WEBVTT 00:00:00.017 --> 00:00:05.647 This is the Concealed Carry Podcast, Season 14, Episode 6. 00:00:15.794 --> 00:00:16.835 And welcome to the Concealed Carry 00:00:16.835 --> 00:00:21.825 Podcast, part of the ConcealedCarry.com network brought to you by HK. 00:00:23.039 --> 00:00:29.099 Today is Friday, August 28th, 2026, as of the recording of this live episode. 00:00:29.633 --> 00:00:33.430 I'm your host, Riley Bowman, joined today by co-host, Jacob Paulson. 00:00:33.726 --> 00:00:34.105 That's me. 00:00:34.105 --> 00:00:40.170 That's him. That guy over there. Glad to have you with me and doing an episode with you. 00:00:40.750 --> 00:00:45.365 We're doing a legislative updates episode today. We've got a lot to cover, 00:00:45.365 --> 00:00:50.845 actually. It's been a busy month, actually, on the legislative slash judicial side of things. 00:00:50.845 --> 00:00:54.955 And we normally would do this once a month anyway, roughly. And it's been basically 00:00:54.955 --> 00:00:57.265 a month since we did the last one. But yeah, I was, you know, 00:00:57.265 --> 00:00:59.245 like in hindsight, like, holy crap, it's been a busy month. 00:00:59.585 --> 00:01:05.013 Yeah, there's been like thing after thing after thing in just the last few weeks even. 00:01:05.408 --> 00:01:11.265 So pretty exciting to see some of what's going on, particularly on the judicial side of things. 00:01:11.585 --> 00:01:14.969 In fact, most of our news today is, well, it's judicial. 00:01:15.404 --> 00:01:19.350 There's some that's executive branch, governmental, you know, 00:01:20.795 --> 00:01:23.825 change of priorities and whatnot. 00:01:23.825 --> 00:01:27.475 And there's a little bit of legislative news as well, as far as mainly some 00:01:27.475 --> 00:01:31.476 things out of California we'll tackle here later in the episode. 00:01:32.167 --> 00:01:35.699 But first, today's episode, we've got to talk about some quick sponsors today. 00:01:36.779 --> 00:01:38.964 Brought to you by our Concealed Carry 00:01:38.964 --> 00:01:44.065 Gun Tools app, which can be found at concealedcarry.com forward slash app. 00:01:44.355 --> 00:01:45.075 That's free. 00:01:45.353 --> 00:01:50.614 Yeah, totally free. Yep. We'll talk some more in depth about it here after a 00:01:50.614 --> 00:01:52.534 couple of stories that we get out of our way. 00:01:53.424 --> 00:01:56.104 Also, today's other episode sponsor is Barrel Block. 00:01:56.482 --> 00:01:57.822 Not free. Yeah. 00:01:58.148 --> 00:02:01.973 Yeah, I wish it could be free. As far as like, that would feel good, 00:02:02.269 --> 00:02:03.274 but we wouldn't make any money. 00:02:03.274 --> 00:02:03.844 That'd be a problem. 00:02:03.844 --> 00:02:04.384 That would be a problem. 00:02:04.544 --> 00:02:05.564 We'd lose money, yeah. 00:02:06.756 --> 00:02:10.547 So BarrelBlock.com is a good link that will get you there. 00:02:11.624 --> 00:02:14.964 So hopefully you'll check that out. We'll talk some more about that also later 00:02:14.964 --> 00:02:17.764 in the episode. So we're going to move right along. 00:02:19.005 --> 00:02:23.225 We're going to jump right into some stories here. This first one is our first 00:02:23.411 --> 00:02:26.027 legislative story that we're going to cover today. 00:02:26.844 --> 00:02:29.514 Talking specifically about some stuff going on in California. 00:02:29.514 --> 00:02:35.141 Three anti-gun bills that have been passed by the state legislature. 00:02:35.960 --> 00:02:40.014 They are sitting on Governor Newsom's desk waiting to be signed, 00:02:40.014 --> 00:02:41.524 and I suspect they will be signed. 00:02:41.904 --> 00:02:47.864 I don't – it would shock me, I guess, in other words, if a governor with his 00:02:47.864 --> 00:02:49.924 track record was like, no, I'm not signing these. 00:02:51.144 --> 00:02:56.174 Yeah, true. Though I think there's some recall efforts going on against the 00:02:56.174 --> 00:03:00.090 governor right now. So, yeah, he better hurry. 00:03:00.973 --> 00:03:06.704 He's got aspirations to be the big head honcho of our nation Train wreck, 00:03:06.704 --> 00:03:09.704 It'll never happen But yeah. 00:03:10.424 --> 00:03:14.980 It's going to make it more difficult too For passing some of these things perhaps 00:03:15.445 --> 00:03:21.384 California is still the most populous state in the nation By pretty good margin Yes, 00:03:21.384 --> 00:03:25.480 But it has had negative growth for like many years now Yeah. 00:03:25.979 --> 00:03:29.108 Rather fascinating Let's talk about these three bills out of California. 00:03:30.404 --> 00:03:35.557 Senate Bill 948. So apparently there's a purchase... 00:03:37.385 --> 00:03:38.255 Permit to purchase. 00:03:38.255 --> 00:03:39.080 There you go. 00:03:40.985 --> 00:03:47.700 That exists in California, but that up to now was pretty straightforward, not too complicated. 00:03:47.892 --> 00:03:52.325 Go online, some California DOJ website, answer some questions, 00:03:52.725 --> 00:03:54.063 and bam, here you go. Yeah. 00:03:54.353 --> 00:03:57.675 And we're using the term permit to purchase kind of generically because that's 00:03:57.675 --> 00:03:59.665 how we describe this kind of a scheme. Yeah. 00:04:00.105 --> 00:04:04.805 But in California specifically, it's a firearm safety certificate, an FSC. 00:04:06.033 --> 00:04:09.565 Yeah. It's not the only state or jurisdiction that has something like this, 00:04:09.565 --> 00:04:18.675 but they are now, the Senate Bill 948 is going to create a training component to that. Mandatory. 00:04:18.675 --> 00:04:19.255 In-person. 00:04:19.255 --> 00:04:22.883 In-person classroom time, live fire shooting time. 00:04:24.085 --> 00:04:28.545 Basically, you got to go through, sit through a class, probably pass a test in that class. 00:04:28.865 --> 00:04:32.145 And part of that sounds like is a shooting test as well. 00:04:32.145 --> 00:04:36.625 Like you've got to shoot some rounds and presumably, I don't know if they're 00:04:36.625 --> 00:04:40.865 going to have a state mandated qual or if it's just whatever the instructor 00:04:41.265 --> 00:04:43.410 designs, but something that shows 00:04:44.118 --> 00:04:49.845 competency, knowledge based as well as shooting based that then allows you to 00:04:49.845 --> 00:04:51.548 get a permit to go purchase a firearm. 00:04:54.933 --> 00:05:03.566 I think we're going to see more states roll out systems like this because the forecast of gun rights, 00:05:04.440 --> 00:05:09.295 if you're checking the forecast, is such that in the not-too-distant future, 00:05:09.730 --> 00:05:13.446 states are going to realize they can't ban anything. We're going to talk about that today too. 00:05:14.182 --> 00:05:18.490 And so I think what you're going to see is anti-gunners are going to say, 00:05:18.490 --> 00:05:24.290 well, if the Supreme Court won't let us ban stuff, then we can just make it harder to get the stuff. 00:05:24.290 --> 00:05:29.977 We can require a process that is both painful, time-consuming, 00:05:30.267 --> 00:05:32.362 and expensive and inconvenient. 00:05:32.868 --> 00:05:37.286 And that is the closest we can get to basically banning the thing. 00:05:38.760 --> 00:05:43.640 And states like Illinois have been doing this for a long time but it's getting 00:05:43.640 --> 00:05:45.464 more arduous is what we're seeing. 00:05:46.060 --> 00:05:49.590 The new permit to purchase system that's now in effect as of the first of this 00:05:49.590 --> 00:05:53.270 month in Colorado, it does not apply to all guns but to those guns that it does 00:05:53.270 --> 00:05:55.940 apply to that permit to purchase program is very arduous. 00:05:56.535 --> 00:05:59.995 And so now you see California basically taking their existing system and saying 00:06:00.313 --> 00:06:02.751 let's make this more arduous. 00:06:03.019 --> 00:06:07.880 Yep. Yeah, I think it's only a matter of time before here in Colorado because, 00:06:07.880 --> 00:06:08.922 you know, as you pointed out, 00:06:09.683 --> 00:06:15.968 right now applies to essentially AR style, AK style semi-automatic detachable 00:06:15.968 --> 00:06:17.238 magazine firearms. Yeah. 00:06:17.238 --> 00:06:17.868 Mosselmanos. 00:06:18.268 --> 00:06:22.878 It's probably up this next legislative session. It would not surprise me if 00:06:22.878 --> 00:06:25.692 they're like, let's just do that across the board for everything. 00:06:25.948 --> 00:06:28.420 Yeah. There's going to be, there's going to be, there's already lawsuits against it too. 00:06:28.757 --> 00:06:34.539 Where do you think this type of approach that some of these states are taking 00:06:35.568 --> 00:06:40.675 fits in the current judicial framework with, you know, Bruin. 00:06:40.785 --> 00:06:44.438 Too far. Okay. So I think there's maybe two different questions you're asking, 00:06:44.438 --> 00:06:46.787 or at least I interpret it as two questions. The first question is sort of, 00:06:47.083 --> 00:06:53.376 is this constitutional? Like, will this flush out in a court system to survive or to die? 00:06:53.858 --> 00:06:57.478 And I think the answer is to die. There's no historical tradition of forcing 00:06:57.478 --> 00:07:00.226 people to get any sort of training or undergo any sort of anything. 00:07:01.088 --> 00:07:03.465 Period. So that's problematic. 00:07:03.779 --> 00:07:05.958 And then you also, I mean, we're going to talk today about what happened in 00:07:05.958 --> 00:07:10.280 New Mexico, which I think is also indicative of the kind of thing that you're looking at here. 00:07:10.600 --> 00:07:15.383 You know, like the question that's being asked is, is there a demonstrative 00:07:15.505 --> 00:07:22.568 public safety benefit to the delaying of or the barrier that's in place to exercise these rights? 00:07:22.568 --> 00:07:26.253 That's what Bruin would establish as the framework, right? 00:07:26.584 --> 00:07:30.468 Is there a demonstrable public safety benefit and is there a historical analog? 00:07:30.868 --> 00:07:33.550 Well, there's definitely no historical analog. That's just outright silly. 00:07:33.823 --> 00:07:37.968 And we've seen several attempts to try and find something like that for other 00:07:37.968 --> 00:07:42.467 reasons in recent times. So we know that that's going to be a fail. 00:07:42.757 --> 00:07:45.717 So then the question has to be asked, is there a demonstrable public safety benefit? 00:07:46.246 --> 00:07:49.188 And I think the answer to that is no. But, 00:07:49.788 --> 00:07:51.568 the other side, I guess, the other question I think you're asking is sort of 00:07:51.568 --> 00:07:55.308 like, well, how long will it take for the judicial branch of the government, 00:07:55.308 --> 00:07:59.034 for the lawsuits and the whatevers, to get to a point that it all culminates 00:07:59.342 --> 00:08:02.500 and the Supreme Court demolishes these permit-to-purchase programs? 00:08:02.970 --> 00:08:06.528 I think the answer to that question is several years away. I mean, 00:08:06.528 --> 00:08:10.969 probably, probably not in this decade, but if so, toward the end of this decade. 00:08:12.937 --> 00:08:16.993 I guess a part of me that finds this kind of fascinating is, 00:08:18.271 --> 00:08:22.560 you know, states like Illinois has had something like this for a long time. 00:08:22.961 --> 00:08:26.847 And the fact that that hasn't yet been successfully challenged and or taken 00:08:26.847 --> 00:08:32.609 up, you know, to the higher courts of the land in light of Bruin is kind of 00:08:32.777 --> 00:08:33.950 surprising to me, I think. 00:08:34.205 --> 00:08:39.523 Well, yeah, I mean, the Illinois version, the Foyt card, is not very arduous. 00:08:40.219 --> 00:08:44.567 Right. And so I think it seems probably hard to challenge, right? 00:08:44.567 --> 00:08:49.567 And this California thing, the firearm safety certificate, was much more, 00:08:49.927 --> 00:08:53.617 I should say currently now, is much more analogous to what Illinois does, 00:08:53.960 --> 00:08:55.556 assuming this bill doesn't get signed. 00:08:55.852 --> 00:08:58.767 Once this bill gets signed, now it becomes a very arduous thing that I think 00:08:58.767 --> 00:09:03.097 is easy to challenge in court. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to be the attorney 00:09:03.097 --> 00:09:07.439 who's got to go fight the FOID card in Illinois. That would be a tough battle. 00:09:09.250 --> 00:09:15.427 Let's also talk about Senate Bill 1220 this one takes an already existing misdemeanor 00:09:15.427 --> 00:09:20.207 it says in the reporting on this into a rights stripping 00:09:21.207 --> 00:09:25.857 it takes it to a rights stripping level so like typically a misdemeanor charge 00:09:26.947 --> 00:09:30.193 there can be some exceptions particularly where 00:09:32.386 --> 00:09:39.399 maybe a DUI or domestic violence misdemeanor could qualify. 00:09:39.811 --> 00:09:47.676 But in California, basically, Senate Bill 1220, the intent is to make what is 00:09:47.676 --> 00:09:51.846 already a misdemeanor crime in California, which is tampering with, 00:09:51.846 --> 00:09:53.386 removing, stripping away. 00:09:54.226 --> 00:09:57.416 It's specifically someone who's possessing, selling, transferring, 00:09:57.416 --> 00:10:03.600 or otherwise dealing with a firearm that has had its identifying marks or serial number altered. 00:10:04.053 --> 00:10:07.536 Okay. So you're – I'm just saying if somebody – Possessing 00:10:07.536 --> 00:10:08.306 It would be. 00:10:08.306 --> 00:10:11.877 Enough. Gotcha. Okay. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to keep this simple that 00:10:12.312 --> 00:10:15.156 I was thinking more simplistically. You can expand on it. That's fine. 00:10:15.615 --> 00:10:21.346 I'm just saying that somebody does something with a serial number or some other 00:10:21.346 --> 00:10:27.161 identifying marker on a firearm, you know, hey, we already know that's illegal. 00:10:27.295 --> 00:10:29.489 It's illegal on the federal level too, right? 00:10:29.611 --> 00:10:30.035 Yes. 00:10:31.329 --> 00:10:35.369 But this, the bill, the intent is anybody that, as you said, 00:10:35.613 --> 00:10:41.696 sells, transfers, whatever, possesses a firearm that does not have its serial 00:10:41.696 --> 00:10:44.414 number or has had it stripped or removed, 00:10:45.743 --> 00:10:52.406 that is a misdemeanor that will then automatically make them eligible from possessing 00:10:52.406 --> 00:10:55.246 or buying firearms for 10 years minimum. them. 00:10:56.126 --> 00:10:59.396 And it still remains a misdemeanor. It's not like they made it a felony. 00:10:59.396 --> 00:11:02.706 They're saying, hey, no, we're going to leave the... It's still a misdemeanor 00:11:02.706 --> 00:11:09.816 for all other reasons or purposes, but it will have this added effect of removing 00:11:09.816 --> 00:11:11.040 this right from you for 10 years. 00:11:11.649 --> 00:11:15.826 I think this is another interesting one. There's a part of me that's like, well, why? Okay. 00:11:16.486 --> 00:11:20.136 Why is that... Because I don't know... 00:11:21.547 --> 00:11:26.011 What's the problem we're trying to solve here? Because because typically someone that's 00:11:26.992 --> 00:11:30.730 Intent on committing a crime is just going to, you know, like it's what criminals 00:11:30.730 --> 00:11:31.873 do. They commit crimes, right? 00:11:32.206 --> 00:11:36.220 So if it's already illegal, then like people will probably just still, 00:11:36.220 --> 00:11:37.267 you know, like whatever, right? 00:11:39.340 --> 00:11:43.938 And if you take away their rights for 10 years, their firearm rights, 00:11:44.383 --> 00:11:47.180 they'll probably just find a way to still own a firearm anyway, right? 00:11:47.180 --> 00:11:48.070 Yeah, it seems silly to me. 00:11:48.186 --> 00:11:51.647 So that's my point. It's like, what is the point to this legislation? Yeah. 00:11:53.120 --> 00:11:56.600 But the other thing here that's rather fascinating is I think this is one that 00:11:56.600 --> 00:11:58.020 definitely could be challenged, 00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:07.030 you know, at the court level as far as like does a relatively simple misdemeanor 00:12:07.030 --> 00:12:11.850 crime such as this become something that they can strip your Second Amendment 00:12:11.850 --> 00:12:13.842 rights away for 10 years? 00:12:14.863 --> 00:12:20.220 Yeah, probably not. And I think there's some other factors here that will play into this. 00:12:21.720 --> 00:12:24.831 In fact, today we're going to talk about ghost guns. I think it's on our agenda. 00:12:25.459 --> 00:12:29.510 But I think that there's obviously a distinction here, and this is important 00:12:29.510 --> 00:12:34.850 to distinguish between a gun that never had a serial number or identifying marking, 00:12:36.060 --> 00:12:42.090 because I built it myself versus a gun that had one and it's been removed. 00:12:42.251 --> 00:12:47.158 It's been stripped, demolished, filed down, obliterated. 00:12:47.639 --> 00:12:52.680 And this law is addressing that. It's addressing the removal of or the stripping 00:12:52.680 --> 00:12:56.689 of identifying marks. So I think that's –, 00:12:59.348 --> 00:13:03.290 probably in this law's benefit relative to its constitutionality. 00:13:03.737 --> 00:13:07.108 Because we definitely have an established legal system around the idea that, 00:13:07.596 --> 00:13:10.829 manufactured guns have to be identified, have to be serialized. 00:13:11.954 --> 00:13:16.866 And so to suggest then that after they've gone into the marketplace, 00:13:17.267 --> 00:13:18.712 people can just remove those. 00:13:19.496 --> 00:13:21.564 Yeah, I don't know. But to your point, it's a misdemeanor. It would have made 00:13:21.564 --> 00:13:24.334 more sense to me if they just made this a felony. 00:13:24.334 --> 00:13:28.474 Because at least then there's some added incentive to not break this law. 00:13:28.474 --> 00:13:32.044 Like, well, crap, another felony charge. That's not ideal for me. 00:13:32.044 --> 00:13:38.384 You know, it's more prison time, but it's like, okay, so now I can't have guns 00:13:38.384 --> 00:13:40.881 for 10 years? Like, I'm a criminal, bro. 00:13:41.195 --> 00:13:44.214 Yeah. Yeah. So that's an interesting one. 00:13:44.539 --> 00:13:48.954 And then finally, Assembly Bill 1743. This one you did a little bit of digging 00:13:48.954 --> 00:13:51.214 into, and it's kind of interesting. 00:13:51.594 --> 00:13:54.934 I mean, all of these are interesting and dumb and frustrating. 00:13:54.934 --> 00:14:00.324 But this has to do with expanding the state's firearm owner's data sharing framework. 00:14:00.324 --> 00:14:02.244 This I'm quoting directly from NRAILA. 00:14:02.807 --> 00:14:07.224 By increasing access to information maintained in California's automated firearm 00:14:07.224 --> 00:14:09.093 system and related databases. 00:14:09.714 --> 00:14:13.124 And NRAILA makes a good point here. And this is, I think, very valid and should 00:14:13.124 --> 00:14:17.069 be something that's on everyone's minds in light of recent... 00:14:18.369 --> 00:14:26.682 Database-based challenges or issues that California has had as far as protecting 00:14:27.024 --> 00:14:30.931 gun owners' private information and data, right? 00:14:31.384 --> 00:14:34.646 Because they had that whole snafu where they released, like, 00:14:34.646 --> 00:14:38.616 everybody's concealed carry records to people that should have had it. 00:14:39.056 --> 00:14:41.519 I personally think that is irrelevant to this question at hand. 00:14:42.136 --> 00:14:44.631 Because the database existed. It still exists. 00:14:44.869 --> 00:14:50.176 So the state's ability to keep the data in that database secure is unimpacted, 00:14:50.176 --> 00:14:53.396 is irrelevant to this new legislation. 00:14:53.396 --> 00:14:53.936 That's fair. 00:14:54.576 --> 00:14:58.326 But I love that the NRA is ready to bring that up. And it is valid for us to 00:14:58.326 --> 00:15:02.782 remember that California does not have a track record of doing a good job of protecting this data. 00:15:03.641 --> 00:15:08.196 But I don't know what it has to do with this. This law is not creating a database 00:15:08.196 --> 00:15:09.196 that didn't exist before. 00:15:09.576 --> 00:15:14.926 It's simply saying, we're going to expand who can request info from that database. 00:15:14.926 --> 00:15:15.116 Well, 00:15:17.805 --> 00:15:20.882 I think that's still part of the discussion, because it's like... 00:15:21.810 --> 00:15:29.490 You're giving information to a broader array of people or institutions. Sure. 00:15:30.415 --> 00:15:34.848 And then so it's like, how do I know that my information is going to be protected? 00:15:35.179 --> 00:15:39.035 And now we're putting it, you know, we're making it possible where it's in the 00:15:39.035 --> 00:15:41.715 hands of more and more people. What are they doing with that data? 00:15:42.155 --> 00:15:44.135 What is the actual data they're getting their hands on? 00:15:44.135 --> 00:15:46.855 That's the point. I disagree completely. And I'm not saying I'm in favor of 00:15:46.855 --> 00:15:47.811 this legislation, not at all. 00:15:48.380 --> 00:15:51.535 I'm saying that the two things are unrelated because the data we're talking 00:15:51.535 --> 00:15:56.106 about in this legislation is specifically the database of guns gathered from crime scenes. 00:15:56.286 --> 00:15:56.634 Okay. 00:15:57.198 --> 00:16:02.617 So this is not like, hey, we're going to give access to who has concealed carry permits to more people. 00:16:03.715 --> 00:16:09.215 This legislation is specifically about data gathered from crime scene gathered 00:16:09.215 --> 00:16:12.253 – assuming I'm reading it properly and I'm happy to be corrected. 00:16:12.521 --> 00:16:16.404 But based on the research I did, we're talking about crime scene guns, 00:16:16.625 --> 00:16:20.715 data collected from that that gets distributed to the DOJ and is also held by, 00:16:23.075 --> 00:16:26.935 the California Department of Justice. And that database, which has analysis 00:16:26.935 --> 00:16:32.083 done on those guns, we're saying, hey, we want to make it so that more people, 00:16:32.281 --> 00:16:35.833 some specific people, can access that data. 00:16:36.333 --> 00:16:41.775 So I don't think it really expands a privacy concern unless you're like, 00:16:41.775 --> 00:16:44.485 man, crap, I don't want everybody to know about the guns I left at the crime 00:16:44.485 --> 00:16:46.677 scene based on how I'm reading it. 00:16:46.811 --> 00:16:49.375 Now we're getting to the meat of it, and that's why I'm asking the questions, 00:16:50.635 --> 00:16:53.045 because these are relevant questions to ask. 00:16:53.895 --> 00:17:00.455 And to help understand better, what is this actually doing as a new statute 00:17:00.455 --> 00:17:02.835 on the books or soon to be probably on the books, right? Right. 00:17:03.985 --> 00:17:09.820 So, yep, reading right from it here has to do with firearms that have been reported, 00:17:09.820 --> 00:17:12.970 stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, surrendered, 00:17:12.970 --> 00:17:15.820 relinquished, or under observation. I don't know what that means, 00:17:15.820 --> 00:17:19.570 But... I would think of it this way. The California Department of Justice has 00:17:19.570 --> 00:17:23.290 databases in sync with the ATF databases. 00:17:23.630 --> 00:17:28.140 So the idea of firearm registration at a national level is not a thing, 00:17:28.140 --> 00:17:35.090 right? But the ATF does, with authority, currently maintain certain databases 00:17:35.090 --> 00:17:36.778 of guns. But it's not like all guns. 00:17:37.184 --> 00:17:40.893 It's certain databases. Like here's the database of guns that have been reported stolen. 00:17:41.195 --> 00:17:43.477 Here's the database of guns that have been recovered from crime scenes. 00:17:43.779 --> 00:17:45.590 Here's the database of whatever. 00:17:46.190 --> 00:17:50.280 They kind of have these unique lists as part of their tracing department. 00:17:50.669 --> 00:17:55.230 So California Department of Justice has kind of a mirrored image list of databases 00:17:55.230 --> 00:17:56.624 that they maintain for their state. 00:17:57.047 --> 00:18:01.990 And that's the data we're talking about so yeah to your point it's these different 00:18:01.990 --> 00:18:03.470 you know list of what guns have 00:18:03.470 --> 00:18:06.684 been stolen list of what guns have been recovered those kinds of things. 00:18:07.711 --> 00:18:17.047 As you dig down further into the bill, there are some data points that is referencing, 00:18:18.822 --> 00:18:22.658 you know, basically firearms dealer inspections as well as ammunition vendor 00:18:22.658 --> 00:18:30.584 inspections and some of the information specific to those dealers and or vendors. 00:18:32.261 --> 00:18:35.248 And maybe some of those people might have concerns about, you know, that. 00:18:35.248 --> 00:18:39.068 That would be valid. I think this legislation is bad. And to kind of finish 00:18:39.068 --> 00:18:42.278 the half of this too, because we're talking about, well, this bill would expand 00:18:42.278 --> 00:18:44.858 who has access. Well, who is it expanding it to? 00:18:45.338 --> 00:18:49.718 Right. And I think that's the valid big question. And the answer is mostly higher 00:18:49.718 --> 00:18:54.658 levels, higher institutes of education. So universities, like University of 00:18:54.658 --> 00:18:58.278 California and California State University are specifically named. 00:18:58.591 --> 00:19:03.868 And it talks about other publicly funded higher, whatever, education, something, something. 00:19:04.159 --> 00:19:10.038 So that's the target here. It's like how I see it as this, I see it as previously 00:19:10.038 --> 00:19:13.728 there would have been a legal challenge to us sharing this data to universities 00:19:13.728 --> 00:19:15.153 so they could conduct research. 00:19:15.721 --> 00:19:19.458 And we're trying to pass a bill to remove that barrier so we can provide this 00:19:19.458 --> 00:19:22.868 data to these organizations that want to conduct research on the data. 00:19:23.466 --> 00:19:25.806 Is that a good thing? No, it's not a good thing. 00:19:26.073 --> 00:19:26.293 Right. 00:19:26.467 --> 00:19:27.018 But that's, 00:19:29.158 --> 00:19:31.785 I just don't want us to see it for more than what it is. 00:19:33.049 --> 00:19:38.019 Good points. All right. Well, those are three bills we mentioned that are on 00:19:38.019 --> 00:19:39.469 Governor Newsom's desk. 00:19:40.218 --> 00:19:45.489 And if you'd like to do your part and contact the governor's office to let them 00:19:45.489 --> 00:19:50.482 know that you are either for or against these, I imagine most people probably are against. 00:19:51.219 --> 00:19:56.069 You know, that's always what you should do. We should always be active participants 00:19:56.069 --> 00:19:58.571 in our governmental processes. 00:19:59.240 --> 00:20:04.819 Let's move on to a story from, a story article. 00:20:04.819 --> 00:20:10.479 It's actually basically an amalgamation of a bunch of different updates, 00:20:10.899 --> 00:20:16.313 judicial updates in different cases that are pending and whatnot, on thegunmag.com. 00:20:16.870 --> 00:20:20.989 And specifically, we're going to highlight a couple of things here that we thought 00:20:20.989 --> 00:20:22.106 you'd want to know about. 00:20:23.239 --> 00:20:26.139 Something out of New York and something for the Supreme Court. 00:20:26.756 --> 00:20:30.499 So let's talk about the New York thing we've got the Second Amendment Foundation 00:20:30.499 --> 00:20:34.629 the NRA and Firearms Policy Coalition they're involved as part of a lawsuit 00:20:34.629 --> 00:20:39.619 they're firing it's called Firing Pin LLC versus James of course James is 00:20:40.379 --> 00:20:42.319 their attorney general there Leticia James 00:20:43.422 --> 00:20:49.465 so they got an ongoing lawsuit with the it's a challenge to the New York state ban on convertible 00:20:49.674 --> 00:20:55.436 Pistols yeah so I think there's some foundational info yeah so, 00:20:56.902 --> 00:21:00.719 New York's not the first state to basically attempt to ban Glocks. 00:21:00.992 --> 00:21:03.819 And California and Maryland come to mind as well. 00:21:04.742 --> 00:21:08.841 So these states have laws that they don't say Glock, but they describe Glocks, 00:21:09.171 --> 00:21:12.802 or they describe the attributes about a Glock that they think make it scary 00:21:12.802 --> 00:21:16.056 and concerning, specifically that they can be converted into. 00:21:17.402 --> 00:21:22.645 Readily converted or some language like that, into fully automatic machine guns. 00:21:23.371 --> 00:21:26.802 They're talking about the Glock switch, right? For some long period of time, 00:21:26.802 --> 00:21:31.542 gun grabbers are losing their mind about the Glock switch, something that is 00:21:31.962 --> 00:21:37.709 a felony to possess or have because it just makes it too easy to convert these guns into machine guns. 00:21:38.115 --> 00:21:42.376 So these states have gone out of their way to write legislation that effectively bans them. 00:21:43.224 --> 00:21:46.482 And that's the foundational element. 00:21:47.022 --> 00:21:52.934 That builds on where we're going. So now someone steps in and files suit against New York. 00:21:53.184 --> 00:21:56.899 There's also pending lawsuits against California, Maryland. 00:21:57.154 --> 00:22:00.440 So you kind of have – this is happening in three different places. 00:22:01.342 --> 00:22:04.074 I know the NRA is involved in I think all three of these lawsuits. 00:22:04.411 --> 00:22:06.924 I think other organizations are tacked on to each one. 00:22:07.982 --> 00:22:12.732 So yeah, I think the question to kind of bring it back, there's two issues with 00:22:12.732 --> 00:22:15.719 this lawsuit. One is this idea of readily convertible. 00:22:16.688 --> 00:22:19.138 Like all guns can be converted into full auto. 00:22:20.367 --> 00:22:23.395 Right? Like, it's just a question of like, well, how hard is it? 00:22:23.395 --> 00:22:26.950 And this idea of readily convertible is too arbitrary. 00:22:27.316 --> 00:22:31.935 It's like, well, that's not clear or specific. So I think we could see a ruling 00:22:31.935 --> 00:22:34.195 come back that just says, this is too vague. 00:22:34.973 --> 00:22:40.847 Like, be more specific. And so injunction until legislature makes it more specific. 00:22:41.045 --> 00:22:42.850 So that's one possibility. That's one possible outcome. 00:22:43.355 --> 00:22:48.565 But I think the other legal challenge to this is this idea of our previous Supreme 00:22:48.565 --> 00:22:54.285 Court decisions and made it clear that you can't ban something that is in wide 00:22:54.285 --> 00:22:57.118 common use among the citizenry. 00:22:57.785 --> 00:23:01.477 And so to suggest that the guns they're describing, namely Glocks, 00:23:01.814 --> 00:23:06.165 are not in wide common use would be utterly, you might as well hit your head 00:23:06.165 --> 00:23:08.535 against a wall. I mean, it's just silly stupid. 00:23:08.535 --> 00:23:13.915 Can you imagine a gun that isn't, or that is more in common use than a Glock, right? 00:23:14.695 --> 00:23:18.855 It's like that. It is the most common gun. Well, it's probably the most common, 00:23:18.855 --> 00:23:20.965 certainly the most common handgun platform in America. 00:23:21.876 --> 00:23:27.135 So those are like the big questions here that would seem to play in favor of 00:23:27.135 --> 00:23:29.469 gun rights when this comes into a court. 00:23:30.468 --> 00:23:33.969 But again, we're going to see this come into three different district courts, 00:23:34.329 --> 00:23:39.867 and that will lead to potentially a district split if we see different decisions from those over time. 00:23:40.819 --> 00:23:46.280 So that's one we're keeping an eye on. All right. That'll be interesting to see how that plays out. 00:23:47.116 --> 00:23:52.116 The other main thing that we want to make you aware of is some Supreme Court 00:23:52.556 --> 00:23:53.913 cases, Supreme Court of the U.S. 00:23:55.220 --> 00:23:59.426 They're currently in recess right now but they have a couple of big ones that 00:23:59.426 --> 00:24:04.716 they're taking up in their next term and specifically Veramontes vs. 00:24:04.716 --> 00:24:09.786 Cook County which has been combined that's out of the 7th Circuit and that's 00:24:09.786 --> 00:24:11.376 been combined with the Grant vs. 00:24:11.376 --> 00:24:15.776 Higgins case out of the 2nd Circuit they're on the same, very similar issues 00:24:16.116 --> 00:24:21.951 which is dealing with AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms rifles 00:24:26.576 --> 00:24:28.964 and the Supreme Court has indicated they are going to hear those cases. 00:24:29.173 --> 00:24:33.811 They're going to hear them for argument in the next term. That could be as soon as October. 00:24:34.130 --> 00:24:39.316 We're almost at the end of August here, so that could be, you know, 00:24:39.716 --> 00:24:43.250 the reporting here is suggesting there has not been an argument date yet set, 00:24:43.695 --> 00:24:46.276 but that they will hear those cases argued. 00:24:46.276 --> 00:24:54.336 It'll be a one-hour argument session or hearing, and that could be as soon as 00:24:54.336 --> 00:24:55.554 October, which is kind of exciting. 00:24:56.384 --> 00:25:01.011 Yeah, I have two comments on this one. One is just to clarify some timeline. 00:25:01.429 --> 00:25:06.613 Hearing arguments will be very important because we'll be able to kind of guess 00:25:07.036 --> 00:25:10.154 what the outcome of the case will be based on the arguments we hear from both sides. 00:25:10.409 --> 00:25:12.917 Well, in this case, really from four sides because you have two different cases. 00:25:13.039 --> 00:25:16.176 So you have two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of defendants. Thank you. 00:25:16.761 --> 00:25:18.926 But anyway, so from those arguments, we'll kind of be like, oh, 00:25:18.926 --> 00:25:21.846 yeah, okay, these are the arguments that were made, and we can decide, 00:25:21.846 --> 00:25:25.049 you know, based on our own opinions, how much water we think they hold. 00:25:26.146 --> 00:25:28.186 It's also the questions that the justices ask. 00:25:28.226 --> 00:25:29.966 Yes. Yeah, yeah. What are they interested in knowing? 00:25:29.966 --> 00:25:34.535 It really kind of gives you some insight as far as where their mind is at on the issues. 00:25:34.784 --> 00:25:37.406 But I think it is worth clarifying that we probably should not expect a decision 00:25:37.406 --> 00:25:42.336 from the Supreme Court until probably about a year from now would be like a decent guesstimate. 00:25:42.336 --> 00:25:47.586 Typically, we see arguments in the fall or late fall, and there seems to be 00:25:48.046 --> 00:25:52.796 kind of like late May and through June sort of like the hot bed for output when 00:25:52.796 --> 00:25:54.329 you start seeing some of those come out. 00:25:54.578 --> 00:26:01.306 So we'll see. But just to temper expectations, this also comes – I think we're going to win this one. 00:26:01.646 --> 00:26:04.360 For me, this one's a slam dunk. There's certainly some of these you're like, 00:26:04.632 --> 00:26:07.071 I mean, I'm not sure because whatever. 00:26:07.494 --> 00:26:11.285 But this is one of those where it's like I cannot imagine how we could lose this. 00:26:11.697 --> 00:26:17.943 Yeah. Like, you know, we're talking about the most common rifle in America. Yeah. 00:26:19.232 --> 00:26:24.386 Like, it is extremely widely in public use by the citizenry, 00:26:24.386 --> 00:26:25.252 so that's a non-question. 00:26:25.461 --> 00:26:30.743 There's no historical analogs, nothing even remotely approaching one. 00:26:31.526 --> 00:26:37.296 The district court decisions where we've lost this case, where AR-15 bans have 00:26:37.296 --> 00:26:40.776 been upheld, You go back and look at those decisions, and they're decisions 00:26:40.776 --> 00:26:44.523 that basically chose to ignore previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions. 00:26:44.744 --> 00:26:47.873 That's the only way they arrived at the decision to uphold those bans. 00:26:48.320 --> 00:26:53.074 So now that the U.S. Supreme Court has to weigh against their own previous decisions, 00:26:53.364 --> 00:26:55.407 I just see no world where we can lose. 00:26:55.727 --> 00:26:58.926 So it's a matter of time, and it's going to clean it up. And this is one of 00:26:58.926 --> 00:27:02.116 the reasons I said earlier that I think we're going to see more and more permit-to-purchase 00:27:02.116 --> 00:27:04.806 schemes, like we were talking about in California, Colorado, 00:27:05.154 --> 00:27:08.976 and other states that are doing things like this, because when this disappears, when the U.S. 00:27:08.976 --> 00:27:14.105 Supreme Court basically says, you can't ban this, I think you're going to see states go, oh. 00:27:14.743 --> 00:27:18.669 Well, okay, then we'll do this. We'll force people to go through an arduous 00:27:18.669 --> 00:27:23.311 process and get training and spend money and their time in order to be able to buy these things. 00:27:23.450 --> 00:27:26.690 Right. So I think it's the inevitability that will come out of this case. 00:27:26.806 --> 00:27:33.769 I agree. I mean, we already know for a fact, like, I mean, Kavanaugh is easy 00:27:33.769 --> 00:27:36.789 for sure. He's the one that's, you know, for a couple of years now been basically 00:27:36.789 --> 00:27:38.199 saying, we're going to take up this case. 00:27:38.199 --> 00:27:38.780 Yeah, it's coming. 00:27:39.007 --> 00:27:41.241 He's been signaling where he stands on that for a while now. 00:27:41.543 --> 00:27:46.379 And, of course, he was involved in that case out of the 11th 00:27:48.509 --> 00:27:53.729 Circuit or whatever, whichever circuit he was in years ago. He was involved 00:27:53.729 --> 00:27:55.899 in a major one on a similar issue way back then. 00:27:58.140 --> 00:28:01.469