights and therefore that meaning
[03:02.540 --> 03:06.020]  and character is what defines that right today.
[03:06.020 --> 03:09.800]  In short, the court said the views of the founding generation concerning the ownership
[03:09.800 --> 03:15.620]  and carrying of arms of any type, which includes firearms, are constitutionally fixed by consideration
[03:15.620 --> 03:21.660]  of how the founders would have viewed legislation impacting a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
[03:21.660 --> 03:29.460]  To be clear, the court's ruling was a complete repudiation of the living constitution theory.
[03:29.460 --> 03:33.060]  There are two camps on constitutional interpretation.
[03:33.060 --> 03:38.380]  One is the originalist view, holding the documents mean exactly what the men who wrote it intended
[03:38.380 --> 03:41.740]  when they wrote the words and the states ratified those words.
[03:41.740 --> 03:46.460]  The originalist model also seeks to identify the principles of liberty and good governance
[03:46.460 --> 03:52.500]  behind the constitution's wording and carry those principles forward into our modern circumstances.
[03:52.500 --> 03:55.480]  An example of that would be the principle of freedom of the press.
[03:55.480 --> 04:00.300]  It exists just as much today when we employ computers, super high speed industrial printing
[04:00.300 --> 04:05.940]  or an online digital present as when cutting edge technology was a hand cranked wooden
[04:05.940 --> 04:07.500]  printing press.
[04:07.500 --> 04:12.220]  The other model is the living document theory, which takes the view that in order for the
[04:12.220 --> 04:16.540]  constitution to be durable over the long haul, the original meaning of the founders must
[04:16.540 --> 04:22.320]  give way to new interpretations based on the circumstances of modern society.
[04:22.320 --> 04:28.060]  As I'm speaking with you today, I'm 63 years old and I've only ever seen the living document
[04:28.060 --> 04:31.540]  model advance with two goals intended.
[04:31.540 --> 04:36.900]  One is to alter the form of the federal government from a representative democracy to some other form.
[04:36.900 --> 04:41.660]  The second is to do away with certain rights belonging to we the people or substantially
[04:41.660 --> 04:43.180]  truncate them.
[04:43.180 --> 04:47.540]  In my opinion, the living document model is despicable.
[04:47.540 --> 04:49.420]  Here's why.
[04:49.420 --> 04:54.140]  If people want to change the form of the federal government, okay, the constitution contains
[04:54.140 --> 04:56.380]  a means of doing exactly that.
[04:56.380 --> 04:58.420]  It's called the amendment process.
[04:58.420 --> 05:03.380]  The constitution literally contains instructions about how we the people can alter anything
[05:03.380 --> 05:05.620]  we want in the constitution.
[05:05.620 --> 05:10.020]  A proposed amendment requires ratification by two thirds of the states to become part
[05:10.020 --> 05:11.540]  of the constitution.
[05:11.540 --> 05:17.540]  So for simplicity of illustration, if we say the population of all states is equal, then
[05:17.540 --> 05:24.580]  at this moment in time, it would require 222,500,000 Americans to agree that making a particular
[05:24.580 --> 05:28.260]  modification to the constitution is what we want.
[05:28.260 --> 05:33.540]  By contrast, those who support the living document model seek to reduce the number of
[05:33.540 --> 05:41.140]  Americans needed to make a change from 220,500,000 to only the nine Supreme Court justices or
[05:41.140 --> 05:44.380]  more accurately, five of the nine justices.
[05:44.380 --> 05:50.460]  Basically, they're looking to overthrow the U.S. Constitution by judicial fiat.
[05:50.460 --> 05:54.620]  The other reason I find the living document model despicable is the Founding Fathers were
[05:54.620 --> 05:58.940]  crystal clear that the government is not the source of our rights.
[05:58.940 --> 06:03.500]  In the earliest days of our nation, the Supreme Court held that our rights existed antecedent
[06:03.500 --> 06:07.500]  to the formation of the states or the federal government, therefore the states and the federal
[06:07.500 --> 06:11.900]  government have no authority to alter or abolish those rights.
[06:11.900 --> 06:16.860]  Yet the goal of those who support the living document model is to eradicate or severely
[06:16.860 --> 06:20.380]  truncate rights they don't like and don't want you exercising.
[06:20.380 --> 06:26.220]  And again, in a nation of 334 million people, they want just five people to eradicate or
[06:26.220 --> 06:28.060]  truncate your rights.
[06:28.060 --> 06:32.060]  Understanding the difference between the originalist model and the living document model and that
[06:32.140 --> 06:36.540]  the court has thoroughly repudiated the living document model, let's return to Bruin and
[06:36.540 --> 06:41.260]  the direction the federal courts are taking as they apply the Bruin test.
[06:41.260 --> 06:45.540]  A moment ago, I said that Bruin declared the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms
[06:45.540 --> 06:52.420]  constitutionally fixed by considering how the founders would have viewed firearms legislation.
[06:52.420 --> 06:56.500]  As you might imagine, it would have been rare for the founders to see laws restricting the
[06:56.500 --> 06:59.500]  ownership or carrying of arms as being permissible.
[06:59.660 --> 07:03.300]  Before I get into how the Bruin test is impacting federal court decisions, let me be clear that
[07:03.300 --> 07:09.340]  while Bruin certainly firmly pushes the needle away from restrictions of most sorts, people
[07:09.340 --> 07:12.980]  should not imagine that every gun law in the books is going to be declared unconstitutional
[07:12.980 --> 07:14.900]  under Bruin.
[07:14.900 --> 07:17.700]  Examples of issues that will have to play out in the courts before we know where the
[07:17.700 --> 07:23.460]  boundaries are under Bruin are things like restricting the carrying of firearms in quote
[07:23.460 --> 07:25.420]  sensitive places.
[07:25.420 --> 07:29.340]  In a twist of irony, I have no doubt the Supreme Court will uphold such restrictions
[07:29.340 --> 07:32.220]  when applied to courthouses.
[07:32.220 --> 07:35.980]  How about federal licensing of suppressors and short-barreled rifles?
[07:35.980 --> 07:39.500]  What about the federal statute that restricts Americans from owning any weapon capable
[07:39.500 --> 07:44.020]  of firing in the fully automatic mode if manufactured after 1986?
[07:44.020 --> 07:47.860]  These are issues that will almost certainly be settled by the Supreme Court or perhaps
[07:47.860 --> 07:50.340]  by consensus of the appellate courts.
[07:50.340 --> 07:54.780]  I think it important to note that in Bruin, the six justices who decided in favor of the
[07:54.780 --> 08:00.700]  plaintiff were actually fixing a structural flaw in federal court reasoning.
[08:00.700 --> 08:05.420]  By that I mean those six justices recognized the growing inclination for judges to decide
[08:05.420 --> 08:11.660]  cases based on their personal opinions to be an egregious flaw that had to be stamped
[08:11.660 --> 08:12.660]  out.
[08:12.660 --> 08:17.660]  Bruin made it crystal clear that every one of the 861 Article 3 judges in the United
[08:17.660 --> 08:21.860]  States, as well as the couple of thousand Article 1 judges and judges of the possessions
[08:21.860 --> 08:27.580]  and territories, that courts deciding the rights of people based on the malleable notion
[08:27.580 --> 08:31.940]  of public good is no longer permissible.
[08:31.940 --> 08:35.820]  This also isn't the first time this court has made a decision to correct a structural
[08:35.820 --> 08:37.940]  flaw in judicial reasoning.
[08:37.940 --> 08:41.220]  Remember Dobbs, the decision that reversed Roe v. Wade?
[08:41.220 --> 08:45.220]  You may find this surprising, but that decision was not as much about abortion as it was the
[08:45.220 --> 08:49.020]  court correcting a flawed precedent concerning the Fourteenth Amendment.
[08:49.020 --> 08:53.100]  About nine months ago I did a presentation in which I detailed the exact nature of the
[08:53.100 --> 08:56.620]  flawed Fourteenth Amendment precedent the court was reversing in Dobbs.
[08:56.620 --> 08:58.820]  I'll put a link to it in the notes.
[08:58.820 --> 09:04.060]  If you educate yourself on both Dobbs and Bruin, you'll begin to see where this is
[09:04.060 --> 09:06.780]  all going and why.
[09:06.780 --> 09:11.300]  Now let's take a look at decisions made under the new Bruin test.
[09:11.300 --> 09:13.100]  We'll start with the most recent decision.
[09:13.100 --> 09:17.020]  On May 10th, 2023, a federal judge struck down the federal regulation that prohibited
[09:17.020 --> 09:22.500]  selling handguns to those who are 18 or older but have not yet turned 21.
[09:22.500 --> 09:27.500]  U.S. District Judge Robert Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia said that under the Bruin
[09:27.500 --> 09:32.140]  test, the federal regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
[09:32.140 --> 09:35.420]  In his decision, Judge Payne stated the following, quote,
[09:47.020 --> 09:52.300]  The government has not presented any evidence of age-based restrictions on the purchase
[09:52.300 --> 09:57.860]  or sale of firearms from the colonial era, founding, or the early republic.
[09:57.860 --> 09:58.860]  Close quote.
[09:58.860 --> 10:03.180]  I believe we can all see from the judge's remarks the effects of applying the Bruin
[10:03.180 --> 10:04.500]  test.
[10:04.500 --> 10:08.740]  Before we move on to other rulings, I should mention that in March 2023, the 11th U.S.
[10:08.740 --> 10:13.580]  Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase
[10:13.580 --> 10:16.860]  a firearm from 18 to 21.
[10:17.700 --> 10:21.860]  At this point, we have a trial court in the Fourth Circuit ruling one way and the Eleventh
[10:21.860 --> 10:25.700]  Circuit Court of Appeals ruling the exact opposite.
[10:25.700 --> 10:31.500]  Two federal decisions with the exact opposite holding increase the odds significantly that
[10:31.500 --> 10:34.500]  the matter will be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
[10:34.500 --> 10:38.580]  This is part of the process I mentioned earlier in which we'll have to see where the Supreme
[10:38.580 --> 10:42.200]  Court eventually fixes the boundary markers under Bruin.
[10:42.200 --> 10:46.220]  It should be noted that the two cases are not identical because the Virginia decision
[10:46.220 --> 10:51.540]  addresses a federal law while the Eleventh Circuit addresses a Florida state law.
[10:51.540 --> 10:56.540]  Yet the most interesting distinction is the Virginia court based its decision on looking
[10:56.540 --> 11:00.620]  at the colonial era, the founding era, and the earliest days of the nation while the
[11:00.620 --> 11:05.180]  Eleventh Circuit based its decision on a law restricting the age of firearms ownership
[11:05.180 --> 11:08.980]  that was enacted in the years shortly after the Civil War.
[11:08.980 --> 11:12.900]  While I doubt that in Bruin the Supreme Court was including the views of politicians almost
[11:12.900 --> 11:17.180]  a hundred years after American independence, we'll have to wait for the court to address
[11:17.180 --> 11:21.540]  these decisional disparities before we know the answer for certain.
[11:21.540 --> 11:25.580]  Other decisions that resulted from applying the Bruin test were finding unconstitutional
[11:25.580 --> 11:30.660]  a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana from owning firearms, a federal ban on possessing
[11:30.660 --> 11:35.140]  a gun with its serial number removed, and striking down the federal restriction barring
[11:35.140 --> 11:39.340]  people from possessing guns if they have a domestic violence restraining order in force
[11:39.340 --> 11:40.580]  against them.
[11:40.580 --> 11:45.860]  The federal prohibition of firearms ownership because a person smokes weed has been inane
[11:45.860 --> 11:48.140]  since the day it went into effect.
[11:48.140 --> 11:52.660]  The idea that a person who drinks a fifth of whiskey every night is good to go to own
[11:52.660 --> 11:58.180]  a firearm while a person who takes a bong hit after work can't is the poster child
[11:58.180 --> 12:03.220]  for how irrational and illogical are government firearms restrictions.
[12:03.220 --> 12:08.580]  Serial numbers are the foundation of the entire federal firearms regulation scheme.
[12:08.580 --> 12:12.300]  About serial numbers on firearms, most federal firearms regulations would, on a practical
[12:12.300 --> 12:14.300]  level, cease to be enforceable.
[12:14.300 --> 12:20.420]  So a decision that a requirement to have a serial number on a firearm is unconstitutional
[12:20.420 --> 12:23.340]  changes the landscape significantly.
[12:23.340 --> 12:27.440]  As an aside, I'll put a link in the notes to a treatise that lays out the legal reality
[12:27.440 --> 12:32.400]  that virtually all federal firearms laws are only territorial in nature and do not
[12:32.400 --> 12:35.620]  constitutionally apply in the states of the union.
[12:35.620 --> 12:39.780]  The Fifth Circuit decision that struck down the domestic violence restraining order restriction
[12:39.780 --> 12:44.980]  is being appealed by the Biden administration, so we'll have to see how that plays out.
[12:44.980 --> 12:48.860]  A case to keep an eye on is a petition to the Supreme Court concerning a Chicago law
[12:48.860 --> 12:54.920]  that bans so-called assault rifles and, in aptly named, high-capacity magazines.
[12:54.920 --> 12:59.980]  In February 2023, a federal judge in Chicago ruled the law was constitutional under the
[12:59.980 --> 13:04.660]  Bruin test and then the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the law while
[13:04.660 --> 13:07.100]  the case works its way up the judicial food chain.
[13:07.100 --> 13:12.060]  I've tried to keep my personal sentiments out of this presentation, mostly, but at this
[13:12.060 --> 13:15.980]  point I have to say that the idea of banning modern semi-automatic rifles in the magazines
[13:15.980 --> 13:22.260]  originally designed for them that it could pass the Bruin test is clearly agendized rubbish.
[13:22.260 --> 13:26.040]  As plainly stated in the Heller decision, one of the several purposes of the right to
[13:26.040 --> 13:30.620]  keep and bear arms is for citizens to have the tools at their disposal to remove the
[13:30.620 --> 13:34.140]  government by force if things reach that point.
[13:34.140 --> 13:38.260]  That can only be accomplished with the public-owning rifles that are, at least somewhat, in the
[13:38.260 --> 13:41.060]  same class as those possessed by the government.
[13:41.060 --> 13:44.900]  The Supreme Court validated principle that one of the reasons for the right to possess
[13:44.900 --> 13:50.060]  arms is to remove the government by force if necessary is why I believe Bruin should
[13:50.060 --> 13:53.780]  ultimately strike down the federal prohibition against Americans owning fully automatic
[13:53.780 --> 13:57.140]  rifles manufactured after 1986.
[13:57.140 --> 14:02.220]  In short, under the Second Amendment, when it comes to personal arms, if the government
[14:03.220 --> 14:06.320]  then the people must be free to have them as well.
[14:06.320 --> 14:11.020]  Perhaps the oddest complaint about the Bruin test has come from a couple judges whining
[14:11.020 --> 14:14.940]  that they're now going to have to become history experts.
[14:14.940 --> 14:18.380]  Let me be blunt, that's complete horseshit.
[14:18.380 --> 14:23.340]  First, the responsibility lies with the opposing parties to submit the relevant history to
[14:23.340 --> 14:26.540]  the court that each side believes supports their argument.
[14:26.540 --> 14:31.220]  In other words, all the court need do is the limited amount of research needed to determine
[14:31.220 --> 14:34.180]  which version of historical events is factual.
[14:34.180 --> 14:37.980]  The version submitted by the plaintiff or the version submitted by the defense.
[14:37.980 --> 14:42.180]  Further, a good deal of the historical research relevant to the ownership and carrying of
[14:42.180 --> 14:47.200]  firearms has already been done in the 40-page history of the right to keep firearms contained
[14:47.200 --> 14:49.420]  in the Supreme Court's Heller decision.
[14:49.420 --> 14:55.060]  Further, when courts are called upon to hear cases involving, as an example, technology,
[14:55.060 --> 14:59.580]  we don't hear the courts whining about needing to become tech experts to rule on a tech-based
[14:59.580 --> 15:01.300]  controversy before the court.
[15:01.300 --> 15:06.380]  In such cases, the judge considers the explanation of the technology provided by the plaintiff
[15:06.380 --> 15:11.180]  and the defense, does a bit of independent research, if necessary, and issues his or
[15:11.180 --> 15:13.820]  her decision without whining.
[15:13.820 --> 15:16.940]  So why are a couple of judges whining about the Bruin test?
[15:16.940 --> 15:21.540]  I think it readily apparent that what they actually don't like is that Bruin took away
[15:21.540 --> 15:24.940]  their prerogative to make decisions on the right to keep and bear arms based on their
[15:24.940 --> 15:27.020]  personal opinion.
[15:27.020 --> 15:31.860]  Since they're now being held to an actual standard, they're complaining about it.
[15:31.860 --> 15:36.860]  I think the direction Bruin is taking in the country in terms of gun control laws is clear.
[15:36.860 --> 15:38.540]  Most of those laws will be going away.
[15:38.540 --> 15:42.320]  I believe one of the most significant outcomes of those changes will be that virtually any
[15:42.320 --> 15:47.900]  American who wants to carry a firearm will be able to do so without government interference.
[15:47.900 --> 15:54.380]  I see that as a positive because government has never been able to stop violent crime.
[15:54.380 --> 15:58.660]  When I was working patrol back in my law enforcement days, the occasions I was present
[15:58.660 --> 16:02.420]  when an act of violence kicked off and was able to prevent the violence from being visited
[16:02.420 --> 16:06.900]  upon the intended victim or victims was very close to never.
[16:06.900 --> 16:12.500]  99.9% of the time, cops show up after the violence has taken place.
[16:12.500 --> 16:17.340]  Since government is powerless to stop violence against you or anyone else, who do you think
[16:17.340 --> 16:23.680]  is in reality responsible for stopping a person when he attempts to commit illegal violence?
[16:23.680 --> 16:28.000]  No one is free to commit an act of illegal violence when I'm present.
[16:28.000 --> 16:29.320]  Why is that?
[16:29.320 --> 16:33.780]  Because I have experience in such matters, have trained in the skills to stop it, carry
[16:33.780 --> 16:38.440]  a firearm every day, and here's the important part.
[16:38.440 --> 16:39.920]  Are you ready?
[16:39.920 --> 16:45.560]  I consider it my duty as an American to stop illegal violence in my community.
[16:45.560 --> 16:49.500]  Now pay careful attention to this next part.
[16:49.500 --> 16:54.380]  If the government can't stop violence, has never been able to stop it, and never will
[16:54.380 --> 17:00.240]  be able to stop it, if I don't stop it, who will?
[17:00.240 --> 17:05.720]  And if I'm not there, but you are, you should be doing the job.
[17:05.720 --> 17:07.220]  Are you getting the point?
[17:07.220 --> 17:11.100]  I've been in the use of force game basically since my early teens.
[17:11.100 --> 17:14.860]  I chased my first armed robber down the sidewalk when I was 14.
[17:15.240 --> 17:20.040]  I was going to catch him and beat his ass for sticking a gun in my face and the faces
[17:20.040 --> 17:21.040]  of my co-workers.
[17:21.040 --> 17:24.620]  Unfortunately, he dove headfirst into a waiting car and got away.
[17:24.620 --> 17:28.840]  However, a few weeks later, I saw him enter a home in my neighborhood, called the detective
[17:28.840 --> 17:31.700]  assigned to the case, and got him arrested and sent to prison.
[17:31.700 --> 17:34.160]  So all's well that ends well.
[17:34.160 --> 17:38.880]  Being in the game essentially my entire life, I'm well aware that not everyone is capable
[17:38.880 --> 17:43.360]  of employing lawful violence to stop illegal violence.
[17:43.360 --> 17:45.060]  But here's the thing.
[17:45.060 --> 17:50.100]  If your child was present at a location when criminal violence kicked off, would you want
[17:50.100 --> 17:54.080]  me to save your child or let your child be seriously injured or killed?
[17:54.080 --> 17:58.340]  If your answer is that you'd want me to save your child, then why would you want laws in
[17:58.340 --> 18:01.420]  place that would prevent me from doing that?
[18:01.420 --> 18:04.340]  And there are millions of Americans like me out there.
[18:04.340 --> 18:09.540]  My point is that if you're beside yourself, that most gun laws are going away, perhaps
[18:09.540 --> 18:13.060]  you should be looking at the issue in a different light.
[18:13.060 --> 18:17.860]  The government isn't going to stop your child from being injured or killed.
[18:17.860 --> 18:19.400]  Think Robb Elementary School.
[18:19.400 --> 18:24.200]  And if you aren't the kind of person who would be effective at stopping a violent criminal,
[18:24.200 --> 18:30.480]  why the hell would you want to disarm millions of Americans who are willing to stop them?
[18:30.480 --> 18:32.120]  Perhaps something to think about.
[18:32.120 --> 18:35.400]  We've been talking about the courts protecting the right to keep and bear arms, but that's
[18:35.400 --> 18:40.320]  not the only right the decisions of the courts have protected and continue protecting to
[18:40.320 --> 18:42.040]  this very day.
[18:42.040 --> 18:45.960]  You might find it intriguing to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly
[18:45.960 --> 18:51.160]  that you have an unalienable right to your own property, most particularly the right
[18:51.160 --> 18:55.560]  to the fruits of your labor, and that right can never be taken from you.
[18:55.560 --> 18:59.520]  It may further intrigue you to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that
[18:59.520 --> 19:04.360]  the U.S. income tax is a tax upon the exercise of a privilege.
[19:04.360 --> 19:07.120]  So then, what is a privilege?
[19:07.120 --> 19:12.260]  In terms of taxation, it means government permission to do something that, absent the
[19:12.260 --> 19:15.240]  government's permission, would be illegal.
[19:15.240 --> 19:20.840]  Needless to say, an unalienable right is the exact opposite of a government-granted privilege.
[19:20.840 --> 19:25.200]  The court has also been crystal clear that rights may not be taxed.
[19:25.200 --> 19:26.200]  Hmm.
[19:26.200 --> 19:28.360]  Isn't that interesting?
[19:28.360 --> 19:31.620]  Let's quickly bullet point these for clarity.
[19:31.620 --> 19:35.620]  Number one, the Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is a tax upon the exercise
[19:35.620 --> 19:38.260]  of a government-granted privilege.
[19:38.260 --> 19:43.960]  Number two, your unalienable rights are the exact opposite of a government-granted privilege.
[19:43.960 --> 19:49.100]  Number three, the Supreme Court has said your labor and the fruits of your labor are unalienable
[19:49.100 --> 19:50.500]  rights.
[19:50.500 --> 19:53.620]  Number four, rights cannot be taxed.
[19:53.620 --> 19:59.660]  So in light of that simple reality, can you explain to me why you pay income tax?
[19:59.660 --> 20:04.140]  By explain, I mean a rational explanation, something other than you've been told you
[20:04.140 --> 20:05.140]  have to.
[20:05.460 --> 20:07.440]  Let me ask you a question.
[20:07.440 --> 20:11.340]  Have you read a single word of income tax law?
[20:11.340 --> 20:14.060]  I don't mean words on a Form 1040 or some IRS letter.
[20:14.060 --> 20:19.240]  I'm asking you if you've ever read income tax law with your own eyes and know what it
[20:19.240 --> 20:20.780]  actually says.
[20:20.780 --> 20:24.460]  For 99.9% of you, the answer is no.
[20:24.460 --> 20:29.220]  So then, not having read a word of income tax law, do you really imagine the government
[20:29.220 --> 20:35.580]  imposed a privilege tax on your unalienable right to the fruits of your labor?
[20:35.580 --> 20:38.900]  I ask because I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the best-selling book
[20:38.900 --> 20:44.620]  in America that indisputably proves the government has never done that.
[20:44.620 --> 20:49.220]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist shares 17 years of research in an easy-to-understand
[20:49.220 --> 20:54.740]  manner and reveals that Congress has never imposed the income tax on you, your labor,
[20:54.740 --> 21:01.820]  or the fruits of your labor and reveals that by providing mountains of irrefutable conclusive
[21:01.820 --> 21:03.380]  evidence.
[21:03.380 --> 21:09.020]  The fact of the matter is you're paying income tax because you've been bamboozled.
[21:09.020 --> 21:13.140]  The government has been pumping out massive disinformation on the subject for 60 years
[21:13.140 --> 21:18.500]  and you bought their bamboozled hook line and sinker and of course there's some fear
[21:18.500 --> 21:20.140]  involved as well.
[21:20.140 --> 21:22.140]  I want to rectify all of that for you.
[21:22.140 --> 21:26.820]  Your misconception concerning what tax law actually says about you and your labor and
[21:26.820 --> 21:28.780]  do away with that fear.
[21:28.780 --> 21:33.180]  If you're thinking, it's hard to believe what you're saying is true, Dave, let me share
[21:33.180 --> 21:39.140]  with you that I haven't filed or paid in 30 years and tens of thousands of people who've
[21:39.140 --> 21:45.180]  seen the law and facts with their own eyes by reading Income Tax Shattering the Mist
[21:45.180 --> 21:47.940]  have safely walked away from the government scam.
[21:47.940 --> 21:54.220]  And when I say it's a scam, what do you call Congress passing a tax that doesn't apply
[21:54.220 --> 21:58.700]  to ordinary working Americans, because the Constitution prevents that, but then the government
[21:58.700 --> 22:04.560]  turned around and mounted a massive 60-year disinformation campaign to falsely convince
[22:04.560 --> 22:07.580]  you that it applies to ordinary working Americans?
[22:07.580 --> 22:11.620]  While you may be able to think of all sorts of words for the government doing that, scam
[22:11.620 --> 22:13.940]  is certainly one that fits perfectly.
[22:13.940 --> 22:16.740]  I'm currently running a special on Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[22:17.540 --> 22:21.100]  Before I tell you about it, let's quickly hear what people have recently said about
[22:21.100 --> 22:23.060]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[22:23.060 --> 22:29.140]  Mike wrote, quote, I've read Dave's books and both changed my life dramatically.
[22:29.140 --> 22:34.660]  I'm a lifelong reader and I can say both are hands down the best books I've ever read.
[22:34.660 --> 22:35.660]  Period.
[22:35.660 --> 22:39.260]  Both stay on top of my desk for quick and easy reference and I consider them among my
[22:39.260 --> 22:42.020]  most prized possessions.
[22:42.020 --> 22:45.780]  And lest you think a book on income tax is dry and boring.
[22:45.820 --> 22:53.460]  Quote, some light reading on my flight, 100 pages in and I can't put it down.
[22:53.460 --> 22:55.420]  Can't put it down.
[22:55.420 --> 22:58.660]  Readers love Income Tax Shattering the Mist so much, I see comments in which they say
[22:58.660 --> 23:01.820]  they're reading it for the second, third, or fourth time.
[23:01.820 --> 23:05.580]  Not because they have to, but because they find it so enjoyable they want to read it
[23:05.580 --> 23:07.300]  again and again.
[23:07.300 --> 23:11.180]  I'm going to tell you about this special, but before I do, I need to mention my book
[23:11.180 --> 23:15.460]  Body Science because there is an option in the special to get an even better deal if
[23:15.460 --> 23:17.820]  you purchase Income Tax Shattering the Mist and Body Science.
[23:17.820 --> 23:20.820]  I won't take up a lot of your time telling you about Body Science.
[23:20.820 --> 23:24.020]  Instead, I'll ask you a question.
[23:24.020 --> 23:27.700]  America leads the world in science and technology, including in the medical field.
[23:27.700 --> 23:34.060]  So have you wondered why America is the most ill society not only on the planet, but in
[23:34.060 --> 23:35.900]  all of human history?
[23:35.900 --> 23:37.980]  Do you think that's a coincidence?
[23:37.980 --> 23:40.260]  I'm here to tell you it's not.
[23:40.260 --> 23:44.820]  Remember I mentioned a moment ago the government's massive 60-year disinformation campaign that's
[23:44.820 --> 23:46.660]  ongoing to this very moment?
[23:46.660 --> 23:48.300]  Well, guess what?
[23:48.300 --> 23:52.300]  The government and certain trillion-dollar industries have been doing the same exact
[23:52.300 --> 23:55.900]  thing for 60 years concerning nutritional physiology.
[23:55.900 --> 23:59.740]  And just like the front of the income tax, it's all about the money.
[23:59.740 --> 24:01.900]  They don't give a damn about you.
[24:01.900 --> 24:06.140]  If the American people being the most ill society in all of history is what it takes
[24:06.140 --> 24:10.660]  to put trillions of dollars in their pockets, well, that's a price they're willing to
[24:10.660 --> 24:11.660]  pay.
[24:11.660 --> 24:15.740]  I suppose the question then becomes, where do you stand on that?
[24:15.740 --> 24:17.780]  Do you want to know what they've done?
[24:17.780 --> 24:21.100]  How they've lied to make so many Americans incredibly ill?
[24:21.100 --> 24:23.780]  Or do you want to know the truth they've been hiding from you?
[24:23.780 --> 24:26.380]  If so, read Body Science.
[24:26.380 --> 24:31.000]  You'll be appalled at what you learn they've done and thrilled when you discover the truth
[24:31.000 --> 24:32.300]  about your physiology.
[24:32.300 --> 24:34.860]  Okay, so here's the special.
[24:34.860 --> 24:39.300]  For a limited time, you can get 15% off income tax shattering the miss.
[24:39.300 --> 24:43.540]  To get that 15% discount, use the coupon code OWNIT.
[24:43.540 --> 24:44.540]  All one word.
[24:44.540 --> 24:45.940]  I'll put the code down in the notes.
[24:45.940 --> 24:51.380]  If you purchase the bundle that includes income tax shattering the miss and Body Science,
[24:51.380 --> 24:56.420]  you'll get the 15% off income tax shattering the miss and you'll get free shipping.
[24:56.420 --> 24:58.860]  For the bundle, use the coupon code FREEBEE.
[24:58.860 --> 25:02.300]  I'll put the code down in the notes along with the link to the bundle.
[25:02.300 --> 25:05.700]  In the 13 years income tax shattering the miss has been out, I have never offered more
[25:05.700 --> 25:11.700]  than a 10% discount, so 15% is a great deal that likely won't come again.
[25:11.700 --> 25:15.260]  Not only will you learn what every American should know about the government's income
[25:15.260 --> 25:20.580]  tax scam, you'll also discover hidden physiological truths revealed in Body Science, such as how
[25:20.580 --> 25:25.020]  not to get cancer, heart disease, obesity, Alzheimer's, insulin resistance, hypertension,
[25:25.020 --> 25:27.340]  metabolic disease, and more.
[25:27.340 --> 25:31.200]  And if you already have some of those, Body Science will show you how to get rid of them.
[25:31.200 --> 25:37.920]  To get income tax shattering the miss and or Body Science, go to DrReality.News, DRReality.News,
[25:37.920 --> 25:40.200]  or just click the links down in the notes.
[25:40.200 --> 25:43.480]  Purchasing income tax shattering the miss and Body Science also supports my being here
[25:43.480 --> 25:46.840]  for you with these thought-provoking presentations.
[25:46.840 --> 25:48.760]  Please share this vodcast everywhere.
[25:48.760 --> 25:49.840]  Thanks for being here.
[25:49.840 --> 25:50.120]  Take care.