This fourth of July as we go about
our activities with family and friends,
we should all take some time to reflect
upon the true significance of the holiday.
Yes. It's a
celebration of our country's
declaration of independence from Great Britain but it
is much more than that. It's a
celebration of an idea that was revolutionary then
and unfortunate
is still considered revolutionary by many today,
the declaration of independence, bold states
We hold these truths to be self evident
that all men are created equal.
That they are endowed by their creator with
certain una
rights,
Among these are life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends,
It is the right of the people to
alter or to abolish it and
institute a new government.
This
revolutionary
declaration is the
foundation of American political thought and has inspired
millions around the world for the 235
years since Thomas Jefferson wrote it.
The common view at the time was that
rights were granted by the government to the
people.
Instead, Jefferson
declared there is a higher law,
una
right
that every human has by their mere existence.
Government only has those powers granted to it
by the people to protect these natural rights.
Unfortunately,
today, it seems that many have rejected Jefferson
declaration
and have returned to the antiquated idea
of government
supremacy.
They define
patriotism
as hoarding the government,
most disheartening of all are the discussions
about the constitution.
Political comment,
major party politicians, and supreme court nominees,
talk about our
constitutional rights as if the government were granting
us our rights through the constitution.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the
constitution,
the founders
again made it abundantly
clear that all power comes from the people
The constitution is a document where people have
granted the government certain limited powers.
We the people of the United States.
In order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
ensure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves,
an our
do or gain and establish this
constitution for the United states
of America.
Benjamin Franklin said, they that can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The author of this thoughtful,
powerfully written peace mister Jim Ron.
Suggest that we take a moment this for
of July from our celebrations that we might
reflect on the founder vision for America,
and how if I might add,
we ever let it get
so far astra.
Broadcasting from behind the second amendment iron curtain
in the shadows of the New York City
skyline. This is gun for higher radio. A
voice of 1000000 New Jersey gun owners with
your hosts, Sandy Be, and master firearms trainer,
Anthony C.
Maya from Land
broadcast
the nation. Welcome to it.
Hello. Hello Hello.
So gun for higher radio episode 6
85.
And, we're hoping the next time we have
this guy on the show. He's gonna have
news for us on, sensitive places salt weapons
band and magazine
capacity.
But for now, we have a huge huge
case that we're going to discuss.
As well as
some other supreme court movement,
and
it's gonna be a very interesting show I
wanna remind everybody because we still get a
ton of questions,
and you see so many questions on like
the Garden state guns read page, etcetera, etcetera.
Like follow share for higher radio and share,
far why, would everybody who's interested in the
constitution and their freedom and, of course, firearms
and ownership
because knowledge is power. So without further ado
from Heartland Win in Ridge, New Jersey,
none other than 2 a
lawyer extra heir in the state of New
Jersey, Daniel Sc. Dan welcome back again.
Good morning, guys. I hope you had a
great independence day. We did. I know I
know I did.
I spent a good chunk of my day
at gun for hire with my girlfriend Laura.
We did some.
It was a lot of fun.
And Anthony I had to tell you,
your Rs o J did a great job.
Thank you. He needs he's he's really great.
So, thank you, Anthony meeting great time there,
and it's a great way to spend an
independence day to celebrate
freedom,
by shooting.
And Dan and I spell.
And by the John Adams?
Yes. The guy. John at, tell me about
John Adams was there.
Shit.
John John Adams was there if you could
believe it.
John has. So so many people aren't aware
of this, but he sucked to his shot.
Right.
He was... He can't eat a fucking thing.
He was he was awful. It was barrel.
And he wasn't and he wasn't a very
good writer either. John. Clint part. And beard
down. Just just feel you can't have beers
at the range.
You know, they said John Angelo is a
great writer. You think was a terrible writer.
He made a d that looked like a
pee. He made it father
I'm sure terrible writer.
Oh true.
Just Samuel Adam was the beer Adams. That
was the beer at it. Yes. But John
Adams drank a lot of beer. So So,
Dan, I was I was in your, law
firm neck woods
independence that. I watched the fireworks in Ridge,
New Jersey. Right? Right by your firm. Excellent.
Stuff. So it was great. Place to have
a law firm and watch? Yes. Oh, yeah.
I was... What Was what I was gonna
say about John Adams is that... Yes.
People recall that the actual vote
on the, on the of, the
independence resolution took place on 07/02/1776.
And so, the next day, July third, Adam's
wrote to his wife Abigail,
telling her about the vote and how amazing
it wasn't how momentous that
it was, and he talked about,
how July second
would be commemorate
annually.
For,
and he talks about parade and pom and...
But he also talks about
illumination, you know, fireworks.
Shows and guns. So John Adams specifically instructed
us that we should celebrate
independence with guns. And so why not go
to the? He got today on,
He he thought we were gonna to sell.
He was close. We've got... We we celebrated
the document. That's fine. But, John Adams says
split
instructed us to celebrate
independent state with guns and so let's go
to the range. Gun for hire.
You heard him.
You heard,
So so dan share with everybody
in in order that you want. We're gonna
we're gonna talk about the Supreme Court G
r's, the Chevron in other cases. We're gonna
you're gonna update on New Jersey cases and
maybe get into a few other things. So
hit us, baby, tell us everything we need
to know.
Sure. So that this was a pretty momentous
term at the Supreme Court. A lot of
very interesting stuff happened
both,
relating to the second amendment.
And firearms.
And,
generally,
you know, not necessarily directly related to firearms
in the second minute, but that is should
be of interest
to gun owners and people
who care about liberty and freedom generally.
So let... I mean, we... Let's start with
with the G r's just because the least.
A bunch of interesting things happened.
Just to remind your listeners, I know, many
of your listeners know what a G is,
but for some... For those people who don't
Gdpr
is an abbreviation that stands for grant
vacate
rem band.
And that is that's something that the Supreme
Court does
when it's not going to decide the case
on the merits,
but what it's gonna do is it wants
to send the case back down to the
lower courts to be to... Basically for a
do over, and there's most often happens, not
always like this. But it most often happens
when there are pending
petitions
for review by the court,
while the court is hearing a case on
a similar subject.
And, of course, as we know, the court
decided Re this term,
And so there were a number of pending
petitions before the court dealing with second amendment
issues,
that's what once the court decided Ra,
it decided to to G a number of
cases and send them back to lower courts
for with with instructions to decide the case
in light of Ra.
And in light of simply means, you know,
look, we decided this case, do it over
and consider
the decision we just made. It's it's not
telling the lower courts how to do it
or what to do, just it's a do
over. You gotta consider this new decision and
then, you know, maybe we'll see a later
kind of thing.
And there were a number of,
interesting G and and I'll also talk about
what did not get a G.
Because when a, you know, when a when
a petition is before the Supreme Court for
review, a number of things could happen obviously.
The petition can be denied, which is usually
what happens. That's the end of the case.
The... Well, no. Shouldn't say that it's the
end of the case if the case is
at the, you know, at its at its
end.
A case, a petition could be denied
when the case comes up
early in the case for what's called Inter
derogatory review and when the when the petitions
deny that simply means that particular application is
over.
Obviously, the petition can be granted
in on the marriage in which case, the
court is going to hear it and review
it and decide the case on the merits.
But then there's this in between thing called
the G,
where they're just simply sending it back down
for a duo over.
And so,
W Ro
was being considered by the court this turn.
There were a number of petitions that were
brought to the court. So,
1 1 such petition was
the anton yu case,
which is 1 of the
carry cases, 1 of the brew response
cases that came out of the court of
appeals for the second circuit. This was a
challenge
to New York york's B response law. If
you remember,
New York was the first state to have
a sort of an ap,
you know,
response
to Brewing, New York passed, its anti bro
law a week after B was decided in
20 22.
Yep. And New York went first, New Jersey
went second,
followed by Maryland, California, Hawaii. That kind of
thing
and there were 5 cases. There... There's there's
more than 5 cases
against New York on on their broom response
law.
Pending, but the there were the first 5
cases all came up to the court of
appeals from the second circuit as a group.
And
the the the second circuit gave a sort
of a mixed ruling.
Some some some good stuff a bunch of
bad stuff, but
the the the plaintiffs in the antioch case
decided to file a petition, a limited
petition
with the Supreme court, because,
remember, and, again, I I mentioned this briefly
before, but to remind your
your listeners,
the the carry cases, including the new Jersey
Carry K Siegel,
are at the beginning. The the the carry
cases,
including the New york cases and New Jersey
cases,
we're at the preliminary injunction stage. That is
good application to the court
to
to up to put a hold on these
laws while the cases being lit.
You know, 1 of the things that we
we will typically do in these kinds of
cases
is especially especially when a new laws is
passed,
but not always.
But when... But these were brand new laws
that were passed in in the lake of
Brooklyn.
And
what we did in new Jersey and what
the plaintiffs did in New York is they
they said, looked,
these are unconstitutional.
We we we want the court to put
a hold on these laws so that they
don't go into effect while we're lit getting.
This creates all kinds of new owners on
constitutional rules In the course you put these
on hold,
while we're lit litigation to final judgment because
litigation can take years, why should we be
subject to these
unconstitutional rules
while we're trying to indicate our rights for,
you know, several years.
And so Yep.
And so
the New York cases went first, the New
Jersey cases went next.
And as a result of the appeal in
the New York cases,
the the anton knuckle complaint just decided to
bring a limited
petition to the Supreme Court to decide a
narrow issue an important issue, but but a
narrow issue in the sense that they were
asking the court to dis to decide the
17 91
versus 18 68 question.
What is the relevant
timeframe frame for the brewing
historical analysis?
Do you look to the time of the,
ratification of the second amendment,
which would have been around 17 91
or do you look to the time of
the ratification of the fourteenth amendment would have
been in the in the vicinity of 18
68.
And that, you know, that can matter.
Potentially be
sort of what sort of proves
historical proves the state is trying to present.
And so
in in the wake of the Ra decisions,
Supreme Court, G, the
position, a petition,
of vacated the decision below and sent it
back down, which is very important because that
now tees up this 17 91 versus 18
68
issue in the second circuit specific. Right? And
it it reflects,
a a... The idea that this this issue
could matter. Let me remind your listeners that
the Supreme Court in ruin
disgust the 17 91 versus 18 68 issue,
but did not decide it. And the reason
the court didn't decide is because the court
said we don't need to. Well, the the
the the state of New York loses either
way, whether you consider
historical
citations
at the near the founding around 17 91
or whether you consider later,
sites patients around 8 02:60 either way, the
state of New York was unable to show
an historical tradition sufficient to support the challenge
law. And so the court, and the court
will will generally not decide issues that it
doesn't have to decide. There's a rule,
there's AAA general rule
of of a judicial approach, which says that
the court should not decide issues that doesn't
have to decide in order to resolve the
case.
Particularly
constitutional issues. And so since the court was
able to decide bruno without resolving that that
issue of which timeframe frame was the the
relevant time frame, it discussed... It raised the
the question,
but didn't didn't need to decide. So, you
know, that's out there. As your... Your your
teachers may recall from from,
prior appearances on the show.
The this issue has been resolved for now
in the third circuit in the Lara case.
Which is case occasionally came out of Pennsylvania.
In the third circuit, of, the the the
current
status of the law is that 17 91
use the relevant time frame. Mh. But we'll
see how that plays out because that's not,
you know, the Supreme Court gets the final
word on these kinds of things. But it
is nice to know that for now, in
the third circuit is 17 91.
By the way, that's our circuit, ladies and
gentlemen. For... Yes. That that covers New Jersey.
Right.
So that... Through that... That's a very interesting
G that came this term, and I think
people are are pretty pretty excited to see
that.
And then there's another series of G r's,
which,
are more directly relevant to ra
in the senate that here
recall that Ra was about a federal statute
18 S usc 09:22
g 8, which is 1 of the a
federal prohibit
for firearms
possession. So 09:22 g is a statute that
is a a laundry list of prohibit for
possession of firearms.
And g 8 was the parameter
for someone who is subject to a domestic
violence restraining war. But there's a whole bunch
of inhibitors as people know,
and
some of these came up on petitions to
the Supreme Court while Ra he was pending.
1 of the big ones, and 1 of
the ones that is... Has been the subject
of a lot of controversy discussion and litigation
is 09:22 g 1, which is otherwise known
as the felon in possession prohibit.
And so there were
4 petitions dealing with 09:22 g 1.
The 1 that may be most
failure to your listeners is a case called
range.
And the reason it might be most familiar
because it came out of the third circuit,
our circuit.
And
in that case,
the issue was
who had been convicted of food stamp fraud.
And it the key to these cases is
that each of these cases in 1 way
or another imp indicates the concept of a
nonviolent felon.
You know, sort of the Martha Stewart concept.
Right? You, should Martha Stewart,
who was convicted of a nonviolent felony for
some something like that, should they be... Should
they lose their right to keep and bear
arms permanently.
And
as these cases have been lit as, you
know, in as we've sort of moved forward
in a post grew in world, this concept
of
is is a is a vial is a
violent person versus a non nonviolent person,
subject to
the dives investment of the right to keep
bear arms. What is the basis? How do
you determine what sort of a person can
be part of the keep their arms? And
so these 09:22 g 1 cases tee up
that issue directly. Because it looks, if we
look at Ra heme, Right? In these cases
are sort of the opposite ends of the
spectrum
Ra was an incredibly violent person, his background,
and he probably should have been charged and
convicted with all sorts of violent crimes even
before the restraining order issue arose.
And so in the sense, it's a fairly
easy from a factual perspective,
His case kinda is he's a really bad
violent guy. So the question becomes when you
flip to the other end of spectrum you
have all sorts of non nonviolent felon,
and the question becomes
how can you if pop if you can,
prevent these people from exercising the right to
keep their arms. So range
is food stamps,
the that of the third circuit.
And they and he and he and he
paid his dues. He he paid his dues,
you know, fine
probation, he paid the fight and everything. So
he he's he's k now. It's not like
he's still living on the lamb or anything,
and I believe everybody deserves a second chance.
I just wanna interject that. Non nonviolent felon,
who who confessed up to it plead guilty,
you know, made his restitution. So I believe
he should be able to exercise his second
amendment rights as well as vote. Go ahead,
Dan.
Right. And and importantly,
in the the third circuit decided in favor
of range. So the third circuit
decision
held that you could not
dives vest range
of his right to keep their arms. Now
So
I wanna get into an interesting point, which
is kind of important, but I'll sort of
get to that afterwards.
After I go through these these various 09:22
g 1 cases So there's a case out
of the tenth circuit,
vincent,
which was
a conviction for writing bad checks.
Again, a non nonviolent felony. But Vincent was
on the losing sides of the tenth circuit,
ruled against instance And so immediately you have
what was called, what's called a split in
the circuits,
where you have different courts of appeals, so
that the third circuit as as we've discussed
covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and the the
the Virgin Islands.
The tenth circuit isn't is, I believe if
I recall correctly in the Mountain States.
And so you have 2 different courts of
appeals from different areas of the country coming
out differently
on an issue of fundamental
constitutional law. That's the kind of thing that
the the Supreme Court will often look for
in order to determine whether to hear a
case. So even though
these cases were G that is sent back
for a do over,
we have a very clean split in the
circuits that when they come back,
later on, I may may very welcome come
back later on. We don't know if the
courts on a rem man will decide them
differently they may or they may not. Or
right now, there's a split in the circuit
then we don't know we don't know what's
gonna happen on renamed because these decisions
have been vacated. So technically, We don't have
a circuit split because these cases don't are
good law anymore, but they may we may
still have a circuit split when they come
back up. We'll see, the eighth circuit. There
are 3... There were 3 petitions coming out
of the eighth circuit, which is the Midwest,
case called Jackson,
Now Jackson, it was sort of a low
level drug dealer.
The question becomes is that a file and
felony or not. It becomes it's a little
closer call. III would I would say it's
probably not a valid felony. Mh probably be
able to dives defend that person with the
right keep runs, but it's a little different
than something like just fraud.
Then you have a case called Cunningham.
Now, this is interesting. So this guy's
underlying felon that got him in trouble under
922G1,
was ADW
and a prior felony possession conviction under 09:22
g 1. So he was convicted under 09:22
g 1 because he had previously convicted under
09:22
1.
So it's interesting meta
violation there. And then his case called dos,
now Dos presents another interesting
situation because Dos had a whole series of
prior convictions, some of which might be violent
into some of which are not. He had
to get sole conviction
So so he's kind of a
a,
sort of a sma of different kinds of
felon, but what the What, the the the
interesting thing about these 3 eighth circuit cases
is the eighth circuit
didn't even
analyze the underlying felony. So the eighth circuit
just accepted
that that that you could not bring
a challenge
to the, felony possession prohibition, no matter what
the underlying
charge was. And so even Dos
where the state might... The the government might
reasonably argue.
Yes, this guy did have violent felon,
They the the argument of the petition was,
you can't just do that. You have to
look at the actual underlying behavior
and determine as a matter of historical tradition
is this the kind of person who can
valid under the constitution be dives best right
to keep their arms. And so the the
argument in in the eighth circuit cases is
you're not doing that. You have to do
that. Now, that this is where I wanna
get to the point that I was mentioning
before.
The difference between what's referred to is as
applied challenge
and a facial challenge.
So Ra was a facial challenge. When you
bring a facial challenge under the constitution, you're
saying that
the statute is entirely early
unconstitutional. On its face, it is unconstitutional in
every
possible
application.
And as applied challenge
is saying,
this is
unconstitutional as applied to me.
He's... If you're not saying that it's in...
Unconstitutional in all circumstances,
but you can't constitutional apply this to me
because of my particular
situations. My facts
don't allow the application of this law under
the constitution. Now that's that's a good difference
because in Ra he, 1 of the problems
that,
Were he
faced in challenging 09:22 g 8, which was
this... Which was the
the this the prohibit statute. Was that,
a facial challenge is really hard to to
to must. You have to show that the
that that it is never
constitutional to apply that statute.
All of these Tv range, Vincent Jackson cunningham
and Dos or as applied challenges because because
it's a much harder argument to make that
you can never,
digest a felon of the right to keep
their arms because many felon as we know,
are are violent felon. And so none of
these
parties, none of these
individuals are trying claim that you can never
dives vest a felon of the right to
keep their arms simply that you can't dives
vest me of the right to keep their
arms for various reasons including that
I am not a violent person. And therefore,
there's no constitutional basis
to dives vest me of my right fundamental
right to keep bear arms.
Under the constitution. So so these cases
are are are are going to... As they
come back and look, we don't know what
the third search is gonna do. We don't
know if about third circuit is good chance
that the third circle will come out the
same way because the third circuit came out
favorably to the constitutional right. So if I
were predicting what third circuit is gonna do
on rem men. I expect it to to
be basically the same. But the tenth circuit
and the eighth circuit that that rule against
these individuals against the right to keep their
arms. It'll be very interested to see what
they do when they look at these cases
again because they're now required
to take a look at these more... On
a more individualized basis.
And if they come out the same way,
we'll have that circuit split again.
But if they come out in favor of
the individuals,
then we may not have a circuit split
and on the way back up, we may
not see... You know, Supreme court may have
a very different
situation to contend with on the way back
up. So You know, the these these cases
seem like a really good fall on to
Ra heme being at the opposite end of
the spectrum, but we may find that the
circuits
uniformly apply
bro and Ra in favor
of non nonviolent felons, and we may we
may find that we don't need the supreme
court to tell us that because the courts
of appeals may tell us that. So this
is this is gonna be interesting to watch
as it per.
This is why, you know, your your listeners
have no doubt heard the concept of per
extrapolation. Why Supreme court does make the first
case that comes to it. And this is
why. The Supreme court
generally likes to see these issues make their
way through multiple courts to see how the
courts are dealing with it because sometimes like
these G.
This may not come back to them. They
may not need to decide the 09:22
g 1 felon in possession issue because after
these rem,
the courts of appeals may may fall in
line, and they may recognize
of the concept that
you can't dives devi non nonviolent felons with
the right to keep firearms arms. And they
may all now uniformly say, yep No. If
you're a non nonviolent felon, you can bring
an supply challenge, and you can obtain a
judgment that, that you can't be dives deducted
of of the right. So we'll see how
that how that happens, but that's the kind
of thing that Court wants to see wants
to see what these you're not gonna do
with it now that it's remade. So so
those are the those are, almost all the
G r's that I wanna talk about. Then
there's 1 other
interesting in g, which I think is similar
in concept and that's the case called Daniels.
And that was also 09:22 g. That was
09:20 du g 3,
which is the unlawful user of control of
a controlled substance
prohibit, that's also been in subject to discussion
because
with the
the proliferation of laws
legal the use of marijuana.
Additionally, a a medical marijuana, but now recreational
marijuana, there are many, many, many people that
are at risk
of committing a,
a federal
a federal crime
because they are lawful
users of marijuana under state law, but they're
unlawful users of marijuana under federal law. You
know, it's It's Evan napkins 1 of Evan
napkins favorite
concepts. You can have Bang or bong, but
not both.
This is a this is a real problem.
This is a real problem because many people
don't realize that they're not risking. You and
They think to themselves Well, now marijuana has
been legal legalized in my state. So I'm
fine. Right? Not right.
She you you could be perfectly legal under
state law, but you could be violating federal
law. And that's that's the... What the daniel
case is about. Daniel's daniels is about a,
a user of marijuana who who got jacked
up under 09:22 chiefs 3. So that presents
a very important issue. Again, not violent felon.
That presents other issues, but as there have
been a number of efforts in Congress to
remove marijuana.
From the controlled substance schedules, but none of
those have been successful so far. So this
issue remains in play. And so this is
a again, another another
another case that tees up that violent versus
non nonviolent fell spectrum that that... Danielle know,
we'll we'll see play out over
you know, the coming years.
So so those those are... Those are the
G r's.
Now,
as your listeners are aware, there were other
important cases
up at the Supreme Court petition is as
well. And these are the Illinois
magazine and so called soul living cases.
As you recall, there were a number... I
mean, we we talked about this, you know,
at nausea. There are lots and lots of
magazine and so called assault open cases making
their way through the courts including our own,
here in New Jersey,
And as you know, we're waiting for a
decision from Judge Sheridan and at the district
court, on our summary judgment motions.
But Illinois,
the Illinois cases,
we're
at the preliminary injunction stage. So these are
what's called inter.
They're not final. They're that they're in the
middle of the case.
And
the preliminary junctions were denied by the district
court in these cases. And so the the
plaintiffs
sought
review by the supreme Court and filed petitions
in the room there were several of them.
And these were petitions that were also being
held on
pending Ra
and unlike the G cases,
these... These petitions were denied.
Now,
the the first thing to realize is that
the Supreme Court
generally doesn't like to take cases that are
inter that is that are not final.
Prefers to resolve the case
as a whole, so that when it resolves
the case, the case is over,
as opposed to taking chase that where the
the record is not fully developed. Remember,
when the kate when a case comes on
appeal,
the appellate court has to decide the case
based on the on the record in the
in the court below. The 4, the record
the easier it is for the court to
understand the issues that are at stake. And
so, you know, on a preliminary injunction record,
it's the beginning.
You have brief. You have Affidavit. Yep.
But you don't have discovery. You don't necessarily
have
testimony,
full testimony like you would have at a
trial or in a summary judgment motion, and
so appellate courts much much prefer to hear
these appeals on fully developed records, which is
why the Supreme court usually doesn't like to
to hear, cases that are that are inter
lock. And that's what happened here.
And there is a... So interestingly. So so
sometimes
when a,
when a petition petitions denied, sometimes you... Usually,
you just it's just certain denied. You don't
learn anything about why was denied or how
was denied or who voted which way. But
sometimes you do. And that happens when
1 of the justices 1 or more of
the justices rights an opinion
about the decision to deny
Sir. And in this case, that's what happened.
So
Justice Thomas wrote what's called a statement. Wasn't
wasn't called a a concur that was called
a statement.
And what we learned from Justice Thomas statement.
The first thing we learned is that justice
Ali,
was the just voted to grant the petition.
So nobody else voted to grant the petition.
Just just a
But we also
we also got to hear from just this
Thomas
about his thoughts
on these cases.
And he said he said something very interesting.
So the first thing he says is
that he understands the court's reluctance to hear
an inter
case on a petition. And that he's acknowledging
there that the the court really doesn't like
to take a into derogatory case. And and
as we as we saw, he he he
didn't vote to grant either, since only just
as a leader was was what was a
voted favor of granted issue. But he does
talk about
the issues.
And
He talks about the... If he focuses
on
common use, which as your listeners may recall
is a key issue when it comes to
arms bands. And it's a key issue in
our cases before the District court here in
new New Jersey, and it's a key issue
in all of the cases. The idea that
the second amendment protects arms that are in
common use, or as the as the court
actually, the way the court actually phrase Heller,
arms that are
typically possessed by law abiding individuals for lawful
purposes.
And that's generally referred to as the common
use test. And just as Thomas in his
statement,
accompanying the denial of,
in Illinois cases.
Talks about how the the the court of
appeals for the seventh circuit, which is the
appellate court that that heard
the Illinois appeals.
The cases of the illinois cases.
How how it's very, very difficult to reconcile
the judgment of the seventh circuit against
against these plaintiffs,
because they lost it obviously, they lost in
the in the seventh circuit. It's very hard
to reconcile the analysis of the ruling of
the seventh circuit. With the the the pretty
clear concept of common use. And so what
he's basically doing... He's sort of tee up
the idea
that
if these cases come back to the court,
whether it's the Illinois cases or some other
cases,
he's hoping that the supreme court we'll take
some of these cases at some point to
really
make it clear
that that
that courts are to take the concept of
common use seriously.
That's the sort of the purpose of of
him right? He wants to emphasize this comp
this concept of common use, he wants courts
to be serious about the concept of common
use that was articulated in Heller because, to
him is absolutely absolutely critical
understanding how to deal with arms, bands. Remember,
you know, secondary academic cases, there are a
lot of different flavors of these academic cases.
You have, you know, the carry cases, which
are about conduct,
when and where can you can you exercise
you write to bear arms?
You have cases dealing with permitting and
qualifications, how do you obtain arms? When can
you obtain arms? What restrictions? And hoops do
you have to jump through in order to
exercise your right to keep bare arms, but
arms, bands are straight up prohibition. You may
not possess this fail. Right? And sometimes the
argument is that it's not an arm. And
so New Jersey, in our cases has argued
that these are not magazines in particular are
not arms. Sometimes it's while their arms, but
we can prohibit them because we can satisfy
the requirement of Ruin to show an historical
tradition that's consistent with the prohibition being defended
by the state. So So arms bands are
a whole, you know, category
of of law
that has to be dealt within in a
certain way. So so
this is... This Thomas statement is is to
get the attention of courts to to take
seriously
how arms are protected under the second amendment.
So so these these denials
are very important. And
it's very important that there are a whole
series of
arms band cases that are coming, making their
way through the courts that will almost certainly
eventually get to the Supreme Court. Certainly, Thomas
hopes they'll they'll get back to the Supreme
Court in 1 way or another, and he
certainly hopes that they'll be dealt with in
a way that is coherent and to consistent
with the fundamental. Right?
While he's still on the cord. Dan, we're
gotta stop and take a break. I gotta
pay the bills, and I want you to
hold that thought, please. Okay? Sure. Alright. You
got you got it.
Sandy, How are you today? I'm very good.
How about you? Not bad. So, you know,
we're having range days at gone for hire
now. We've gotten all the vendors in line
starting this Friday, July 12 vortex will be
here from 02:00 till 08:00PM.
You can just drop in. We're gonna close
off Range 3. Their salespeople people are gonna
have all kinds of stuff here. We have
a whole list of manufacturing that are lined
up. See, we can do this. We have
4 ranges. We have the store.
We got vortex come.
We have Kim. We have g 96 cleaning
products, tetra cleaning products.
Every manufacturer you could imagine we have rock
and rolling through here.
Also, August first, we're running an eddy eagle
course. For children, pete pre k till fourth
grade. If you're interested, go to gun hire
dot com forward slash eddy eagle.
Also, if you own a pet, gun for
hire dot com forward slash pets. Dan, did
you said us a picture of qui?
Not yet, but I'm, they will do so.
And send a picture, all the pets get
a numbered tag, and they go on our
website gun hire dot com forward slash pets.
We have over a hundred pets already on
the website and more, many, many more to
come.
Also, our plate rack matches
have been phenomenal.
Monday, June fifteenth. We... That is sold out
already. Our next 1 is a dueling rack
pistol match It's gonna be like march madness.
Go to gun hire dot com forward slash
leagues. You know, we're always taking it
1 step ahead. Somebody's getting yelled at over
there.
John A will be on in a week
or 2. We're gonna be discussed seeing the
North Jersey friends of the Nra dinner. When
you come to gun for hire, ask to
see the raffle gun
that Juan and Matt built for all of
you people to bid on, and that that
dinner is gonna be October second at the
tides, so I really want everybody to show
up. Don't forget, Sandy Hi,
Atlantic County, friends of the Nra dinner is
this September fourteenth at 5PM
at the mansion on Main Street.
And next year, the Cn J, women's for
gun rights mansion on Main Street Fundraiser is
04/05/2025.
Mark your calendars.
While speaking, cn NJ0,
the peanut butter and jelly 2 fundraiser is
going
well, I've been getting a lot of photos.
I'll be discussing that. The next time I
have C j on.
If you wanna see me and show up
with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This
Saturday, I will be at the Aberdeen guns
open house.
The open house is from 11:00 till, I
guess, 3 4 05:00. I'm sure Rosie you'll
be there too. Come on down, say, hello.
To everybody, and let's have some fun.
Also,
if you need, little cards,
your... Your F card, your so card, your,
carry permit. Just go to n j liberty
cards dot com. N j liberty cards dot
com. State police approved.
Don't forget to visit Garden state, guns on
reddit or and the New Jersey firearm Syndicate
2 on Facebook. Dan is very active. On
the firearms Syndicate 2 page by the way.
So it's it's a good place to go.
Varsity firearms podcast with John Vale, police tune
in if you're in a Scotch plains area
stop by and seize float center... Say, hello
to Sharon Decker for me. Don't forget my
doctor, optimal health wellness n j. Optimal health,
wellness n j dot com, doctor Joseph San
for Concierge Medicine.
Lake Island Rifle in Pistol club in Carter,
New Jersey is looking for junior rifle members
12 to 18 years old to learn fire
safety and compete in small board air rifle
competition. La key LAKEIS
dot org.
Stan strong dot biz is approaching 500
businesses, products and services.
Hartman Win key is on that. You don't
even have to go. All you have to
do is go to stand strong dot biz
and type lawyers and dan's firm, and a
video him and I shot during the peak
of Covid will come up for your entertainment.
My book, crime proof think a criminal and
beat them at their own game is no
longer on Amazon. You can get it on
gun for hire dot com. You can get
it at the range. You can also get
it at Aberdeen guns. With decoding firearms.
Don't forget Us loss shield, use gun for
higher 1 word as the code if you
live in 49 states. If you live in
the 50 state Y tax defense for New
York, mentioned gun for hire,
excuse me and get 15 percent.
Off of your monthly
membership. I don't think I have it. Do
have anything else to add for that now.
I got letters and learning and stuff, but
right now, I'm just gonna cover that because
we have dan here. Oh, remember,
for you listeners,
few months back, we had doctor Per.
And he told us about the Rutgers law
prevention policy center where Michael Anti
makes 3 or 400000 dollars a years. White
makes 200000 dollars a year. All of our
taxpayer dollars, and this guy only does is
come out with reports saying how dangerous we
law abiding gun owners are.
Well, 1 Pi was here, P mentioned that
they put a map on the website of
places you can safely store your guns. Right?
So while Per was on the show, I
looked at it. You remember this, Sandy.
And, like, 80 percent of the places that
he had listed it where you can store
your account even They don't exist. There were
people out,
and there were places where you can't safely
store your guns. He charged... He charged the
state of New Jersey, us the taxpayers a
hundred and 25000
dollars to build that site.
Okay? I think the total cost was somewhere
around 3000000.
Too, but Well, he's he's taken 3000000 since
he started. Just that page he built a
bucket in a quarter.
So our friends at the New Jersey Knicks
Research Center
redid the whole thing.
Well Okay. Yeah. They they redid the whole
thing. So if you go to New Jersey
Next research center, and this is the website.
Our guys at New Jersey Next Research Center.
It's NJNICS
dot com. NJNICS
dot com. These guys
are tracking,
how long it's taking
for,
approvals for next checks. They're also tracking how
many carry permits are issued? How many you've
been discriminated on with the law and public
safety disclaimer and everything. And they did it
for free.
Ladies and gentlemen,
they did it for free, and it's a
correct storage map. I know because I helped
build it with them, you know, for
information. And where where places you can safely
store where places you cannot safely store. So
Please check these guys out NJNICS
dot com.
Dan,
we're back now, so I want you to
continue with that, and then I want you
to talk about Chevron
have it?
I'm shocked simply shocked to find out that
the state is using our own money against
Really.
Well, they follow suit with the federal government
so they're
Okay, I I will say that, Clint is
wearing
his gun for hire
membership tag nice
send that.
I will send the picture. I I here's
here's the problem.
He's so photo that I can't choose.
It's so difficult because he's... Oh my god.
Certainly sounds like god.
Yeah. Not a dog lover here. Yeah. I
I will send... I will send that picture
imminent.
Please. So let me let me let me
shift gears
for your business
to,
I think a topic which is a think,
of, the just should be of interest to
everybody. Not just gun owners, but anybody who
loves Liberty and Freedom.
This was a really bad term
at the Supreme court for the
expansive regulatory
state. Yeah.
There obviously, Chevron was it was the was
the big 1. But there were a number
of decisions
that's
favored
people
and
impaired the ability
of the state,
I mean, the state that, you know, generic
government
to
impose its will on people. So, let me
just rattle off a few of the the
cases before Chevron, and then we'll talk about
Chevron.
So, obviously,
we all we all remember Car deal. I
think I believe talked about Car on the
law on the previous show.
The bump stock case, that was a a
loss
for
Atf.
A number of other cases that are are
worth
talking about briefly. Case called corner post versus
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
That was a case involving
a statute of limitations,
that a,
plaintiff
would be subject to in order to sue
the the Federal Reserve. The statute of limitations
basically is the cutoff off. The time frame
within which you can bring a lawsuit
before you are barred from doing so. And
the ruling, the court ruled that the status
of limitations was later
than what the government claimed it was. And
therefore, it revived what was previously a dead
lawsuit
and a little allowed the individual to sue
with a plaintiff to sue the Federal reserve.
A case called Ohio versus Epa in the
stay of certain restrictions that had been imposed
by Epa of the stay was granted by
the supreme court, in favor of the the
applicants.
A case called Sec versus,
which was very important case, which held that
a defendant,
in a case brought by the Sec for
civil penalties
had a constitutional right to a jury trial
under the theft of amendment.
Is very important because Yep. In the in
administrative proceedings,
you can sometimes be required to defend yourself
in an administrative tri
before the agency rather than in a court
in front of a jury.
Well, the the
case held that in the case of civil
penalties brought by the Sec, you have a
right to try my jury, which is a
enormous advantage in defending yourself in front of
a jury of your peers, in a court
versus in front of the agency itself.
So so these are... You know, these are
all examples
of the Supreme Court recognizing
over reaches by administrative agencies. And you know
it's a major problem
because for many, many, many years, we have
seen a massive expansion of state power
through the expansion of the administrative state, And
so these are very important
instances of
pushback on that that growth. But but, of
course, the The big daddy of cases
dealing with administrative law was the case... Well,
a pair of cases called Lo bright, and
relentless.
And those are the cases that finally
overrule the Chevron doctor. And, of course, Obviously,
the the the Chevron doctrine was named after
a case called Chevron from 19 84.
And what the what the Chevron chase did
is created AAA
rule of difference
that courts were required to exercise. When it
came to the scope of administrative authority. In
the Chevron case, the Supreme Court held
that when
Let me let me before I get into
the details of what Chevron. Let me just
explain for your listeners who are unfamiliar with
kinda how this works.
So
administrative agencies don't exist naturally under the constitution.
Administrative agencies like the Sec, the Epa, the
Atf,
you know, these are created by congress. And,
of course, in our state law analog of
course as well, But we're talking about federal
Law now. So these are all created by
congress. Are not
constitutional
agencies. They they... They're they're creatures of statute.
And so when Congress passes a statute, that
creates something like the Ftc or the Sec,
or the Epa,
the the statute is supposed to
not only create the agency, but also define
the scope of its authority, the statute that
creates these agency says what it can do.
And so
agency power is limited by what that statute
says.
They just... They don't have
unlimited authority, They can do the things that
Congress says they can do. Now, so here's
what Chevron did, which as you... As your
listeners will see
invited
expansive
authority for these agencies. It said when the
scope of a statute is ambiguous
the court is required to defer
to the agency's own
interpretation of the statute
if that interpretation is reasonable or that I
think that use language the already possible.
Think about what that's did.
What what because courts courts
traditionally are there to interpret law and to
interpret what a statute means. And in a
controversy before the court, the court determines,
which party's
assertion of what the statute mean is is
correct. Or maybe the Court saying neither of
you are correct, this is what the statute
means. But it
regardless,
that's the court's job. The court's job is
to decide what the law is and then
apply it to the facts of the case
and come up with a decision. Well, in
Chevron, the court said no.
The court... It's not the court's job to
determine what this statute means. The agency gets
to
determine the scope of its own power,
if 2 things are true. Number 1, the
statute statute is ambiguous. So if the statute
is clear,
then
That's it. That's the end of the case.
Right? K. The the... It's statute clear, the
court says, yep. It's clearly this, this is
what the statute means k o. But if
it's ambiguous and look. Lots of statues are
are ambiguous. And here's where this problem is.
Language is inherently ambiguous in many instances.
And congress or no no legislature can perfectly
draft a statute
so that it covers all circumstances and so
Statues are often ambiguous. And so this problem
will arise all the time. You know, it's
not... It's this is not something that happens
very rarely. It happens frequent.
And so
where the where the statute is unclear about
the what the power the agency has, the
agency gets to say
we think it means this,
and the court is required to accept the
agency's on statement of its authority, as long
as it's reasonable.
So dan.
And I'm I'm gonna give everybody a a
perspective.
Since 19 84,
in 40 years. So the Chevron doctrine is
saying that the court gives it to the
agency to decide
screwing the the little guy. Right? 80000
cases
in 40 years.
Have referenced the Chevron doctrine,
which the majority of them have ruled for
the agencies 80000
times. Yeah. Just to put that in perspective.
I did that research. It was in a,
national review magazine. So 80000 times. So continue
Dan. And you have to read perspective. And
and you have to realize the history of
this. Yeah know. I mean, this dates back
to Woodrow Wilson time. This was a big
wet dream of Woodrow Wilson. There were there
was a a book, Wilson
absolutely
loved
by the title of Philip Drew
administrator. Yep. And and it was written by
1 of his buddies,
a guy by the name of Edward Man
House, and house,
was a socialist. He loved marxism
practices. He loved the Marks theories,
and it was an and then run around
congress really,
put the power into the president's hands and
into the Bureau hands.
Yep. So, Dan, how tell our listeners, how
does this affect us to a gun people
now that Chevron defer has been chopped down?
Well, certainly, it's going to affect a Atf.
In fact, in Car yield and the other
bump stock cases,
in Car, in the other thought cases, the
Chevron issue actually came up.
They didn't need... Car they didn't need to
reach Chevron because they held that the statute
was clear.
But, this, you know, in in future cases,
involving Atf and whatever and other agencies,
the this will this will matter in terms
of what the he can do and how
they can interpret the scope of their own
authority. Let me you quick, how much time
do we have because there's a couple of
interesting things Talking. Liam about 10 minute. But
sense... Yeah. About that. Yep. Okay. Good. So
so the the the decision is interesting.
The decision in Lower bright is very interesting
for a few reasons.
Now, look, obviously,
you can imagine
that the state is always
trying to
expand the scope of its power
over us. And so you can imagine what
happens when you say to the state, you
can decide the scope of your own authority
go to it. Right? The state is almost
always going to
determine that that the authority the bank have
is is more expansive. Than perhaps is appropriate.
So it's it was it was a nightmare
for people who care about individual freedom and
liberty.
Now, interestingly
though,
over the years,
the court, the Supreme Court has been gradually
putting in exceptions and rolling back
aspects of Chevron. So over time,
Chevron
was
impaired little by little to the point where
it was pretty clear that it needed to
be overrule. It just never just hadn't happened
yet. So finally, Chevron is dead. I mean,
here here's how here's how crazy the concept
is. But if if you didn't think it
was already crazy.
Chevron,
The difference applied even when the agency would
change its own interpretation of the statute.
So the courts powerless, courts were powerless,
to interfere with agencies,
interpretation of their own statute, even when they
just changed their mind. You know, they could
change... They could say, well, for years with
thought it was 1 thing. But now we
think it's another thing. I mean, is particularly
relevant to the bump stock cases where Atf
would simply changed its mind as to what
statute what the N nfl meant, it's for
the definition the machine, gun, after years and
years of of holding that it meant 1
thing, suddenly, it means another thing,
Chevron Chevron required courts to accept those as
long as they were reasonable. So it's it
was it was sheer luna.
To to expect agencies to behave in a,
in an appropriate manner when they was invited.
They're were absolutely invited. To be abusive. Yeah.
Of of people's rights. So this is... So
so
as I said, as always we talked about
the the court overall Chevron, Chevron is dead
as a matter of law. But there's some
interesting things that happen in the concur. So
there's a concur opinion by justice as Thomas.
And, you know, the decision... The majority decision
was decided under the administrative procedure act.
And what the court basically said was under
the the administrative ct track does not allow
for this shifting of the traditional role of
a court
away from deciding what the law means.
In in favor of the agency. What Thomas
said is
separate apart from
the fact that the statute doesn't allow this
it's a violation of
separation of power.
Under the constitution. Article 3 of the constitution.
It
impose on courts the obligation to interpret statute.
And so
you,
and that's a that's a really important check
on the executive power.
Remember that our constitution, separation of powers is
an absolutely critical aspect of our constitutional scheme
that keeps the various,
branches of government in check. And so what
Chevron did was it
the critical role that courts play in checking
executive power because that's what the administrative state
is. The administrative state is a vast
expansion of the executive branch.
And so it allowed the executive branch to
decide the court the the scope of its
own power, which was which according to Thomas
was a huge
violation of the constitution in that regard. Now,
1 of my favorite parts of this is
the go
concur. So
just as score such concur, and he actually
has a really interesting discussion
of
the role of precedent,
in the common law because 1 of the
questions,
1 of the 1 of the issues in
our opposition to overlook Chevron was the concept
of s decisive.
Story
is a principal law that says that
even if
the Supreme Court thinks
that a prior decision is incorrect. You don't
automatically
overrule it simply because
its wrong.
There's an actual process
to determine
what impact a prior decision should have have
on future cases, even if it's... If it
was incorrectly, just decided it. And started decisive
is this idea that a decision of the
court
affects future decisions even on the same issue
before the Supreme Court.
And it it started to say...
It's it's a strange concept because this idea
that you're... It it's sort of this principle
is cemented in place,
even if
the court leader determines that it's incorrect is
a very... It's sort of an odds with
common bets.
And so Gorsuch goes through
discussion of the history of the common law.
We we we have a hour our system
of law, the Anglo American system moore's law
is called the Common law, system because it
developed over time as a result of many,
many judicial decisions.
A judge decided something years ago, so if
I'm a judge deciding somebody today, I look
at different precedent
to see how other judges decided things to
see what... Any impact those decisions should have
on how how I as a judge understand
the law and apply those principles to the
case that's before me.
Okay.
So,
he explains that that
what 1 of the things that's critical to
acquire precedent
to a case that as before Court is
the quality of the of the previous decision?
What is the significance of that decision is
its reasoning sound,
how might that apply to my case, and
he talks about how not only
contrary contrary to the idea that started decisive
should prevent the courts from over overrun Chevron.
He says that the that the concepts
underlying precedent and star decisive in the common
law decision
a common tradition should actually favor
overrun Chevron. It it's a very interesting discussion.
I have to say Neil gorsuch search,
is really brilliant if I of look, there's
a lot of smart people in the supreme
court.
But court just as score such as is
a very, very, very smart guy. And when
you read his opinions,
least, I I can't help come away with
this really,
this really intense,
a sense that this is this guy is
just very, very smart, But this... Here's what
I get to my favorite part. So the
decision was not unanimous, mister so there was
a descent with Justice Ka, joined by justice
So mai and Justice Jackson.
Course. And of course hard
But there's 1 of the this decision... I
have to read this too. So this is
great. So there's a footnote 3 that justice
score such drops.
In his concur. And he's talking about justice
higgins
descent.
And he says the descent suggests that we
need not take
Apa directions quite so seriously,
meaning directions that the court is supposed to
decide
the the,
what the meaning of statute is.
We need not take the Apa directions quite
seriously because the, quote, finest
administrative loss scholars close quote, from Harvard
claimed to see in them some wiggle room.
K. That's it's that's a quarterly
exciting just c to descent
He says, but nothing in the Apa commands
defer to the views of professors any more
than it does the government.
Nor is is the best part. Nor is
the dissent list of Harvard finest administrative of
lost scholars entirely complete,
and he cites
Ka,
a paper by Ka when she was off
harvard.
If you which she says that on different
rests upon a quote,
fictional
statement of legislative
desire.
That she C19
years before she was appointed to the Supreme
court You apparently forgot about.
She apparently forgot about day.
I love it. Laughing push off when I
read that.
So so, Dan, because we're we're we're closing
in tough... Can you update a little bit
sensitive places, mag band assault weapons ban. Everybody's
chop at the bit. You think now that
after the Supreme Court vacated the cases and
the court ended it, you think the lower
courts now are gonna go, okay. We have
enough what we need to proceed with these
cases. Where where where do we stand? Tell
tell everybody. Give us the little ray of
hope, please.
Well, I I certainly think there was good
reason to believe that the third circuit who,
heard our... The the, heard our, tare case.
Is K and Siegel,
we're probably waiting for Rec he to be
decided by the Supreme court before ruling. So
I suspect they're kind of in the process
of incorporating
whatever they think Rh he meant
for error carrying cases,
into the into whatever opinion you're writing. So
III
suspect we'll probably see something in K and
Siegel from the third circuit pretty soon, hopefully.
Mad band,
as you know, we also,
we submitted letters every all the sides. Submitted
letters about Re
to just Sheridan in Med and the so
called assault cases.
So, hopefully, you we'll see something,
soon in those cases, Look it's impossible to
say exactly when. But certainly,
Ra no longer stands in the way. Of
of those cases. So those judges,
hopefully,
we'll will be, you know, sort of getting
that stuff working into their thoughts. And, hopefully,
we'll see we'll see some decision in those
cases soon. So, Dan, I I love you,
but, until further notice your banned from gun
for higher rate until we get positive outcome
on the k siegel or the, assault weapons
case and and
So what do you think, Sandy? He's he's
banished? I think
I think he.
Sandy,
sorry.
Dan tell everybody about your law firm, what
you do and how people can find you.
Thank you again for defending our rights on
the legal aspects across the board in New
Jersey.
It is.
The law firm is hartman and win dot
hartman and Win. You can go to hartman
win dot com. With no and. We are
in Ridge, New Jersey,
in addition to, the civil rights in sacramento
law, we do,
commercial law, we represent landlords on tenants. We
do
commercial transactions, real estate transactions, and we do
a lot of state planning in the state
administration. If you you know, will, If if
you trust,
please give us a call.
We've been doing that for many, many years,
and I think,
we do a great job. So. The firm
is a general purpose law firm, and you
can you can, get a lot of a
lot of stuff done with us. So give
us a call.
They're have the best. Thank you so much,
Dan. Keep fighting. ANJRPCANPC
dot org. That's what's fueling the engine for
our second amendment rights, the state division of
the Nra.
Thank you all again for listening. Please like
follow and share knowledge is power. We need
to support. I'm on a 5 day van
on fascist book again. That little booster sees
bitch just posted,
Pi turf with an American flag, while he's
suppressing the first amendment rights of million of
Americans. At hip critical
mid. You know who you are, Sucker turned.
Have a nice day and buddy. Well, as
long as they just signal
for freedom, you know, that's a big thing.
Well, it looks like you've done it began,
you've wasted get another Perfectly good hour listening
to gun Ohio radio. God Radio is accounted
video production and using his forecast spanish by
Chicago Music, New York New York. On behalf
of our show voice center anthony sydney coin
author of crime who think like a criminal
and beat them at their own game,
who he did mention this week. Not available
on Amazon because they suck. But you can
get it at the gunshot books shop gun
range known as gun for higher.
And it is a great book to get
for,
upcoming college
enrollment of your.
Young
as they say down here. So,
Dan, thank you so much of Hartman Win,
no and. They've fired him a long time
ago. And we love you guys
from the shadows of the New York City
skyline
and be before gold shores of our alabama
where it is I've told about temperature his
son
God Jesus carries in a battle. That we
will see you