Podcast appearances and mentions of david kopel

This week, we're taking a close look at the Supreme Court's ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok. To do that, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel on the show. Kopel has written extensively on gun policy and been cited repeatedly at the Supreme Court. So, there are few people better qualified to dissect what the VanDerStok ruling means. Kopel argued the decision upholding the ATF's "ghost gun" kit ban is relatively narrow, but still likely applies to more than just the Polymer80 "buy build shoot" kits discussed at length by the majority. He also explained why the majority decided the case as a facial challenge and why he, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, disagrees with the use of that standard. He said the Trump Administration could have tried to intervene in this case, but didn't move fast enough. However, he argued that it can still try to undo the rule despite the decision. Kopel also gave his view on where the balance of the court lies on gun issues and whether there's a reliable way to read what they might do with other pending gun cases. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: David Kopel.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order that reviews federal gun policy with the aim of implementing some changes. However, it's unclear exactly what changes might come from the order. So, we've got Second Amendment scholar David Kopel on the show to try and give some clarity to what's possible. Kopel walks through each section of the order and explains what kind of actions they could lead to. He notes the ATF rules are likely to be an area of emphasis and one that may have the biggest practical impact. Similarly, the rollback of the ATF's "zero tolerance" enforcement policy for gun dealers could be significant and happen much faster. He also explained how the order could lead to the Department of Justice changing its stance in Second Amendment litigation or reclassifying certain guns to make them easier to import. He said it could also do smaller things like revoke and respond to reports from the seemingly defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125 Special Guest: David Kopel.

The gun industry just finished up its trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. Even though I was in the Philippines with my fiance during the show this year, I wanted to make sure we all stayed updated on the big storylines of SHOT Show 2025. So, I invited one of the best gun reviewers out there to come on the show and give us his view from the floor. David Blanton is a competitive shooter turned gun reviewer who runs The Humble Marksman YouTube channel. He's been one of my favorite reviewers for a while now, and he was able to peruse the industry's latest offerings at SHOT. He gives insight into the major trends at this year's show, including integrated compensators and big company collaborations. He also shares the guns he handled that intrigued him the most. Then Blanton explained why he thinks longtime industry standard-bearer Glock is in danger of being left behind. We also discussed the troubling trend of companies releasing guns that aren't fully baked. I also talk to one of the folks that make this show possible in a Members' segment!

In Rahimi, the Supreme Court recently handed down its first application of the Bruen test for Second Amendment cases. With the Court passing on new Second Amendment cases and remanding several in its final conference of the term, its opinion in Rahimi will be the thing most lower courts look to for guidance during at least the near future. That's why we had pro-gun scholar David Kopel on the show two weeks ago to give his interpretation of what the opinion means for future gun cases. It's also why we have Bruen critic and Pepperdine University law professor Jake Charles on the show this week to give his take. We think it's important to give you guys insight from several different perspectives on important developments like this. That way, you're best informed about what's going on and can make up your own mind. Like Kopel, Charles's writing seemed to have a direct impact on the Rahimi ruling itself. Charles has been critical of the Bruen test's reliance on analogizing historical laws to modern regulations since the Court handed it down back in 2022. One of his primary complaints is that the lack of a certain regulation for a societal issue faced during the Founding Era implies that regulation is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Some of the justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, appeared to agree with that critique in Rahimi. Charles also agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas on how the majority seemed to be rejecting the Bruen test--at least to some degree. But he wasn't sure how much of a seachange the ruling would create in the lower courts. And he argued the Court will probably have to take up more Second Amendment cases to answer many of the questions Rahimi left unanswered. Click this link for your free trial from our sponsor The Dispatch: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=newsletter&utmmedium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624 Special Guest: Jake Charles.

The Supreme Court handed down its first Second Amendment ruling in two years on Friday. It's also the first case where The Court applied the test it developed in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Those facts alone mean US v. Rahimi will hold a great deal of influence on gun cases across the nation. So, we've got one of the top pro-gun scholars in the country on the show to break down what The Court did and didn't hold. Independence Institute's David Kopel has been at the forefront of the Second Amendment fight for decades, with citations in federal court decisions coast to coast and at the Supreme Court itself. He also filed a brief in Rahimi that appears to have significantly influenced the majority's thinking. Kopel lays out the good, bad, and ugly of the ruling that upheld the domestic violence restraining order gun ban. He said he wasn't surprised The Court upheld Rahimi's conviction, given a lower court found him dangerous. He also agreed with some of the warnings about how the majority loosened the standard for the Bruen test that Justice Clarance Thomas included in his lengthy dissent. However, Kopel said he was overall pleased with the Rahimi decision's outcome. He argued it gave credence to future challenges to the same law by defendants who don't have the same lengthy criminal record as Rahimi did. He also predicted how the case might impact other Second Amendment cases pending in the lower courts. Special Guest: David Kopel.

Rundown -   Dani Newsum in Craig's Lawyers' Lounge - 12:34   Troubadour Dave Gunders - 01:40:38   "Billy B and the Fair Skinned Girl" by Dave Gunders - 01:44:34   Craig's Lawyers' Lounge opens wide to welcome Dani Newsum. She's a trained civil rights attorney, who spent decades as a formidable panelist on Colorado Inside Out where she often argued with Craig and David Kopel and many others. Dani can be feisty.   Nowadays, Dani Newsum is the director of strategic partnerships at Cobalt, a Colorado pro-abortion rights group that had a friendly split from NARAL Pro-Choice America in January 2020 to focus on state-level battles and reproductive rights advocacy within Colorado. OMG, the battles now, post-Dobbs.   Dani explains what Donald Trump has meant for female reproductive freedom and how Cobalt is fighting back with Ballot Initiative 89 which will place women's right to choose enshrined in Colorado's Constitution. https://coloradansforreproductivefreedom.com/   Dani Newsum was raised by the remarkable Fitzroy “Buck” Newsum who has a substantially correct Wikipedia page but for his birth date and the picture of him as a young airman. A decorated Tuskegee Airman, Colonel Newsum was a Congressional Gold Medal recipient. Dani's mom Joan is special too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzroy_Newsum   Learn how Dani Newsum decided to be an attorney, and then a civil rights advocate. She attended Denver's Thomas Jefferson High School and then became a lawyer and a talk show host on 630 KHOW. Find out some behind-the-scenes' stories about Colorado Inside Out back in the day.   We discuss the awful decline of the Colorado Republican Party, as embodied by Lauren Boebert. We review the latest with respect to Colorado's embarrassment in Congress. The modern media and legal landscape gets reviewed. So does Dani's fascinating life story. https://images.app.goo.gl/FcHoTXxSgAbYkzh98   Show Troubadour Dave Gunders entertains with a song reminiscent of America's less-than-honest justice system given the recent MAGA-friendly delay moves made by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Billy B and the Fair Skinned Girl, the wise narrator sings a story of an unfair justice system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLoy0P2NdKo

The Supreme Court just finished oral arguments in its latest Second Amendment case. So, this week on the show, we've got scholar David Kopel with us to give his perspective on the arguments made and the questions asked by the Justices in United States v. Rahimi. Kopel was on the show about a month ago describing his brief in the case. And the issue in that brief came up in oral arguments. Kopel reacts to the discussion around the more problematic section of the federal law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. He also gave his view on the government retreating from the idea that anyone who isn't "law-abiding" or "responsible" can be disarmed. Kopel said that retreat was significant and could have implications for other Second Amendment cases coming down the line. At the same time, he said Rahimi's lawyer had to make his own retreats and the Justices seemed unsympathetic to his overarching argument. Kopel predicted the Court would probably release its ruling before the summer and he expected it would uphold the ban. But he said the details of the ruling are harder to predict. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the massive upswing in Israeli civilian gun ownership after the October 7th attacks. Special Guest: David Kopel.

This week, we're turning our attention back to the Supreme Court. It is deciding the first gun case since its landmark decision last year. And we have one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars in the country on the show to discuss it. David Kopel joins the podcast to explain his amicus brief in United States v. Rahimi. He is one of the most accomplished scholars on the topic. His work has been cited in countless federal court decisions and all of the Supreme Court's major Second Amendment rulings. In Rahimi, Kopel argued the federal law barring those under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is unconstitutional. He said the problem lies in a provision that doesn't require any finding that the subject of the restraining order is dangerous. But he also noted the problem could be fixed with a single word being changed. He argued Rahimi is the kind of person who should be barred from owning guns. However, he said the law doesn't pass the Court's history and tradition test as it is currently written. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain how Israel is loosening its gun laws in the wake of terror attacks. Special Guest: David Kopel.

Another federal judge ruled on Friday that so-called assault weapons bans likely violate the Second Amendment. So, the Illinois ban is blocked for now. But Washington's was just signed. And Delaware's 2022 ban is still standing. Elsewhere, bans on the popular guns, including the AR-15, have been forestalled by political reality. Independence Institute's David Kopel understands the fight well having just gone through it in his home state of Colorado, where Democrats who control the government weren't able to push a ban over the finish line. But he has also filed many court briefs and written even more books or academic papers on the topic from a pro-gun point of view. He joins the show to discuss the political and legal landscape in the fight over assault weapons bans. What stopped Colorado's ban from going forward? Why has there been a sudden resurgence in blue states pushing for the bans? What is the legal argument against them? What is the state of the numerous lawsuits against AR-15 bans across the country? And, most importantly, will the Supreme Court take up an assault weapons ban case soon? If so, what are they likely to decide? Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the wide-reaching implications of the bump stock ban being stuck down by another federal appeals court. Special Guest: David Kopel.

If you make a dangerous product, should people be able to sue you if they get hurt?  Does it change your mind if I tell you we are talking about guns?   Jon Caldera fills in for George and welcomes Denver University Law Professor and 2nd Amendment expert, David Kopel to the show.  Kopel walks you through why suing gun manufactures for gun deaths is a really dumb idea and won't help anything.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have 4 new gun bills making their way through the Colorado Legislature.  George welcomes 2nd amendment expert and DU law professor David Kopel to the show to discuss.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Proposed Assault Weapons ban and concealed Classified documents.  Jimmy Sengenberger fills in for George.  He starts the hour with 2nd Amendment expert David Kopel to examine the wide-open language of the proposed Colorado Assault Weapons ban.  Then Jimmy speaks with David Harsanyi of the Federalist Society about a second group of Classified documents found in Biden's garage.  In the garage?  This is starting to sound like a Saturday Night Live skit.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A dozen legal scholars are part of an effort to overturn Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, and the Independence Institute's David Kopel, the main author of a new brief urging the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the law, joins Cam to explain why history and precedent should compel justices to step in and grant cert.

Our guest today is Ashley Hlebinsky. Ashley is one of the nation's foremost authorities on firearms history. She has served as both Curator of the Cody Firearms Museum (CFM) and Project Director for the museum's multimillion dollar renovation and her work fosters dialogue for a range of diverse audiences Ashley is a highly sought-after museum consultant, guest speaker, writer, expert witness in the US and Canada, and a television host and producer. 1) You are forever adding to the “hats” you wear, and the organizations you are connected with. In the past few months you began working with Walk The Talk America. And that connection began from a very personal place for you. Tell us about how this came about? 2) You have a couple of new projects in the works. You are currently in the process of founding the University of Wyoming Law School's Firearms Research Center with 2A scholars George Mocsary and David Kopel. What is the goal of this project? 3) You are also working with the LA Police Museum. Tell us about the scope and purpose of this project? 4) You will be one of our speakers for the 9th Annual Celebrate & Protect the 2nd Amendment Rally Event at the AZ State Capitol Building on Saturday, February 19th from 10:am – 2:pm. You are accustomed to taking deep dives into history and speaking to inspire and educate people – can you give a sneak peek into what you will be speaking on at the Rally?

Hour 3 of The Drew Mariani Show on 11-12-21 David Kopel joins Drew to talk about firearm owner databases that are being compiled by the federal government All show notes at Gun Ownership and 2nd Amendment - This podcast produced by Relevant Radio

Supreme Court is set to decide if Dred Scott should apply to all Americans on guns. We speak with David Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute & Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law.

On November 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association Inc. V. Bruen. The case was brought by two men who were denied New York concealed carry permits along with New York's National Rifle Association affiliate against the superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen. The lawsuit challenges New York's practice of only giving concealed carry permits—which allow owners to carry guns in public in a concealed manner—to those who can show that they have a special need to defend themselves.   On this week's episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two legal scholars who filed briefs on opposing sides of the case—Judge J. Michael Luttig who filed in support of Bruen, and David Kopel who filed in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. They detail the arguments they made in their briefs as well as what's at stake in this case, and debate whether text, history, and tradition do or do not support striking down the New York law. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On November 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association Inc. V. Bruen. The case was brought by two men who were denied New York concealed carry permits along with New York's National Rifle Association affiliate against the superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen. The lawsuit challenges New York's practice of only giving concealed carry permits—which allow owners to carry guns in public in a concealed manner—to those who can show that they have a special need to defend themselves.   On this week's episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two legal scholars who filed briefs on opposing sides of the case—Judge J. Michael Luttig who filed in support of Bruen, and David Kopel who filed in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. They detail the arguments they made in their briefs as well as what's at stake in this case, and debate whether text, history, and tradition do or do not support striking down the New York law. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Gun violence is surging. Despite lockdowns and social distancing, 2020 ended up as one of America's most violent years in decades. 2021 is following a similar path. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has laid out his strategy. In this special debate, we review three gun debates that still have relevance today.    1.) The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness (Sanford Levinson of  University of Texas Law School and David Kopel of Cato Institute)  2. Guns Reduce Crime (John Lott, economist, and former Seattle Police Chief Gil  Kerlikowske)  3. Unresolved American Policing (Paul Butler, Jason Johnson, Rafael Mangual, Sue  Rahr, Vikrant Reddy)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Randy in for Steffan talking to David Kopel from The Independence Institute about the 2nd amendment and attempts to pass gun laws in light of recent shootings in Colorado and beyond.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Randy is joined by David Kopel from The Independence Institute to talk about the 2nd amendment and efforts to pass more restrictive gun laws See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 3 for 6-7-2021. David Kopel joins the show to talk about a California ban on guns, that was struck down in court and about gun laws in general. The issue of more time given to scientists to work on embryos and the ethics of working on embryos is discussed with Fr. Tad Pacholczyk of […] All show notes at Federal judge strikes CA ban on Guns and Gun laws; Scientists Working on Embryos - This podcast produced by Relevant Radio

Second Amendment scholar David Kopel sits down with us to set the stage for a big issue we’ll hear a lot about over the next year: What “keep and bear arms” means outside of the home. Whether it’s conceal carry or open carry, does the Constitution protect that right, and if so, how? There’s a case at the Supreme Court from the Second Circuit challenging New York’s conceal carry law, and another case waiting in the wings from the Ninth Circuit. We get into some history, some legal tactics, and some judicial speculation—although only of a healthy kind. Transcript forthcoming. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett (cert petition), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/164031/20201217110211298_2020-12-17%20NRA-Corlett%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf Young v. Hawaii, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf Errors of Omission, https://www.illinoislawreview.org/online/errors-of-omission/ David Kopel, https://davekopel.org/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Today we're traveling to Nixon's America with Dick! Join us for a discussion of Checkers and other presidential dogs, Rose Mary Woods, "win a date with. . . " contests, as well as a fun digression into what exactly counts as a "lifetime supply" of tampons. Sources: Win a Date With. . .  Alanna Nash, "My Date WIth Davy Jones," Rolling Stone (8 March 2012). https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/my-date-with-davy-jones-113220/amp/ Sharon Marcus, "Intimacy," The Drama of Celebrity (Princeton University Press, 2019). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc772z0.7 Perry Nodelman, "Teaching Girls about Men: Attitudes Toward Maleness in Teen Magazines," Studies in Popular Culture 9:1 (1986): 103-118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23412904 Melissa Loseby, "That time I entered a contest to win a date with John Stamos," HelloGiggles (13 October 2016). https://hellogiggles.com/lifestyle/nostalgia/win-a-date-with-john-stamos/ Alison Martino, "KHJ, L.A.'s Coolest AM Radio Station, Is Basically a Background Actor in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"" Los Angeles Magazine (29 July 2019). https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/khj-radio-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/ Checkers: David Williams, "Inappropriate/d Others or, The Difficulty of Being a Dog," TDR 51:1 (Spring 2007): 92-118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4492737 Diana C. Mutz, "The Dog that Didn't Bark: the Role of Canines in the 2008 Campaign," PS: Political Science and Politics 43:4 (October 2010): 707-712. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40927039 Thomas Hauser, Thomas Hauser on Sports: Remembering the Journey (University of Arkansas Press, 2013). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ffjhwf.21 Aram Goudsouzian, "The Loser," The Men and the Moment: The Election of 1968 and the Rise of Partisan Politics in America p. 15-28 (University of North Carolina Press, 2019). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469651118_goudsouzian Joshua M. Glasser, The Eighteen-Day Running Mate: McGovern, Eagleton, and a Campaign in Crisis (Yale University Press, 2012). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkqgb.18 Stephen F. Knott, "The Road to Degradation," The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal p.175-205 (University Press of Kansas, 2019). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxbpfcr.12 Ann-Janine Morey, "The Gaze Outside the Frame," Picturing Dogs, Seeing Ourselves: Vintage American Photographs p.77-102 (Penn State University Press, 2014). https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv14gp9pj.8 Rick Perlstein (ed.), "The "Checkers Speech" (September 23, 1952)" Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents (Princeton University Press, 2008). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sg9w.12 "Nixon's dogs" picture https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/photos/nixons-dogs "Top Dogs at the White House" https://www.whitehousehistory.org/white-house-pets/top-dogs-at-the-white-house Laddie Boy picture: https://library.whitehousehistory.org/fotoweb/cache/5017/Main%20Index/Events/1603.t56d0927d.m1200.tif.pv.xHdx6j-_JGIfu6T1n.jpg Yuki picture: https://library.whitehousehistory.org/fotoweb/cache/5017/Main%20Index/Presidents/Lyndon%20B%20Johnson/1198.t578cd2a1.m1200.tif.pv.x6gXmPhumm5B2GOwx.jpg Timeline of the Watergate Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 The 18 1/2 Minute Gap: Alison Lynn and Lauren Effron, "The Watergate Tapes' Infamous 18.5 Minute Gap and Nixon Secretary's Unusual Explanation for It." ABC News. Available at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/watergate-tapes-infamous-185-minute-gap-nixons-secretarys/story?id=47926329 Photo of Rose Mary Woods, The Watergate Files, Gerald R Ford Presidential Library. Available at https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=a&zoom=2 David Kopel, "The Missing 18 1/2 Minutes: Presidential Destruction of Incriminating Evidence," Washington Post. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/the-missing-18-12-minutes-presidential-destruction-of-incriminating-evidence/ Rose Mary Woods: Francis Wilkinson, "Nixon's Real Enforcer," New York Times Magazine. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/magazine/nixons-real-enforcer.html Film Background: Sharon Waxman, "Generation X's Tricky Dick," Washington Post, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1999/08/01/generation-xs-tricky-dick/b5b70d4d-b50d-453d-b9ef-ea3af28dacac/ Dick, IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Woodward and Bernstein: Todd S. Purdum, "Three Decades Later, "Woodstein" Takes a Victory Lap," New York Times, 2005, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/politics/three-decades-later-woodstein-takes-a-victory-lap.html  

What does it mean when the Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” also known as the right to bear arms? In part 4 of our “Bill of Rights & YOU!” series, Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and students Tova Love Kaplan and Dakare Chatman interview Professor David Kopel on the right of citizens to self-defense and protection, the purpose and role of a militia, and the Constitution and the Second Amendment as anti-tyranny  documents. Livestreamed on 10/27/2020. Sign up for our next Constitutional Chat via Zoom at https://www.constitutingamerica.org

Electoral College. It is odd the way we elect the President in America. Colorado's voting right now on Prop 13 -- the National Popular Vote.  Craig's Lawyers' Lounge welcomes proponents and opponents.   First is Jesse Wegman, attorney/author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College. Jesse is also on the editorial board of the New York Times and contributed a dynamite column, The Radicalizer in Chief, which was part of the Times' Sunday Feature, End Our National Crisis.   Bernard Goldberg is a renowned 14-time Emmy winner as journalist/broadcaster for CBS News, Fox News, and HBO.  Bernie recounts when Trump called him at home just to chat about the presidency. Check out www.bernardgoldberg.com and this dynamite interview about Bernie's mother's Denver, Colorado roots.   Colorado Inside Out star David Kopel is fired up and ready to go in an election year return to Craig's Lawyers' Lounge.  David touts the benefits of voting for Colorado Props 116 and 117.  Professor Kopel is opposed though to Prop 113, the National Popular Vote, and he is not shy in telling us why.   We've got plenty of Trump-Biden debate analysis. We discuss what and who to vote for, and why. The ballot is easy for me in 2020. It's simple man. I'm not voting in 2020 for any member of Trump's party.  Our Troubadour Dave Gunders feels similarly and gives us his beautiful song titled, Simple Man. Enjoy.   Rundown- Jesse Wegman in Craig's Lawyers' Lounge - 00:01:45 Bernard Goldberg - 00:47:55 David Kopel in Craig's Lawyers' Lounge - 01:40:19 Dave Gunders - 02:30:54

The political chest-beating regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing and replacing her on the Supreme Court is unsettling, to put it mildly. Dan Sanchez says it tells us a lot about America's political future. Like everything that becomes politicized, capitalism is poorly understood by many. Kent McManigal has a concise and accurate take on the pros and cons of the free market. Have you tried to buy a gun or ammo lately? It's getting harder than Chinese arithmetic. David Kopel has a powerful historical reminder that gun control puts your life at risk in ways that may not be immediately apparent. Learn from history. Don't repeat it. Subscribe to the podcast Become a WrongThinker Patron Sponsors: Fire Steel The Staples Turner team at Patriot Home Mortgage Jeff Staples Real Estate Nicky's Wholesale Food Warehouse --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

How Federalist 37 explained the intent of the Constitutional Convention to set aside differences to create a framework for a stable American government! Actress Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and Constituting America Student Ambassadors Tova Love Kaplan and Dakare Chatman interview Professor David Kopel on Federalist Paper #37 (written by James Madison)

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. On this week’s episode we’re sharing the recap for the cases Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, about "faithless electors" and the electoral college. Those cases ask whether states can penalize or remove a presidential elector because they refused to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute who wrote a brief in support of the “faithless electors,” and Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who wrote a brief in support of the states. Hear more argument recaps on We the People and our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. This week’s episode of Live at the National Constitution Center features the argument recap of the cases asking whether President Trump must release financial records to House committees and prosecutors, and you can listen to that here. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. On this week’s episode we’re sharing the recap for the cases Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, about "faithless electors" and the electoral college. Those cases ask whether states can penalize or remove a presidential elector because they refused to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute who wrote a brief in support of the “faithless electors,” and Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who wrote a brief in support of the states. Hear more argument recaps on We the People and our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. This week’s episode of Live at the National Constitution Center features the argument recap of the cases asking whether President Trump must release financial records to House committees and prosecutors, and you can listen to that here. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

David Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute and a longtime Second Amendment scholar, attorney, and advocate joins Cam to talk about the history of the gun control movement, and why anti-gun activists are so terrified of the number of Americans exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the very first time.

It was billed as a forum on "gun violence," but it turned into an hours-long rally for gun control that highlighted the contempt many of the Democrats running for president have toward the Second Amendment. Cam breaks down the highlights (or lowlights) and talks with David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, about the constitutionality of the plans of the anti-gun candidates.

Red flag laws are aimed at getting guns away from people who are at risk of suicide or crime. David Kopel explains the due process implications of these preemptive gun seizures.Related testimony: "Red Flag Laws: Examining Guidelines for State Action." See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David Kopel on the new Red Flag LawSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stock Show kicks off, Gov. Jared Polis' first State of the State, more legislative vacancy appointees named, state GOP chair steps down. Hosted by Dominic Dezzutti and the panel includes Patricia Calhoun, David Kopel, Eric Sondermann and Natasha Gardner.

Craig takes listeners call on President Trump’s remarks on arming qualified school teachers. Then, Craig speaks with David Kopel from the Independence Institute on gun control.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Kopel joins us again to discuss firearms, gun violence, mass shootings, and whether a gun-free America is possible or desirable. Are there more mass shootings than ever before? What, if anything, can be done about them?We also discuss the differences between mass shootings and spree killings, popular gun control methods in other countries around the world, the definition of an “assault weapon,” gun storage and safety, and we debunk common myths about gun ownership.Show Notes and Further ReadingDavid B. Kopel, The Truth About Gun Control (2013)John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (2010)Other Free Thoughts episodes on guns, gun control, and the Second Amendment:“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” with David B. Kopel“The Second Amendment at the Supreme Court” with Alan Gura See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Paul Levy (Public Citizen) says the 1DCA should have placed a higher burden on defamation plaintiffs seeking identities of anonymous online reviewers in 'ZL Technologies v. Doe'; David Kopel unpacks a D.C. Circuit gun ruling striking down 'good cause' requirements for public carry permits not unlike those approved of recently by the 9th Circuit. Original airdate: July 28, 2017

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Voisine v. United States. Stephen Voisine was convicted in 2003 of assaulting a woman with whom he was in a domestic relationship--a misdemeanor violation of a Maine statute. In 2009 Voisine turned a rifle over to federal officials who were investigating him for a separate alleged crime. When investigators discovered Voisine’s 2003 misdemeanor assault, they charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it a federal crime for a person “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to “possess in or affecting commerce[] any firearm or ammunition.” In turn, a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is defined in § 921(a)(33)(A) as an offense that (1) is a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law, and (2) “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force … committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim” or by a person in a similar domestic relationship with the victim. -- Voisine challenged the § 922(g)(9) charge, arguing that under his Maine conviction offensive physical contact, as opposed to one causing bodily injury, was not a “use of physical force” and thus not a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” within the meaning of § 921(a)(33)(A). The district court rejected this argument and Voisine pled guilty on condition that he be able to appeal the court’s ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, but the Supreme Court subsequently granted Voisine’s petition for certiorari, vacated the First Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the intervening 2014 Supreme Court decision United States v. Castleman. That decision held the requirement of “physical force” satisfied, for purposes of § 922(g)(9), by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction--but it did not resolve whether a conviction with the mens rea of reckless--as under the Maine statute--would qualify. On remand, the First Circuit again rejected Voisine’s challenge and held that his Maine conviction qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” -- The Supreme Court again granted certiorari, and affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit by a vote of 6-2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that a reckless domestic assault qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that prohibits firearms possession by convicted felons under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I and II. -- To discuss the case, we have David Kopel, who is Adjunct Professor at University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.

It's been six years since the Supreme Court has ruled on a Second Amendment case. What's up with that? Plenty, it turns out. This week, Stewart speaks with two experts on the Second Amendment, law professor Adam Winkler of UCLA, and gun rights advocate David Kopel from the Cato Institute.

David Kopel joins us this week for a discussion on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the right to keep and bear firearms. Aaron and Trevor introduce the debate over gun rights in America today by asking questions: Why allow people to own guns at all? Aren’t we past that point as a civilization? Does having more guns around actually reduce crime? How many crimes each year are stopped by guns…and how many don’t occur in the first place because criminals think their victims could have guns? Is it worth the risk to have guns in the home? Are public health concerns about gun ownership well-founded? Assault weapons—what are they and why do American gun control groups want to ban them in particular? And if the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, what’s to stop an individual from owning something like a tank or a personal rocket launcher?Show Notes and Further ReadingDavid B. Kopel, The Truth About Gun Control (book)John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (book) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Home carry is good-Home carry with situational awareness is better,If you pull your gun in self defense but don't fire should you call LE or not?,All these states that move to nullify would be better served in a concerted effort,What does it mean that there is a right to "bear" guns,David Kopel on the Colorado lawsuit,In SC permitless carry is still on the table, An hour with National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea.

Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing. Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so have its guns. Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789? The debaters are Alan Dershowitz, David Kopel, Sanford Levinson, and Eugene Volokh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast discusses Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights and Policy by authors Nicholas Johnson, David Kopel, George Mocsary and Michael O'Shea. -- Firearms Law provides a comprehensive overview of the constitutional right to private firearms, the first traditional casebook on the subject, covering the history and development of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and all aspects of firearms law, policy and regulations. The book serves as a starting point for discussion of contemporary gun-law issues raised by the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that invalidated a law banning handgun possession in Washington, DC and in its 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, which extended that right to constrain state action. -- Authors Nicholas Johnson, a Professor at Fordham University School of Law, and Michael O’Shea, a Professor at Oklahoma City University School of Law, are joined by commentator Adam Winkler, a Professor at the UCLA School of Law, to discuss the book.

Coast to Coast with Robert Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams sparks a rapid-fire discussion about the new law that shields gunmakers from crime victim lawsuits, called The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. Our special guests are Josh Horowitz, Exec. Dir., the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, David Kopel, Research Dir., Independence Institute and editor-in-chief, Journal on Firearms & Public Policy and Professor Eugene Volokh from the UCLA School of Law whose blog is The Volokh Conspiracy.