Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:08.640] The city of San Jose, California is poised to pass legislation which would impose fees [00:08.640 --> 00:15.380] and taxes on the exercise of a constitutional right, and additionally would forbid the exercise [00:15.380 --> 00:20.860] of this particular constitutional right unless residents had a personal liability insurance [00:20.860 --> 00:25.360] policy, to exercise a constitutionally protected right. [00:30.640 --> 00:33.520] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:41.920 --> 00:45.360] Before we jump into the story, a little bit about my background so you can determine it. [00:45.360 --> 00:51.680] Perhaps I'm properly positioned to discuss this. First, my firearms background. I'm a former Army [00:51.680 --> 00:55.040] Ranger. I have a law enforcement background. I spent the better part of my life instructing [00:55.040 --> 01:00.080] in firearms tactics and use of force, and there is an area weapon system that at some point in [01:00.080 --> 01:05.680] history I have not instructed on. On the legal side, I have served as a constitutional law advisor [01:05.680 --> 01:11.680] for several political campaigns. I have lectured on the 16th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the [01:11.680 --> 01:17.520] 2nd Amendment, and I have written the bestselling book in the nation on one of the most complex [01:17.520 --> 01:24.960] areas of U.S. law ever, the point being I am well qualified to speak on constitutional rights [01:25.200 --> 01:30.640] unalienable rights, the limits of government power. Yes, I know today we don't actually, [01:30.640 --> 01:34.960] many people don't actually believe there are limits, but there are, and I'm well versed to share [01:34.960 --> 01:39.760] with you anything concerning the distinction between state authority and federal authority [01:39.760 --> 01:45.520] under our system of federalism here in the United States. So with that said, what's going on in [01:45.520 --> 01:52.480] San Jose? So the San Jose City Council is about to vote on an ordinance that would impose, if passed, [01:52.480 --> 02:03.520] would impose a fee on all gun owners, a tax on all gun owners, and it would bar the constitutional [02:03.520 --> 02:10.480] right of owning firearms within the city of San Jose if a resident does not have a personal [02:10.480 --> 02:15.120] liability insurance policy. Rather than go through the language of the entire bill, [02:15.120 --> 02:20.960] I think a simple statement by the San Jose mayor will make what they're trying to achieve, well, [02:20.960 --> 02:25.760] I'm sorry, what they're saying they're trying to achieve crystal clear. So Mayor Liccardo says, [02:26.560 --> 02:34.480] if we cannot stop the horrors of gun violence in our cities, at least we're going to have the public [02:34.480 --> 02:39.760] stop paying for it. The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to own guns, [02:39.760 --> 02:47.360] but does not require that every other taxpayer pay for that right. Requiring gun owners to pay fees [02:47.360 --> 02:53.600] will help fund critical emergency medical and police responses and reduce our taxpayers' [02:53.600 --> 03:02.640] burdens. Close quote. So if we take this piece of legislation at face value and the mayor's [03:02.640 --> 03:08.960] statements at face value, it appears, if passed, that the legislation indicates that the City [03:08.960 --> 03:16.240] Council of San Jose believes that simply exercising a constitutional right, in this case one particular [03:16.240 --> 03:22.000] constitutional right, makes you susceptible to special fees, special taxes, and requirements [03:22.000 --> 03:30.240] such as insurance that don't apply to any other unalienable right. So of course we know that some [03:30.240 --> 03:39.200] people use their mouth, free speech, to commit fraud, a criminal offense, and that fraud is [03:39.200 --> 03:44.880] investigated by law enforcement. It then goes to the DA's office. It's assigned to a prosecutor [03:44.880 --> 03:48.880] if they feel that there's sufficient evidence, then they take that to trial. There's the cost [03:48.880 --> 03:55.040] of the trial and so forth. All of this being absorbed by the community, by the taxpayers, [03:55.040 --> 04:01.920] because somebody misused freedom of speech to commit fraud. So then, according to the [04:01.920 --> 04:09.600] City of San Jose's logic, every single American who exercises free speech, because remember, [04:09.600 --> 04:14.560] in San Jose they're going to apply fees and taxes and insurance requirements to people who [04:14.560 --> 04:19.760] exercise the right. So in this parallel, then I guess in San Jose they think it would be acceptable [04:19.760 --> 04:26.960] to impose fees, taxes, and insurance requirements on anyone who chooses to exercise free speech, [04:26.960 --> 04:33.120] to cover the taxpayer expense of prosecuting people who misuse free speech and commit crimes. [04:33.680 --> 04:41.600] But that really isn't the issue. As you can imagine, I'm a gun owner, and let's just take a big [04:41.600 --> 04:47.120] round number and say in the last 30 years, how many government resources, how many government [04:47.120 --> 04:54.720] tax dollars have been spent in pursuance of the fact that I own firearms? That would be zero. [04:55.360 --> 05:00.480] So again, if I lived in the City of San Jose, apparently they would think a completely law [05:00.480 --> 05:05.760] abiding person who just happens to own guns, who just happens to exercise their right to keep and [05:05.760 --> 05:12.320] bear arms, should somehow be financially culpable for the actions of felons. But again, that's [05:13.200 --> 05:21.520] not really the issue. According to Florida's Statistical Analysis Center, 73% of violent [05:21.520 --> 05:27.360] crimes are committed with weapons other than firearms. Those other weapons include things [05:27.360 --> 05:37.440] like hammers, baseball bats, fists, feet. 73%. That's a large percentage not to involve firearms. [05:37.440 --> 05:45.360] But under the City of San Jose's logic, I suppose then if you own a hammer or a baseball bat or you [05:45.360 --> 05:51.040] are a human being who has fists or you're a human being who has feet, the City of San Jose believes [05:51.040 --> 05:56.000] that it could impose fines and taxes and insurance requirements, not because you've ever done anything [05:56.000 --> 06:03.360] wrong, simply because you have or own those things. But again, that's not really the issue. [06:04.320 --> 06:12.000] All across America, communities pay for things like emergency medical response, police response, [06:12.000 --> 06:20.400] prosecutions, etc. Phrased another way, the entire tax base absorbs those costs. However, in San Jose, [06:20.960 --> 06:27.040] what we're now going to see if this ordinance passes is that expenses formally and virtually [06:27.040 --> 06:32.800] every place in the country absorbed by the entire community, the entire taxpayer base, [06:32.800 --> 06:43.680] instead now San Jose wants to punish financially one subset of the taxpayer community. And not the [06:43.680 --> 06:50.240] tiny, tiny subset that's actually creating the problems, that would be criminals, but on a subset [06:50.240 --> 06:58.160] of completely law-abiding citizens who have zero to do with the problem. But again, that's not [06:58.160 --> 07:04.320] really the issue. Let's imagine the San Jose's approach was applied to subjects other than [07:04.320 --> 07:11.360] firearms. We now know with great certainty that eating a significant amount of high glycemic [07:11.360 --> 07:17.280] carbohydrates leads to chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, [07:17.280 --> 07:23.040] and so on. So imagine if the city of San Jose said, concerning these chronic diseases, [07:23.040 --> 07:28.960] we the government are tired of our taxpayers paying for costs of individuals who make lifestyle [07:28.960 --> 07:36.400] choices that lead to these chronic diseases and all the costs associated therewith. So the pool [07:36.400 --> 07:42.960] of people who would have fees and taxes and insurance mandates placed upon them would be [07:42.960 --> 07:48.720] all people who eat, which of course is everyone. But the government then says, no, no, no, no, no, [07:49.600 --> 07:57.200] we're not going to apply this to the entire taxpayer base of eaters. We're going to apply it [07:57.200 --> 08:02.960] to just a subset. Now, in my particular case, I know something about this subject because [08:02.960 --> 08:09.440] I wrote the book on it. Having done so and understanding the science, I eat what's called [08:10.160 --> 08:14.880] carnivore style, which means rather than eating a significant amount of high glycemic carbs that [08:14.880 --> 08:19.600] lead to the chronic diseases we just discussed, I'm on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. I eat [08:19.600 --> 08:27.040] very nearly zero carbs every single day, and I will never get any lifestyle-created chronic disease [08:27.040 --> 08:32.560] like heart disease and hypertension and type 2 diabetes and so forth. So under the San Jose model, [08:32.560 --> 08:38.960] the government would come along and impose fees, taxes, and insurance requirements on me [08:39.840 --> 08:47.680] because I'm not at all a part of the problem. But again, that is not the issue. [08:48.400 --> 08:54.640] So then what is the issue? Well, it's the fundamental balancing act between [08:55.280 --> 09:01.280] constitutionally protected rights and the restraint they impose on the actions of government. [09:01.280 --> 09:05.920] And you don't have to believe me. I want to direct your attention to Murdoch v. Pennsylvania. [09:05.920 --> 09:13.760] The citation is 319 U.S. 105, and it was decided in 1943. Let me share with you the salient points [09:13.760 --> 09:21.120] from that decision. Number one, a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right [09:21.120 --> 09:27.760] granted by the federal constitution. When it says charge, that means fees, that means taxes, [09:27.760 --> 09:34.160] that means requiring you to pay for something such as an insurance policy in order to exercise [09:34.160 --> 09:41.840] and enjoy that constitutionally protected right. Number two, a tax restrains in advance [09:42.400 --> 09:49.920] constitutional liberties and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. And in Murdoch, [09:49.920 --> 09:58.720] the court said that is impermissible. Of course, the entire purpose of this ordinance in pass [09:59.280 --> 10:05.840] is to suppress the right to keep and bear arms. They can pitch it any way they want, [10:05.840 --> 10:11.280] but every thinking person knows exactly what its true purpose and intent is, and that is to [10:11.280 --> 10:16.560] suppress in the city of San Jose the residents' rights to keep and bear arms. As I'm sure you've [10:16.560 --> 10:24.160] discerned by now, San Jose's actions, if passed into law, are blatantly unconstitutional and will [10:24.160 --> 10:30.160] be challenged immediately, and the outcome is as certain as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. [10:30.720 --> 10:35.920] Adding to the oddity of this, or perhaps the hypocrisy, is that the mayor of San Jose says [10:35.920 --> 10:39.600] the purpose of this bill, which it's nonsense, that's just the way they're pitching it, the [10:39.600 --> 10:46.000] purpose of this bill is to reduce the burden on taxpayers. However, we know if this thing passes [10:46.000 --> 10:51.120] one and a half seconds later there's going to be a lawsuit filed challenging this, and the city of [10:51.120 --> 10:56.960] San Jose is going to have significant legal bills from fighting it in the United States District [10:56.960 --> 11:00.880] Court, which is the entry-level court in the federal system, and then there's going to be [11:00.880 --> 11:05.840] even steeper legal fees when they go to the appellate court, and if they are so foolish, [11:05.840 --> 11:11.840] so bullheaded as to take it to the United States Supreme Court, they will end up spending several [11:11.840 --> 11:19.600] hundred thousand dollars of San Jose taxpayer money to fight court battles, the conclusions of [11:19.600 --> 11:25.600] which are foregone by established case law from the United States Supreme Court. In other words, [11:25.600 --> 11:30.480] they're saying this legislation is so that we don't have as great a burden on the taxpayers, [11:30.480 --> 11:36.480] but then they're saying let's throw away taxpayer money to fight legal battles that we cannot [11:36.480 --> 11:43.360] possibly win. But hey, you get the government you voted for, and the people of San Jose appear to [11:43.360 --> 11:51.200] have wanted in office morons and hypocrites who will waste taxpayer dollars charging at windmills. [11:51.200 --> 11:57.040] A few moments ago I discussed the balance between constitutionally protected rights [11:57.920 --> 12:03.200] and where they bump into or come in conflict with what the government wants to do, [12:03.200 --> 12:06.640] and without getting into the legal standards that are applicable to that sort of conflict, [12:06.640 --> 12:11.360] I will say that in the vast majority of cases, the government cannot act against constitutional [12:11.360 --> 12:18.720] rights. If you'd like to know more about that specifically in the context of income tax and why, [12:18.720 --> 12:24.400] despite the false societal narrative, Congress has never imposed the income tax on the ordinary [12:24.400 --> 12:30.320] American for just this balancing act that we're talking about. The founding fathers built [12:30.320 --> 12:34.560] boundaries and limits into the federal constitution that have prevented Congress [12:34.560 --> 12:40.320] from imposing the income tax on the average American. That's inarguable. It's in the law. [12:40.320 --> 12:43.840] You could read it for yourself in Income Tax Shatter. There's 400 pages, and you will be the [12:43.840 --> 12:48.480] expert in the room, I guarantee it. You finish that book, you walk into any room. I don't care [12:48.480 --> 12:52.080] whether it's with the tax attorneys or accountants. You're going to be the expert in the room, [12:52.080 --> 12:59.200] because it is explained so clearly, and the law is so consistent over more than 100 years. The law, [12:59.200 --> 13:04.160] as opposed to the public narrative, the law says the same thing time and time and time and time. [13:04.160 --> 13:09.440] Again, Congress has never imposed the income tax on the ordinary American. The reason for that [13:10.080 --> 13:14.160] is exactly what we've been talking about. You should read. You'll find it in Income Tax Shatter. [13:14.160 --> 13:20.400] You should read what the federal courts and the Supreme Court have said about your unalienable [13:20.400 --> 13:26.480] right to earn a living, your unalienable right to contract for your labor, your unalienable right [13:26.480 --> 13:35.120] to contract for the labor of others, and the fact that income is not a privilege subject to taxation. [13:35.120 --> 13:40.000] It's all there in the law, crystal clear. The only reason you don't really know that, [13:40.000 --> 13:44.240] and you may have heard that, but the only reason you don't really know it is you've never taken [13:44.240 --> 13:49.600] the time to look at it. Imagine if you could read one book, and again, be the expert in the room, [13:49.600 --> 13:54.320] and then you could decide what you want to do about the government lying, and in doing so, [13:54.320 --> 13:57.680] committing the largest financial crime in the history of the world, and whether or not you want [13:57.680 --> 14:02.720] to continue to participate. In my case, I checked out of the system. The last income tax return I [14:02.720 --> 14:12.080] filed the last time I paid income tax was 1993, and here I sit. Why? Because the law, and it's not [14:12.080 --> 14:18.000] that hard. It's not that complex. The difference is you've never bothered. I'm going to suggest [14:18.000 --> 14:22.880] that you go to DrReality.News. If you're into things like the right to keep and bear arms, [14:22.880 --> 14:27.120] which is one of our fundamental rights, just like the same reason that the Congress has never [14:27.120 --> 14:32.960] imposed the income tax on the average American, because it would violate our fundamental rights. [14:32.960 --> 14:36.560] The only difference between the income tax and maybe other things you're more familiar with is [14:36.560 --> 14:42.320] you've never bothered. Go to DrReality.News. Pick yourself up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the [14:42.320 --> 14:48.800] Mist or Body Science. I assure you, either one will be the most fascinating books you have ever [14:48.800 --> 14:53.760] read in your life. Most people tell me it's like the top three to five books, either one, [14:53.760 --> 14:58.240] the top three to five books they've ever read in their entire life. In the case of Income Tax [14:58.240 --> 15:04.240] Shattering the Mist, the very worst rating it's gotten in the 12 years it's been out is four out [15:04.240 --> 15:09.760] of five stars, and vast majority, I'm going to guess, in the high 90 percentile, five stars. [15:09.760 --> 15:13.840] The reason for that is not only do people love learning the truth, but they give it five stars [15:13.840 --> 15:18.240] because it's laid out in such a clear way that every single American can understand. So do [15:18.240 --> 15:21.680] yourself a favor. Run over there, grab yourself a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist or Body [15:21.680 --> 15:26.880] Science. That, by the way, also helps me to continue to be here for you with these fact-based [15:26.880 --> 15:35.760] presentations. Thank you.