Podcast appearances and mentions of Justice Thomas

Chad's got Brett Fritz, Alex Crosby, and Clay Belding in the studio and they're not holding back. Brett still believes Trump was put here for a reason and that we're watching a movie play out in real time. The central casting references, the replacements, the mask theory, all of it. Chad's defending Trump to his own crew. Clay's quietly skeptical. And Alex is just trying to get a word in. They cover Q theory, Obama's presidential library and who paid for it, Epstein files and why they fizzled, the Joan Rivers theory, vaccine patents predating COVID, Newsom fraud, Minnesota learning centers, birthright citizenship, and what Justice Thomas wrote in his 91-page dissent that nobody in the media talked about. And then Brett lands on the question that closes out Part 1 — is any of this actually getting out, or is the media just going to cover it up and bury it? Part 2 drops next week. This episode is presented by Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey and brought to you by GATR Coolers & Drinkware, Demerbox, LEER Truck Toppers, Napa Valley Olive Oil, TKO Vitality, Oakley Sunglasses, and Corning Ford.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of the most consequential terms in recent memory, and most of the coverage missed what actually matters. In this episode, constitutional scholar Kelly Shackelford breaks down the rulings that will affect your religious freedom, your elections, and your children. What did the Court actually get right, and where did they overstep? In this episode: * The 9-0 religious liberty win for a man handcuffed for preaching in a public park * The Amish vaccine case that flipped the tide on religious exemptions * The mail-in ballot ruling and why it puts the pressure back on Congress * Why the birthright citizenship decision may have been decided on the wrong legal question entirely * The "invasion doctrine," a legal pathway that could change birthright citizenship with no new law and no constitutional amendment * The trans sports ruling and what Justice Thomas actually wrote in the opinion * What's coming to the Supreme Court next term that you need to watch Kelly also explains the one thing most people miss: the Court's job is to interpret the law as written, not to fix what Congress is too cowardly to address. That distinction changes how you should be thinking about every one of these rulings. Podcast Episode 2175: Expert Reveals What You Need To Know About Recent Supreme Court Rulings | don't miss this! Listen to more episodes of the Lance Wallnau Show at lancewallnau.com/podcast

On this episode of Power and Market, Ryan, Connor, and Tho discuss the recent SCOTUS decisions as well as JD Vance's recent praise for the economic views of Alexander Hamilton.

For thirty years, Clarence Thomas has been denounced as the “cruelest justice,” a betrayer of his race, an ideologue, and the enemy of the little guy. Today, Judge Amul Thapar will demolish that caricature. Every day, Americans go to court. Invoking the Constitution, they fight for their homes, for a better education for their children, and to save their cities from violence. “Finding the right answer,” Justice Thomas has observed, “is often the least difficult problem.” What is needed is “the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism.”Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's July 2, 2026, the actual 250th anniversary of the Lee Resolution, and Frank opens by reading John Adams' letter to Abigail about the day that ought to be commemorated forevermore. Then straight into the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling, Justice Thomas's dissent, and how the 14th Amendment has been quietly repurposed into something Trumbull and Howard would not recognize. For the interview, Frank calls KrisAnne Hall in Oxford, where she has been accepted to study at Oxford's law school for the summer. She walks through her three published errors on the SCOTUS ruling, why jus soli is a doctrine of kings and conquerors, why a constitutional amendment is not happening in this generation, and why the actual fix is a simple act of Congress. She delivers Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech from March 1775 in full, and she ties the 1761 Declaratory Act to what the American colonies actually rebelled against. Callers dial in with Fourth of July memories from 1975 Boy Scout camp, the 1976 Bicentennial, and the tall ships flown over New York Harbor. Frank closes with a Vincent Collins bicentennial short and the raffle winners.

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux lays out the truth about birthright citizenship in this 1 July 2026 livestream by showing how Justice Thomas's reading of the Constitution limits it to those under full US jurisdiction, not children of temporary visitors or diplomats. He ties the post-Civil War rule to former slaves and permanent residents instead of handing automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil.GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

Peace through strength isn't just a slogan, it's exactly what's playing out in the Middle East right now. Former U.S. Senator Jim Talent joins the show to explain how American military action has shattered Iran's regional power, leaving it with little more than the threat capability of a group like the Houthis, while oil prices drop and shipping lanes stay open despite Iran's attempts to reassert leverage. Talent calls it a clear victory for the United States and credits a new coalition of allies, from the Gulf States to Israel to a disarming Iraq, for reshaping the region's future. He also weighs in on this week's Supreme Court rulings, siding with Justice Thomas's read on birthright citizenship and questioning whether the 14th Amendment was ever meant to hand automatic citizenship to children of transient foreign visitors. Strength abroad, the Constitution as written, that's the common sense conservative case Talent makes heading into America's 250th birthday. Stick around for more on the Marc Cox Morning Show. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #JimTalent #IranPolicy #PeaceThroughStrength #MiddleEastVictory #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #ClarenceThomas #ConstitutionalConservatism #America250 #TrumpAdministration #CommonSenseConservative #FamilyFaithFreedom #STLTalkRadio #971FMTalk

Hour three of the Marc Cox Morning Show tackles accountability at every level, from Washington to the Vatican to the Supreme Court. It opens with TMZ's report that Mitch McConnell was unconscious during a recent hospital emergency, reigniting the debate over aging leaders overstaying their welcome, before the Marc Cox Shortlist covers the trans-kids-in-sports fight and Josh Shapiro's push to radically reform the Supreme Court. Former U.S. Senator Jim Talent joins to explain how American strength has crippled Iran's regional power and to back Justice Thomas's read on birthright citizenship. The conversation turns to faith with JD Vance's public clash with Pope Leo over immigration and the Archdiocese of San Francisco's bankruptcy filing tied to decades of abuse claims. Kim on a Whim closes the hour with a deep dive into the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling, featuring Kayleigh McEnany's textualist breakdown and a hard look at what real immigration enforcement costs. Strength, accountability, and the rule of law, that's Hour 3 of the Marc Cox Morning Show. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #Hour3Recap #MitchMcConnell #JimTalent #IranPolicy #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #JDVance #PopeLeo #KimOnAWhim #CommonSenseConservative #FamilyFaithFreedom #STLTalkRadio #971FMTalk #RuleOfLaw Guest List: Former U.S. Senator Jim Talent (Hour 3, Segment 2)

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he covers today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this Listener Q&A episode of The Wright Report, Bryan breaks down the Supreme Court's 6-to-3 ruling striking down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, walking through Justice Thomas's sweeping dissent, Justice Kavanaugh's narrow path forward, and a full menu of options from new legislation to a Convention of States to what Bryan calls the Bukele Options. Bryan then turns to the bigger picture, laying out a blunt assessment of what a future Democrat presidency means for open borders, deportations, and the survival of the Republic, and why he says the time to make a plan is right now, not in two or ten years. Listener questions drive the rest of the episode, covering the Supreme Court's transgender sports ruling, the Communist Control Act of 1954, how conservatives can get into local races despite imperfect pasts, and whether young men can be the generation that turns the tide against Marxism in America. Plus, good news for rural America as Trump invests $500M to keep small meatpackers competitive, a South Dakota storm that took down 20 wind turbines exposes the fragility of green energy, and German researchers announce a promising compound that may slow the progression of Huntington's Disease. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32   Keywords: Bryan Dean Wright, The Wright Report, birthright citizenship, 14th Amendment, Supreme Court ruling, Justice Thomas dissent, Justice Kavanaugh, Convention of States, Bukele Options, filibuster, SAVE America Act, AOC 2028, Communist Democrats, transgender sports ruling, gender dysphoria, Communist Control Act 1954, DSA Marxists, local elections conservatives, green energy wind turbines South Dakota, solar panels inverters China, Trump meatpackers $500M, small slaughterhouses rural America, Huntington's Disease treatment, AN LE 138b compound, Wednesday Q&A, listener questions

Heritage Foundation Executive VP Derek Morgan joins Marc Cox to break down the Supreme Court decision that could reshape American government for a generation — and almost nobody is covering it. The overturning of Humphrey's Executor ends 90 years of congressional protection for the unelected bureaucrats embedded in federal agencies, and Derek has the receipts: over 90% of USAID employees donated to Democrats, and 75% of high-earning DC government workers told Rasmussen they would flat-out disobey a lawful presidential order they disagreed with. That is the deep state — and this ruling gives Trump the legal authority to start cleaning it out. Derek and Marc also tear into the birthright citizenship ruling, with Derek citing Justice Alito's extraordinary rebuke that the court has made one of the most serious mistakes in its history, and calling Justice Thomas's 93-page dissent — written in chapters — a monument to principled originalism. On court packing, Derek calls it a naked power grab. On John Roberts, he says the Chief Justice is too worried about what the DC cocktail circuit thinks. And on whether Trump could swap Roberts for Alito as Chief Justice — turns out he can't, but Marc Cox says maybe it's worth testing the waters anyway. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #DerekMorgan #HeritageFoundation #HumphreysExecutor #DeepState #SCOTUS #TrumpWins #FireAtWill #JusticeAlito #JusticeThomas #BirthrightCitizenship #14thAmendment #CourtPacking #JohnRoberts #TemporaryProtectiveStatus #DailySignal #ConservativeMissouri #StLouis #OriginalistJudges #DrainTheSwamp

Marc Cox opens Hour 3 teasing the Supreme Court decision that will reshape American government for a generation before bringing in Heritage Foundation Executive VP Derek Morgan to break it all down. The overturning of Humphrey's Executor ends 90 years of congressional insulation for unelected deep state bureaucrats — Derek drops the receipts showing over 90% of USAID employees donated to Democrats and 75% of high-paid DC government workers said they would defy a lawful presidential order. Derek and Marc also torch the birthright citizenship ruling together, with Derek citing Justice Alito's historic rebuke and calling Justice Thomas's 93-page dissent a monument to principled originalism. On court packing, it is a naked power grab. On John Roberts, he is too worried about the DC cocktail circuit. Then Dr. David Yablonsky, Medical Director of Victory Men's Health, joins in studio for Men's Health Month and publicly shames Marc Cox on air for skipping his follow-up blood work — before laying out what he calls a genuine epidemic of ground-down American men suffering from fatigue, low testosterone, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction while the Wild West of unregulated clinics peddles medications without proper screening or monitoring. Victory Men's Health's fifth flagship location in Glen Carbon is weeks from opening. Kim on a Whim closes the hour with a flag freedom showdown — UK citizens getting fined thousands for flying their flag wrong while Marc Cox replaces his American flag with a Trump flag just to spite his HOA Karen neighbor, and the duo walks through proper American flag code ahead of July 4th. Hour 3 Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #Hour3 #DerekMorgan #HeritageFoundation #HumphreysExecutor #DeepState #TrumpWins #JusticeAlito #JusticeThomas #BirthrightCitizenship #DrDavidYablonsky #VictoryMensHealth #MensHealth #MedicalWeightLoss #KimOnAWhim #AmericanFlag #July4th #PatriotismMatters #TrumpFlag #ConservativeMissouri #StLouis Hour 3 Guest List: Derek Morgan — Heritage Foundation Executive VP breaking down Humphrey's Executor gutting the deep state and the birthright citizenship dissents of Justices Alito and Thomas Dr. David Yablonsky — Victory Men's Health Medical Director on the male health epidemic, medical weight loss protocols, and the Wild West of unregulated men's clinics

Joe Biden getting heckled by members of his own party while he mumbles and stumbles giving a speech in Maryland this weekend! Jillian Michael says democrat party is unrecognizable. Manchin responds to being told 62% of Democrats now prefer socialism over capitalism. Black pastor calls Justice Thomas "Uncle Thomas." Supreme Court allows counting some mail in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Birthright citizenship case: what's the constitutional interpretation? #joebiden #supremecourt #illegalimmigration #scotus #trump #socialism

The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any redress if government officials literally throw your rights into a trash can. We then turn to United States v. Hemani, where the Court found that a federal law barring gun possession by unlawful drug users violated the Second Amendment and revealed that some of the Justices are surprisingly open-minded about marijuana's role in American society. Key Topics[00:07:07] - Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections[00:08:02] - The facts of Landor's case and the prison's decision to ignore prior religious-hair protections[00:10:52] - RFRA, RLUIPA, and the path from Employment Division v. Smith to modern religious-liberty litigation[00:14:54] - The Spending Clause theory behind federal funding conditions and why the remedy question matters[00:19:54] - The majority's reasoning: why money-damages suits against officials were held unconstitutional here[00:21:33] - Sabri, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the debate over third-party liability[00:26:04] - The parade of horribles: transgender sports, vaccines, and other funding-condition hypotheticals[00:33:03] - The constitutional background: “general welfare,” the spending clause, and the comma-versus-semicolon debate[00:38:49] - Why the Court granted the case and whether the facts pushed the legal outcome[00:42:13] - Hemani and the federal statute banning gun possession by unlawful drug users[00:44:05] - Historical analogies, habitual drunkards, and how Bruen and Rahimi are functioning together[00:47:17] - Discussion of the Court's analogical method and its practical limits in lower courts[00:54:26] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on jurisdictional hooks after Lopez[00:55:31] - Justice Jackson's concurrence on Bruen and Justice Alito's surprising marijuana comparison[00:57:51] - The real-world use of marijuana versus alcohol at the founding, and why the analogy is controversialRelevant LinksDivided Argument: https://www.dividedargument.com/Podcast merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/Podcast commentary and blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/RLUIPA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rluipaRFRA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religious_freedom_restoration_actDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/554/570New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/597/1United States v. Rahimi (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/602/230South Dakota v. Dole (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/203Sabri v. United States (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/541/600

Justice Thomas's Hēmāni concurrence may signal the next major Second Amendment battle. Mark Walters explains 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), prohibited persons, the Commerce Clause, and what every gun owner needs to know about the future of federal firearms law.

Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 295 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court ruling, Second Amendment, marijuana prohibition, gun rights, NRA, ACLU, Justice Thomas, Commerce Clause, firearm regulation, self-defense, Bruen framework, gun violence, international gun laws, warning shots, New Jersey gun law. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, just now we just got word of the Supreme Court handing down the ruling in the Hemani case, and this is really quite a startling win. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Not necessarily because it was a win, but because it was a unanimous win! What we have is the U.S. Supreme Court in a nine to zero opinion essentially determining the unconstitutionality of marijuana creating a gun prohibitor under federal law. So, for these years you’ve had issues, and we’ve talked about it on the show, where folks that had even a medical marijuana weed card, or they used, or they had any kind of history of prior possession/conviction for misdemeanor marijuana. All that has caused just a lot of folks to not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In the past, we actually coined the term from the show, “Bang or Bong, you can’t have both”. Because of how they, they being the Government, how the Government was interpreting this. To the degree where federal dealers were issued memoranda from ATF telling them that they could not sell to these folks that admitted to using all this regarding marijuana and laid out this as enforceable prohibition. Evan Nappen 02:15 And by the way, this is also the thing that Hunter Biden was prosecuted for. Hunter Biden’s gun case is essentially this issue as well. So, we’re happy to say, and not necessarily for any reason because of Hunter Biden, but because it is a win for the Second Amendment. To see a unanimous decision. Let that sink in, folks. Every judge on the Supreme Court agreeing with an enforcement of the Second Amendment. Just that alone, regardless of the issue, is really great to see. Just that. Here there were interesting bed fellows, as they say. We had the lawsuit challenge, etc., the legal action, joined the NRA and the ACLU on the same side. So, we had both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side arguing for this. To not prohibit individuals from Second Amendment rights. So, this is very significant, and it’s interesting. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:39 Judge Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. In the facts of this case, Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, and because of that the Government claimed that he’s automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Hemani admitted that he owns a gun, despite the ban, the Government was now seeking to prosecute him. To imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. This case here posed that question, whether the Government’s prosecution of Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment. A unanimous decision found that it was not consistent with the Second Amendment. So, Teddy, what do you think about this decision? Teddy Nappen 04:40 Well, for me, as soon as this case came out, I had to look. What did Judge Thomas say? Because he’s the funniest of them all. Evan Nappen 04:49 Well, that’s true. Teddy Nappen 04:50 I had to go right to his opinion. And of course, Justice Thomas, being the greatest justice to have ever lived, and the fact that he is an originalist to perfection. Of course, he said we did not go far enough! Particularly, and I love how he writes this. “I agree with the Court that 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join it’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents . . .” It appears to exceed Congressional enumerated power and regulate interstate commerce. He attacks the commerce clause throughout this. He even highlights the fact that the Government, if the firearms possession by the drug user had previously traveled through interstate commerce, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or cross state lines. He cites Alderman. His dissent is on the denial of certiorari, where this conversion of congressional authority under the commerce clause to a general police power is sort retained by the states. Evan Nappen 06:12 You see, this is really important, Teddy. Because what Judge Thomas is doing there is he’s going beyond. He’s looking at the power grab, the overreach of the power of interstate commerce. And ever since the expansion of that Wickard versus Filburn. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) Ever since the expansion of that, it basically empowered the Government, the federal Government, to do anything it wants, as long as they can make some tenuous argument that it somehow affects interstate commerce. And I’m really glad to see that he’s out there, at least as a voice trying to pull back that insane power grab that occurred back under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Nappen 06:58 As you’re reading through his opinion, too, he takes a bat directly to the congressional authority. He bashes the commerce clause directly of how. How is it that something travels, like, how does that fall Page – 3 – of 12 under interstate commerce when it’s not traveling between the states? He is going at it hard, outlining each bit case by case, showing the abuse by it. He even highlights how, I love this line, the gun possession statute issues in Lopez is not a regulation of economic activity, but a law to combat “crime and violence”, even at the local level. Literally calls it out. How is this economic activity when you’re just doing this for regulating crime? Evan Nappen 07:48 Oh yeah. Well, you know, in the decision, this is very interesting, they, they being the Court, outline their ruling, and why. And I think you’ll find it very interesting here, where they talk about that Mr. Hemani. He admitted his use of marijuana, and he knowingly possessed the gun in his home, being an “unlawful user of the substance”. And if you look at that, it seems to fit exactly what the law is prohibiting. And what the actual holding of the Supreme Court held that the Government’s prosecution of Hermani under 922 unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. And here in the holding it actually says the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, but they had that in quotes to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. So, there’s even an affirmation of the right to self-defense. They are citing Heller with that. Evan Nappen 09:15 Though, like most individual rights, it has its limits to determine when the Government infringes on the Second Amendment. The court begins by asking whether the amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects it. That’s citing Bruen. To overcome the presumption, the Government bears the burden. The Government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, and the burden is on the Government to have to show it. The Government need not point to a historical twin or precise historical precursor that’s from Rahimi, that’s the Rahimi case. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government may reason by analogy. This is where the battle comes in, in our fight for our Second Amendment rights Evan Nappen 10:35 Now, it says further, the Government accepts this framework, and they proceeded to argue from it. So, this is very exciting in terms of the test being applied. The court looking at the Government’s argument of traditional habitual drunkards losing their rights, and the court, through the opinion, just absolutely distinguishes between this marijuana ban and historical precedent concerning habitual drunkards. Then they also put into play about the decision being narrow. And here’s where, Teddy, what you just said about Justice Thomas, he wants it to be broad. But the decision itself says it’s narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm. Then it also talks about whether individuals convicted of felonies could be prosecuted. So, they tried to contain it narrowly. But if you step back and just look at the big picture in regards to a nine to zero opinion on a gun rights issue, that to me is probably the most outstanding thing about it. We got the whole Court on board. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:21 I will say, if you go to Jackson’s “concurrent opinion”, she doesn’t even talk about the case. She literally spends the entire thing bashing Bruen. I was reading through it, and she literally just spends the entire thing in full. She says I write to emphasize my scrutiny. The court applies to the, we adopted Bruen be his “history and tradition metric”, which more rational way of assessing the Constituent’s regulations. Bruen is unworkable, and it creates such a vulnerability of inconsistent, arbitrary application. Oh, like most gun laws? Evan Nappen 13:01 Yeah. Well, keep in mind the politics here. She’s purposely trying to attack Thomas over Bruen. And yet, what she can’t stand is that she’s ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. But in so doing, it means that Bruen is being empowered here. She’s like the computer on Star Trek. She’s going to explode that it’s now affecting the issue of marijuana, and the ACLU is on this side. Yet, how could she actually use, you know, Thomas’s brilliance here, even though it’s what she believes is the right thing to do, but can’t give credit. So, it’s like, you know, she’s just exploding over it. But she still has to side with the full unanimous majority, and that’s why it is that astounding. Because even a justice like her, who is so blatantly politically and hardly viewed as an educated jurist here by comparison to so many of the others on the Court. This is what you see happen. So, it’s pretty good there. Evan Nappen 15:19 Like applying the Constitution instead of, “It’s a living document”, which it isn’t, and start applying that whole. Teddy Nappen 15:41 Fine, just no, just no, fine, fine. No 19th Amendment, got it. Like it’s so ridiculous. So, they only apply it when they choose to. Evan Nappen 15:53 Hey, but even with all that said. It was still nine to zero, in favor of 2A. So, for that we can be happy to see. And of course, we’re now waiting for Wolford, and that is a “sensitive places” decision, which should also be very interesting on how they rule on “sensitive places”. Teddy Nappen 16:14 Do you remember the commemorative for the Heller? The revolver they did. Evan Nappen 16:19 Yes, I have one. Teddy Nappen 16:21 I want, whoever is the top AR maker, I want them to do a commemorative to the case when we finally get the constitutionality on the assault weapon ban, and finally getting those removed. That would be awesome. Like, just seeing that. Who do you think would be making that? Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 16:39 Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of guns. Well, you know, that’s funny. You know I have that Smith & Wesson when Heller came out. Teddy Nappen 16:47 Yeah. Evan Nappen 16:47 And Smith did a limited run of the 38 J-frame Smith and Wessons, and they are engraved on the side with the Heller decision and scales and all. It’s a pretty cool gun, and they came out with it pretty fast, right after the Heller decision. But I actually got Dick Heller himself, the Heller of the Heller decision, to sign the gun. So, I have a Heller commemorative Smith signed by Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 17:23 Don’t you have one for McDonald too, as well? I could have sworn there was a commemorative for that also. Evan Nappen 17:30 Yeah, yeah. I do, yeah. McDonald. But I also have a very collectible commemorative knife, Teddy. It’s a full kitchen knife, and it’s actually signed by Bobbitt. Remember the Bobbitt case? I have a knife that is signed by John Bobbitt there. And what he wrote on the knife, in addition to his name, he wrote “always sleep on your stomach”. Pretty good. Always sleep on your stomach, you know. Signed by Bobbitt. So, it’s a big kitchen butcher-style knife, a big chef’s knife. It’s definitely a great collectible. Teddy Nappen 18:18 I wanted him to write “Mr. Happy Went Missing” from the Weird Al. Mr. Happy. Evan Nappen 18:33 But he wrote: always sleep on your stomach. Okay, if anyone could give that advice, I guess it’s him. So, yeah, well, getting these things signed. Well, Dick Heller signed the gun, Bobbit signed the knife, and I’m not.. Forget it. I’m not going, not doing it, not doing it. So, hey, by the way, Teddy, where’s our favorite ranger that we shoot at? Come on. Teddy Nappen 19:07 Of course it’s We Shoot, obviously. Evan Nappen 19:09 That’s right, we do. We go there. We have a blast, and so will you. WeShoot is an indoor range right in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s conveniently right off the Parkway. A beautiful facility, top of the line, modern. A great place. Great training, great pro shop, great people. It’s where we got our certifications for our carry, our CCARE certifications, and other training as well. You need to check out WeShoot, WeShoot. It’s at wewhootusa.com. Their website is really great. They have beautiful photographs, and they pride themselves in their photography. Make sure you also check out the WeShoot girls. They always have fantastic firearms that they are displaying. And there are sales and specials and deals. Page – 6 – of 12 WeShoot is just great. So, check out weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It’s a superb resource, you know. We/ve got to really use and protect our ranges, especially in New Jersey, where it’s so crowded and it’s tough to find really great places to shoot. But WeShoot is there filling an important need in protecting our rights. What good is having a gun if you can’t shoot it, man? So, check out weshoot usa.com. Evan Nappen 20:52 Also, I want to shamelessly promote my book on New Jersey gun law, which, by the way, is called New Jersey Gun Law. You can find it at EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the guidebook, the key resource to helping you not become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pride in that, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Those that have it know its value. It’s designed as your easy-to-use reference to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com. EvanNappen.com. Get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, I know that you have Press Checks, and I think there’s a pretty fascinating Press Check story that you are going to share with us. What is this story? Tell me. Teddy Nappen 21:58 Well, we got our first from. Again, Press Checks are always free. This is from “Not the Bee.com”, Joel Abbott. (https://notthebee.com/article/babe-wake-up-british-tourists-are-starting-to-appreciate-the-second-amendment-?from_social=twitter) So, everyone’s been seeing the World Cup. I don’t typically follow soccer or anything on that, but you see all the Europeans coming in. I love that video of the Japanese tourist who brought trash bags and picked up their trash after their game. Evan Nappen 22:25 They’re very conscientious. That’s very, very good. Teddy Nappen 22:28 I know, as opposed to the Knicks fans who decided to burn down a bus, but whatever. Evan Nappen 22:34 Hey, listen. Mom would approve of the trash bag thing, you know that. Teddy Nappen 22:38 Oh, I know. Evan Nappen 22:40 Even just at our house, if we did that. Teddy Nappen 22:43 And the recycling. Can’t forget about that. Evan Nappen 22:44 That, too. Page – 7 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 22:46 But the one thing that seems to be catching on, because you have all the vloggers and people coming to want to experience America as they’re going to see. They’ve been going to gun ranges and to rent a gun places. Evan Nappen 23:00 I know. Isn’t that great? Teddy Nappen 23:01 They’re appreciating our Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 23:03 It’s actually spreading the understanding to these disarmed, oppressed peoples, and they’re suddenly seeing the light. Particularly, we see the UK folks. They’re like, wait a minute. How did we lose this right? Teddy Nappen 23:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 23:20 How did this happen? Teddy Nappen 23:22 And it’s very interesting. It’s almost like those videos you always see where it’s the liberals going to the range, and they actually like, oh my right, yeah, you see all these people like, why were they’re waiting for, like, wait, you guys can just do this? They’re always shocked and awe from everything. But one in particular, this was a British guy, Spencer Towering. He does videos. We’ve been totally pacified in the U.K. through the removal of our arms, our right to bear arms. It’s caused a big problem for us. Now our Government is basically turning it into an absolute, tyrannical feminine leadership that is gradually eroding our rights, and there’s really not much we can do about it. Well, there’s one thing you can do. You know, just kind of look to the founding of our nation, and then get some ideas. Or they could look to the risings in Scotland, and try not to, you know, go with, try to not to put the Bonnie Prince on the throne. It didn’t work. Evan Nappen 24:22 You know, the British even went after an IT consultant. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:29 Because he posed with a gun in the U.S. and posted it on LinkedIn. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 24:34 Yep, just for posing with it. Evan Nappen 24:36 For posint with a shotgun, an 870 shotgun. Teddy Nappen 24:40 Yep. Thirteen weeks of hell he went through for sharing a photo of something that wasn’t even taken in the U.K. This is why. Evan Nappen 24:54 This was pointed out by “Not the Bee”. So, “Not the Bee is a pretty cool aggregate on news sources. And this is. Teddy Nappen 25:06 Frankly, far funnier than the article. Evan Nappen 25:09 “Not the Bee” is real stuff that you can’t believe is actually true when it is. As opposed to the “Babylon Bee”, which is parody. “Not the Bee” has real stories in it that you think should be fake, but they’re not. It’s like unbelievable. But this one here is not as outrageous, to be honest, because this is what makes it so great about having rights, you know, and why we got to protect them. We see what it’s like for the folks that live in countries that they claim to make believe are free when they’re not. I mean, we’re still fighting for freedom here, but I mean to think that, you know, claim England is free. The U.K. is free? That’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 26:00 I’ll point it to you right now. The two you always hyped. I’ve got to highlight this to people all the time. Literally, arresting a woman for thought crime. Evan Nappen 26:09 Right! Teddy Nappen 26:09 Arresting a young girl for fighting off a pedophile with an ax and a knife. Going after her. Proven, by the way, that was another article that came out where he was in fact trying to go after minors. He had two prior accounts. But let’s just say the Labor Party didn’t want to mention that part. And the final bit, and I saw this one. For every officer, they’ve arrested like 20, done 20 arrests for hate speech online, whichever, whatever they make up. Like it’s they’re done. They are so gone. Evan Nappen 26:34 It’s a shame, the formerly Great Britain. But maybe this kind of experience of them seeing America and what it’s about. Not just from a slanted media, but from actually coming here and experiencing America. I mean, just in terms of brisket sandwiches that they’re going crazy for. American food. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 27:11 Even that, like just going into Europe. Anyone ever gone to Europe? You turn on the news, and imagine your only news station was CNN and MSNBC. That’s it. Yeah, that is all they have. They have the state-run everything and news networks. There is no alternative voice. There’s no alternative tech. They ban Rumble and other outlets. So, they can just control the media, and this is what it leads to. Just authoritarian states. Evan Nappen 27:35 It’s crazy. So, I was looking at this, and you also indicated to me about kind of a crazy international story, Teddy, Teddy Nappen 27:56 Yes. Let’s just say, you know, at times like this, you should buy a holster. This was in Brazil, where a female suspect, when she was stopped by the military police from Goaz, carried out a body search. Evan Nappen 28:17 Now, this is in Brazil, right? Teddy Nappen 28:19 In Brazil Evan Nappen 28:19 In Brazil. And this is an actual story that is from a “legitimate” news source, right? What’s the source? Teddy Nappen 28:28 Yeah, it’s right from the Daily Star. (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/moment-female-suspect-pulls-loaded-37287603) Evan Nappen 28:31 Yeah, okay, and they even have video. They’re showing reports. So, this is actually legit. This is not a parody or a joke? What happened here with the woman? Teddy Nappen 28:42 The officers located the pair, carried out a stop and search. They showed the armed passengers struggling to remove the firearm from inside her “intimate area”. Physically trying to pull out a loaded pistol from her vagina. Evan Nappen 28:58 And Teddy, this is not small. They show the gun, and it’s the actual firearm, folks. This is the gun, and they even name the gun, a Taurus 92. That is essentially the Beretta M9, you know, but made by Taurus, a Taurus 92. Basically that 15 to 17 shot, depending on the size of your mag, and that you don’t live in New Jersey. A full size Taurus 92. Or also our military carry gun until the SIG replaced it of the Beretta M9. That full size nine. She pulled it out. How did she? Ouch! Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 29:51 You know, I don’t even know how that happened. I don’t think Taurus and Victoria Secret should have partnered up for the Victoria concealed. Evan Nappen 30:02 And I think they mentioned that it got stuck. It was stuck. Teddy Nappen 30:05 Yes, it was stuck. Evan Nappen 30:07 It was stuck, and I can imagine why it was stuck, considering the size of a Taurus slash Beretta 92. Teddy Nappen 30:15 Yeah. Evan Nappen 30:15 And it was loaded as well. Teddy Nappen 30:18 What she should have done was got some rem oil, and that would have helped solve it. Evan Nappen 30:22 Well, you know, New Jersey has a requirement for your holster to have to cover the trigger guard and the frame and all that. Technically, she might actually have been in compliance if she was under New Jersey gun law, given the requirements for a holster. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen 30:41 Well, it has to cover the majority of the firearm and the trigger. So. Evan Nappen 30:49 I mean, this was pretty crazy. Teddy Nappen 30:53 Yeah, pretty crazy. Evan Nappen 30:54 But it makes sense in Brazil that there would be a Taurus, since they’re made in Brazil. So, those would be a Brazilian gun. Teddy Nappen 30:56 You know, I’ll give Taurus credit for the gorilla ad campaign that they. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 31:06 Well, Taurus makes other guns, like the Judge. You know, the Judge, the Raging Bull. She didn’t do a Raging Bull. At least she didn’t do the Raging Bull. I mean, it’s bad enough with the Taurus 92. Teddy Nappen 31:21 It might have been easier with a Public Defender, to be honest. Evan Nappen 31:24 Right. That’s what she’s gonna need now. After putting a Taurus, being caught with a Taurus 92 there carrying, carrying illegally, no less inappropriately. Now, she’s going to need a public defender to defend her possession of a Taurus. Teddy Nappen 31:43 and a gynecologist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Uhuh, maybe she could call the consulate. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. That’s a crazy, crazy story. But hey. You know, just think if she had a North American Arms mini revolver or something, that you know, but a Taurus 92. Oh man. Teddy Nappen 32:05 I love the mindset of like, okay, this is a good idea, right? Just on the impracticality of like, okay, if I’m ever like, you know, the deal goes bad, and I need to draw this quickly. Evan Nappen 32:25 I don’t know what. Yeah, where? And then if she was hiding it up there, why did she surrender to the police when she was hiding it? If that was hidden, I mean, do they? I don’t think. Teddy Nappen 32:39 I think at that point she was just looking for the excuse, because it was probably just had enough. Evan Nappen 32:44 This just has got to go. Here, just take it, take it. Oh boy. Well, Teddy, that is definitely something to consider in the news on carry, carry news, in terms of method. Now, we have the GOFU, which is a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Now, I think this last, the last story might qualify as a GOFU, but we need to bring it down to a little bit more of a commonality of things that often happen, and that we often see. That are mistakes made. Teddy Nappen 33:27 Too many times. Evan Nappen 33:28 Too many times. One of the things we want to really be clear as to a GOFU here is the warning shot. Warning shots are basically mythology. You should not be firing warning shots, because the firing of a Page – 12 – of 12 gun is essentially what’s construed as the use of deadly force. If you’re using deadly force, you have got to be justified in using deadly force. So, we do not in any way recommend the warning shot. In New Jersey, the discharge of the firearm without lawful purpose is an automatic virtual per se felony, as Murphy’s new law has declared it essentially. So, you have the discharge law. Then you have the issues of undercutting your own arguments for use of force. If it was a threat that was justified in using deadly force, why are you firing your firearm without using it to stop the deadly force? Where you feel you can fire it as simply a warning, is it that imminent danger, or is it not that imminent? There’s just so many downsides and negatives to warning shots. Evan Nappen 34:59 Plus where is the round going? There are cases where you hear, “oh, it was a warning shot, and that’s why I hit them. You’re trying to excuse either the bad aim or whatever under some guys, a warning shot, not a good idea. So, make sure you get your training. Make sure you learn the rules on the use of deadly force. It’s critical that you do that. You can really get jammed up if you don’t understand that dynamic. It’s critical, and it is often not intuitive because of how bad these things are shown on television all the time. Television is not a good education source for learning when you can and can’t use deadly force. If we’re talking about made-for-TV dramas and TV shows and movies, and all that, not a good idea to learn your gun law from there. Evan Nappen 36:04 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 36:14 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E295_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This Day in Legal History: The End of Roosevelt's Hundred DaysOn this day in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt signed three pieces of legislation that closed out what the country has been calling the Hundred Days ever since: the Banking Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Farm Credit Act, with the Home Owners' Loan Act having been signed three days earlier. The Banking Act of 1933 is the one most lawyers know, because the popular name attached to it — Glass-Steagall — has been doing rhetorical work in financial-regulation debates for ninety-three years.Carter Glass of Virginia and Henry Steagall of Alabama, the Senate Banking chair and the House Banking chair respectively, built the statute around two structural propositions: that commercial banks should be separated from investment banking and the speculative securities business that had helped pull the country into the Great Depression, and that depositors at member banks should be protected by a federal deposit insurance scheme so that a panic at one bank did not become a panic everywhere.The deposit insurance piece became the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The separation piece was the part that got partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and then revisited in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The National Industrial Recovery Act, signed the same day, set up the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration and was meant to coordinate industry-wide codes of fair competition; the Supreme Court struck the centerpiece codes provision down two years later in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935 on nondelegation and Commerce Clause grounds, an opinion that nearly killed the early New Deal and prompted Roosevelt's court-packing plan two years after that. The Farm Credit Act consolidated and refinanced the agricultural lending system that the Great Depression had taken to the brink.The legal point worth remembering is that this last day of the Hundred Days was, in retrospect, the moment the federal regulatory state of the twentieth century stopped being a collection of post-Civil-War commissions and started being the integrated structure of agencies, deposit-insurance funds, securities oversight, labor regulation, and welfare administration that the country has lived inside ever since. The fact that the Schechter Court was waiting in the wings to strike down the most ambitious piece of that day's work is part of the lesson. The constitutional question of how much economic ordering a Congress and a President can do at once was not answered on June 16, 1933 — it was framed.The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a free-speech challenge brought by the parents of an Indiana high-school student whose school district had refused to let her post flyers for her student-run anti-abortion club on classroom and hallway walls. The student, identified in court papers by initials because she was a minor when the case was filed, had been the founder of Noblesville High School's Students for Life chapter. The flyers she wanted posted featured images of demonstrators holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. Noblesville Schools removed the flyers under a district policy giving administrators content-based authority over student materials displayed on school property, and the parents sued under the First Amendment.The Southern District of Indiana sided with the district in 2024, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2025, both applying Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 case that lets public schools regulate the content of school-sponsored expressive activities if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The cert denial leaves Hazelwood intact in the Seventh Circuit and everywhere else.The piece worth flagging is Justice Alito's dissent from denial, joined by Justice Thomas, which urged the Court to grant review and use the case to revisit Hazelwood's framework. The dissent argues that Hazelwood was wrongly decided to the extent that it lets schools draw viewpoint-based lines under the cover of pedagogical-concern review, and that the doctrinal distinction Hazelwood draws between school-sponsored speech and Tinker-style independent student speech has become unworkable in the age of student clubs, distributed school messaging, and post-Mahanoy off-campus speech. Two votes are not five votes. But two votes naming a case as the vehicle they wanted are how the next decade of student-speech cases gets queued up. The Court has now told litigants what kind of vehicle it might be looking for. Expect a steady drumbeat of cert petitions teeing up the Hazelwood revisit over the next several terms.US Supreme Court turns away free speech claim by anti-abortion student | Reuters via Maryland Daily RecordThe Supreme Court also turned away on Monday the National Shooting Sports Foundation's challenge to New York's General Business Law § 898, the public-nuisance statute the New York legislature passed in 2021 to let the state and certain private plaintiffs sue firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for endangering the public through the marketing and distribution of their products.The challenge was supported by Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, and Sig Sauer, and went up on appeal from a 2024 Second Circuit decision that held the New York statute is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal statute that broadly immunizes the gun industry from civil liability arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.The Second Circuit reasoned that the PLCAA's “predicate exception” — which preserves state-law claims when the firearms industry has violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms — covers a state public-nuisance statute that, by its terms, regulates the sale and marketing of firearms. The cert denial leaves the Second Circuit's reading in place, leaves New York's statute on the books and enforceable, and leaves the industry with a litigation exposure it had hoped to neutralize.The strategic part of the case is going to be the copycat statutes. California, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, and Hawaii have all enacted versions of the New York approach since 2021, and other states have similar bills in committee. Each of those statutes is going to invite its own PLCAA-preemption fight in its own circuit, and the cumulative jurisprudence is going to get built case by case until either Congress amends PLCAA or the Court decides one of these cases is the right vehicle to step in. Today's denial was not that vehicle.SCOTUS Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gunmakers | The Daily SignalThe third notable cert denial on Monday was the end of the road for Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in its long-running trade-secret fight with DXC Technology — the successor in interest to Computer Sciences Corporation. TCS had asked the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision that affirmed a $168 million judgment against it for misappropriating CSC's life-insurance-administration software trade secrets and using them to build TCS's own BaNCS platform, which TCS then used to win a $2.6 billion contract with the insurer Transamerica.The Northern District of Texas verdict, returned in 2022, had been $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitives, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the punitives ratio in 2025 over TCS's BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell challenge to the proportionality of the punitive award and over its Defend Trade Secrets Act extraterritoriality arguments. The cert petition pressed both points and pressed a circuit split on the standard for proving misappropriation by an independent contractor that had been given access to source code under a nondisclosure agreement, but the Court declined.The practical immediate effect is that TCS will recognize a roughly $70 million one-time exceptional charge in Q1 of its 2027 fiscal year and the total exposure on the matter — combining the affirmed judgment with previously taken provisions — settles in around $220 million. The broader effect is doctrinal stability. The Fifth Circuit's analysis on cross-border trade-secret damages and on the extraterritoriality limits of the DTSA stand. Both questions are going to recur, and the next vehicle that brings them up may catch the Court in a different mood, but for now the law is what the Fifth Circuit said it was.US Supreme Court rejects TCS challenge in $168 million trade secrets case | Business Standard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist and Fox News Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court Trump vs. the Media Mollie Hemingway’s Federalist ArticlesThe post Supreme Court Justice Thomas Alito – Mollie Hemingway, 6/12/26 (1632) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence.Key Topics[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas's dissent and the critique of selective error correction[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction[00:27:24] - The Court's restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

This Day in Legal History: Congress Repeals the Gold ClauseOn this day in 1933, Congress passed the Joint Resolution that voided the gold clauses written into nearly every long-term contract and bond obligation in the United States, both public and private. The resolution declared that any provision purporting to require payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency” was “against public policy,” and that obligations could be discharged dollar for dollar in whatever legal tender currency was in force at the time of payment. It was a remarkable act of legislative power: a one-paragraph statute that rewrote the payment terms of millions of existing contracts overnight, in the middle of the Great Depression, to make Franklin Roosevelt's recent abandonment of the gold standard actually stick. The Supreme Court took up the inevitable challenge two years later in the Gold Clause Cases — Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio, Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States — and in February 1935 it upheld the resolution as applied to private contracts by a 5-4 vote, while telling the United States, in Perry, that it had violated its own contractual word in repudiating gold-payment promises on government bonds, but that the bondholder had suffered no compensable injury. The doctrinal residue of that compromise is still with us: Congress can use its monetary powers to alter private contract terms retroactively when monetary policy requires it, the rule that has quietly underwritten every major monetary intervention since, from Bretton Woods to the post-2008 emergency lending programs. June 5 is not a day most lawyers mark on the calendar, but the resolution Congress passed on this date is one of the cleanest examples in American law of a legislature using its enumerated powers to dissolve a contract term that had been considered, until that moment, untouchable.The Supreme Court on Thursday handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals — and the entire generic drug industry — a 9-0 win in a case that had been hanging over the so-called “skinny label” pathway for years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., held that Amarin, the maker of the brand-name fish-oil drug Vascepa, had not plausibly alleged that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's patents covering a still-patented cardiovascular use of the drug. The skinny label is a feature of Hatch-Waxman generic-drug law that lets a generic manufacturer copy only the unpatented uses of a brand drug by literally carving the patented uses out of its FDA-approved label, which is supposed to let cheaper generics reach the market for the unpatented indications even while patents on other indications are still in force. Brand companies have been trying for years to sue around that carve-out under the active inducement statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by pointing to generic press releases, marketing language, or website descriptions and arguing that doctors could read those statements as encouragement to prescribe the generic for the still-patented use. The Federal Circuit had bought a version of that argument and revived Amarin's case. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, and the test that Justice Jackson articulated is meaningful: the question is not how doctors might interpret what a generic manufacturer said, but whether the manufacturer itself actively encouraged the infringing use. Neutral statements that could be read as instructions to infringe do not count. The practical effect is to shore up the skinny label pathway and make it harder for brand companies to weaponize induced infringement against generic competition. The decision was originally framed as a pharmaceutical-industry case, but its inducement standard will reach across patent law generally and into every industry where § 271(b) gets litigated.It's unanimous: SCOTUS agrees with Hikma in ‘skinny label' case vs. Amarin | Fierce PharmaAlso unanimous on Thursday: the Supreme Court in Sripetch v. SEC held that the Securities and Exchange Commission can obtain disgorgement of a wrongdoer's ill-gotten gains without having to prove that any individual investor lost money. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 9-0 Court, which is itself a small surprise given the Court's recent pattern of skepticism toward broad SEC remedial powers. The case came out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme that Ongkaruck Sripetch ran across some 20 small companies — buy shares quietly, promote them aggressively, sell into the bubble — and the SEC won an order requiring him to disgorge roughly $3 million. Sripetch's argument on appeal was that disgorgement is supposed to be tied to investor harm, that the SEC had not shown specific pecuniary losses traceable to him, and that the order was therefore not the kind of equitable relief the Court approved in its 2020 Liu v. SEC decision. The Court disagreed, on traditional equity principles: disgorgement, the Court explained, is measured by the defendant's unjust gain, not the plaintiff's quantified loss, and equity has always been willing to strip a wrongdoer of profit even when the victim cannot mathematically prove harm. The practical importance for the SEC is enormous — the agency reports collecting roughly $1.4 billion in disgorgement in fiscal 2025 alone, and a contrary ruling would have forced the SEC into an evidentiary burden that pump-and-dump and insider-trading cases are notoriously bad at supplying. The opinion is also a reminder that the Court's recent administrative-state skepticism is not all in one direction: when the question is grounded in old equity doctrine, the same justices who narrowed SEC adjudication in Jarkesy are willing to leave the agency's remedial toolkit intact.US Supreme Court Backs SEC in Fight Over ‘Disgorgement' Power | US NewsThe third and most constitutionally significant of Thursday's rulings was FCC v. AT&T, in which the Supreme Court upheld 8-1 the Federal Communications Commission's longstanding practice of imposing forfeiture penalties on regulated carriers through its own in-house process, without first giving the carrier a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. The case grew out of the FCC's headline-making fines against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint for selling access to real-time customer location data to third parties without consent — fines that ran nearly $200 million across the four carriers, with AT&T's portion at $57 million and Verizon's at $46.9 million. The carriers challenged the fines on Seventh Amendment grounds, arguing that the Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy — which struck down the SEC's in-house adjudication of securities-fraud penalties as a violation of the jury-trial right — should reach FCC forfeitures too. The Court said no, on a structural distinction that matters: an FCC forfeiture order is not self-executing. The FCC cannot collect on its own. If a carrier refuses to pay, the matter is referred to the Justice Department, which then has to file a civil action in federal district court — a proceeding in which the carrier is entitled to a full jury trial and the government has to prove the violation de novo, with no deference to the FCC's findings. That collection-stage jury trial, Roberts wrote, is enough to satisfy the Seventh Amendment, even though the agency itself first issues the penalty. Justice Thomas's dissent argued the in-house process is no less coercive than the SEC adjudication the Court rejected in Jarkesy and would have extended Jarkesy here. The practical takeaway: agency in-house penalty proceedings survive after Jarkesy if there is a real, downstream jury-trial backstop. Expect every regulator with a similar two-step enforcement structure to point to this opinion the next time someone tries to push Jarkesy further.Court rules against cell service providers over right to jury trial in FCC proceedings | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Justice Thomas stated that the Comstock Act bans using the mail to ship any “drug…for producing abortion.” Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, and these switches are banned in New Jersey as well. The component is already illegal. So, trying to link Glocks to them so that they can further take away one of the most popular self-defense handguns in the world. This is their gambit. This is their gambit now to try to do that. Teddy Nappen 12:10 So, it was also interesting, is pull it was from the article. Out of the 15 FFLs that they subpoenaed, they were roughly, there was 15 of those FFLs were out of the total authorized Glock dealers. So, I’m trying to think the strategy of it. If they’re trying, if these were just the 15, were kind of like where they went after those two gun dealers and forced them to basically have to essentially declare and register every purchase or gun-related material. Are they just going for the small fish to then go after the whole? Kind of like a staff? Teddy Nappen 12:46 Out of curiosity. Could there be a constitutional challenge because there’s a federal firearms license? Could you either make the Supremacy Clause argument or just going with the idea of there shouldn’t be a state license, too? Evan Nappen 12:46 Okay. At a minimum, it’s designed to harass gun dealers. I mean, New Jersey is dedicated to that principle, given the excesses that they go to regarding being a New Jersey retail firearm dealer. I mean Page – 6 – of 14 having an FFL, that’s a federal firearm license. New Jersey also requires for a dealer to have a New Jersey retail dealer firearms license, and the retail dealer firearms license is what is managed by the state of New Jersey. And that’s where you see an incredibly excessive and additional amount of requirements, far beyond what federal law requires, designed to be a legal discouragement to being a dealer. Also, it’s been used in the past as a pretext to raid individuals that had FFLs but did not have a NJ retail dealer license. I’ve had cases on this where individuals that had a federal firearms license for Curio and Relic, collector licenses, the state alleged they were federal firearm licensees and acting as dealers, which they were not. They are collectors. And because they alleged they had a federal license, they needed a New Jersey firearm retail dealer license. They proceeded to conduct raids on the individuals that held Curio and Relic licenses. So, this is one of the risks out there. They were able to purge and merge the federal list to the state list of New Jersey retailers. Evan Nappen 14:31 Well, the problem is that the federal firearm law is expressly not preemptive. It’s designed to be the absolute minimum gun control harassment that exists throughout the entire country. And then states are invited to, you know, this was the philosophy, invited to go wild. So, you have the baseline of the federal law, which has many constitutional questions about it itself, expressly not being preemptive, and the states are left to their own devices to create whatever stricter and stricter and more harassing and more discouraging gun laws that they want to pass. And as long as those laws are somehow upheld constitutionally, they can keep on going. There is no cap. There’s no cap placed on the attack on our rights. It should exist, but doesn’t, except in a few very narrow areas where there is express preemption. Evan Nappen 16:22 One of those places where there is express preemption is Title 18 926 A for interstate transport of your guns. You can transport your guns cased, unloaded, locked, not readily accessible, etc., so that you can go through bad states in your travels. There’s areas of preemption, specifically for carry, like LEOSA, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, where retired and active law enforcement can carry, regardless of the state law that might otherwise try to prevent them from doing so. There’s actually preemption for carry. It was the original carry preemption, which a lot of people don’t know was for armored car security. Armored car personnel was actually the first federal carry preemption. And then today we’re pushing to try to get national reciprocity, which is in effect national preemption, mandating that every state recognize every other state’s carry rights to that particular resident in whatever state that resident might be in. But generally across 99% of all the federal gun laws, it is expressly not preemptive. So, this is where the problems come in, because there is no cap on the damage that states can do. Teddy Nappen 17:55 So, it would require an, it would basically either require an act of Congress to amend it to include the preemption. Evan Nappen 18:02 Yes, literally, what would be great is if we finally get a cap. Now, in theory, the cap on bad gun laws is this little thing we call the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment’s cap was fairly broad. The Page – 7 – of 14 cap, as I recall, it said shall not be infringed. Okay? Shall not be infringed. So, any infringement is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore no state or federal government, because we now have it incorporated to the states through the McDonald case, through the 14th Amendment, like many of our other constitutional rights. No state or federal law should infringe on our gun rights. Yet we’re knee deep in battles over various gun laws that are utterly passed with contempt of the Second Amendment, and then we have to go through these fights over it. Teddy Nappen 19:09 Yeah, and it’s definitely. I noticed that whenever it comes to New Jersey, I mean, I know people always talk about state powers, how they, you know, always leave it to the states. However, there are some things that there’s just so much abuse by the states that what they do, I mean, just right now, what they are doing right now is disgusting. Where they’re just harassing these dealers, going after them, wasting the taxpayers dollars. And it’s the level of where, all right, the federal government needs to step in, and I can see everyone’s like, “Oh, don’t allow the feds to get in, but here is the truth. They abuse it so much that there’s just no, there’s no value. Evan Nappen 19:54 Well, frankly, if we simply made the federal law, as it stands right now, as the preemptive. Just passed a law saying federal law preempts state law. Then every state gun law would become mooted out. Done. Invalid. Because only the federal law would apply. And currently under federal law there are no prohibitions on carry. There’s no addressing that in a negative way. Now, they might say, because the federal law doesn’t address it at all, then the states could still try to regulate carry. But then we still have the constitutional Second Amendment with the Bruen decision and such regarding carry. Then if we look at how the impact would be beyond that, well, everything else that these states try to pass, particularly on sale, possession, or on any of that, it would all be preemptively null and void by way of a federal law that they first engineered to just be a minimum to suddenly become the maximum. And that would concentrate our efforts only to having essentially federal fights, which would be pretty good, because instead of the pro-gun movement, those that defend our gun rights, and instead of having them fighting in every jurisdiction, everywhere, every state or county or town that passes some anti-Second Amendment gun rights law that we have to go in and challenge, we would have a preemptive federal law. So, every battle would simply be taking place, for the most part, at the federal law level of preemption, and it would basically gut that entire expenditure of the battle that we constantly have to foot the bill and pay for. It would be an interesting thing to conceptualize, to finally have a federal full preemption. I think it’s workable. Teddy Nappen 22:18 Yeah, and look, I never thought we’d ever see, like, the tax stamp removed for suppressors, and having a chance for it to be removed from the NFA, so anything is possible. We just need to get the right people in, and the right amount of votes. Evan Nappen 22:30 Yeah, it might, it might actually be, but then you’ll have even pro-Second Amendment folks, say, oh, states rights, states’ rights, you know. And they become so focused on so-called states’ rights that we still are losing our rights, because, as you say, Teddy, there’s an abuse by the states of our rights, and Page – 8 – of 14 this could end that abuse. So, when you have an abuse of state power, then the federal government really should come in to stop the abuse by the states. Teddy Nappen 22:53 I think it was in New York, and this might have been years ago. Do you remember they posted the map of who owned firearms? Evan Nappen 23:15 Yeah, it was New York, yeah, right. And then the public record, and then you could, it was searchable when you could find the gun owners. Teddy Nappen 23:25 Of course, a lot of them got robbed and harassed, and everything in that, which is just like, all right, fine. And you know what? When is it going to be enough for states’ powers? When they say everyone wears a yellow armband? It’s a picture of an AR, like states power, states rights. It’s such BS for allowing the abuse that comes down from New Jersey. Where you have the gulag that is the symbol of oppression of a totalitarian regime, and it just pisses me off so much when I hear that argument. I hear the people that make perfect the enemy of good, every time. How long did it take us to lose our rights to these people? Decades. And that’s what it’s going to take to get them back. It’s just disgusting. Evan Nappen 24:12 It is. But we’re in the fight, and we have to keep this fight on. Politically, the big picture is critical in our ability to win and get these changes. As much as all this is aggravating, if you step back, man, I can step back and look from having been practicing gun law for over 40 years. I can look and say we have come a long way. We’ve come a long way. The fact that we can finally have a carry permit in New Jersey is astounding. It’s astounding that we got to that, because that was something that seemed like an impossibility, and yet it got achieved. You can see amazing other advances. Evan Nappen 25:07 Hopefully, shortly, we will see the Supreme Court take a hardware case. We need them to take a hardware case. What I’m talking about is so-called assault firearms or assault weapons, magazines, where there is hardware that’s been banned. Where the constitutionality of the ability to ban hardware finally gets established out of the Supreme Court to end it, to stop it. That’s something that we’ve got to get to, and I think we’re going to see that soon. It is coming. There are so many cases, and they’ve been going up the chain. I think we’re going to see it. I don’t know if it’ll be, you know, this session. We’re getting close, and that’s what we saw, the prediction by even the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General saying they believe that ARs and others, Supreme Court will eventually pronounce they are legal. Teddy Nappen 26:16 I know there’s like, I know there’s rumors, everyone, about the different justices retiring. Imagine if Justice Thomas’s retirement, his last decision that he does, is he legalized and ends the assault firearm bans across the country. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 26:31 Oh, that’d be just wonderful. I’d like to see St. Thomas. Teddy Nappen 26:36 Yeah. You know they did the commemorative, like Heller, like revolver, I remember that they. Evan Nappen 26:43 Which I have, I have a commemorative Heller Smith & Wesson .38. Not only was it commemorative and put out by Smith when the Heller decision came down, so it’s actually a Smith & Wesson bonafide commemorative, but I have that, I think I showed it to you, Teddy, it’s signed personally by Dick Heller, who’s a friend. So, I have a signed commemorative of the Heller decision, signed by Dick Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 27:10 Well, the next one I want it to be just, it’ll say the name of the case, and it’s just the Clarence Thomas smile that you see. The GIF area Thomas commemorative AR. Evan Nappen 27:23 And then, of course, the Left would complain that it’s racist because it’s a black rifle. No. You can’t be racist against Thomas, right? I mean, they always talk. Teddy Nappen 27:37 No, no, they say you can, because they say that he’s not black enough. If you know his entire history, the like, his, you could not, you could not live as a like a black American, like his entire thing, like inner city kid, like I think he was a single, like single mom, they like raised, like literally did the like live the entire black experience like it would be a lifetime movie. It would be amazing. Evan Nappen 28:05 He is an amazing man with actually the embodiment of the American dream, in effect. Coming from an absolutely underprivileged, you know, situation where he rose to be one of the greatest Supreme, one of the greatest, for sure, Supreme Court justices. His amazing story about an amazing man. Just great. And they don’t, because just like with gerrymandering, where there are plenty of Republican minority reps out there, it’s not racism at all. It’s the Democrat power grab, and because Judge Thomas is conservative, they refuse to acknowledge the benefit of having such a great man. Teddy Nappen 29:03 Yeah. And he is what Joe Biden would describe as articulate, bright, and clean. Evan Nappen 29:09 Oh G-d. Teddy Nappen 29:13 I love how Biden said that to Obama. I know. Page – 10 – of 14 Evan Nappen 29:16 I mean. He would constantly say these things. And yet they will extrapolate 10 times out to try to paint Trump as racist when Biden was. He bona fide said stuff that was absolutely insane with racism. Stereotypical racism. Teddy Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Evan Nappen 29:45 Yeah, really. I mean, just come on. Insulting and amazing. Well, and let me tell you, Teddy, about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range. You and I have shot there, and you love WeShoot, don’t you, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 30:04 I had a great time. Evan Nappen 30:05 We always do, every time. We got our certifications there for our carries, and you can do the same. They’ve got a great pro shop, great trainers, great facility, and it’s really conveniently right off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. Lakewood, New Jersey. You want to check out the WeShoot website at weshootusa.com. And you should make sure you get on their email list, because WeShoot sends out a lot of great stuff via email. All their great deals and specials and cool events they’re doing and all kinds of fun things. WeShoot is extremely dynamic, and they are always doing something. WeShoot is just super fun. So, if you’re looking for a great range to belong to, a great place to shoot, a great place to hone your skills, get your training, you cannot do any better than WeShoot in Lakewood. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 31:18 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It is a book used by, well, everybody. If you want to understand New Jersey gun law, you need my book, which is not surprisingly titled New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. When you get the book, you’ll see it is very large. It is over 500 pages. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. And the greatest thing about my book is that the book itself can be used as a weapon. It’s that big. I’m not advising you to do that, but should you need to, yes, that is a book you don’t want to get hit in the head with. So, check out New Jersey Gun Law at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, I bet you have something else up your sleeve to tell us. Teddy Nappen 32:18 Well, one of the things that did come up, and I just thought, what the heck? This is in the feed of the New York Times. Where are all the AK 47s? Like, where have all the AK 47s gone? I know. Evan Nappen 32:19 I don’t know. Where have they gone? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 32:21 I know. It was a very interesting article, but it was also very strange. Just reading through, I don’t know if you ever heard of Jim Fuller? Evan Nappen 32:47 The Fuller Brush Man? Teddy Nappen 32:49 Apparently, he’s a gunsmith. He makes custom AKs. I’m not too familiar on that, but he was going into details of, like, and they were talking about the collapse of the AK market. Evan Nappen 33:01 Well, there is a downturn, but prices aren’t collapsing. Teddy Nappen 33:06 Yeah, I mean, how much are you going for? Evan Nappen 33:08 One of the Russian AKs going. You know the problem is, what led to the big boom, of course, was when we were importing AKs. We could have them from China and Russia. Although we were getting really cheap ammo, and there was so much of the surplus ammo, the 762 by 39 that it became extremely popular, because you could so reasonably shoot. Then it became so overwhelmingly possible that even American-made guns, like the Ruger Mini 30, for example, were being made in 762 by 39. Then you also had the influx of very reasonable SKSs. I mean, I remember when SKSs were under $100, for an SKS, and then you know the reasonable AKs and all that coming in with cheap ammo. Man, it was great. Then they started to ban the import, the ban of Chinese, ban of Russian, and the cheap ammo dried up. The guns that were coming in, the imports like those were dried up. Teddy Nappen 33:56 Apparently, it was in 1989 under Bush, because the shooter used the Chinese AK. Evan Nappen 34:32 Please remember, it was Bush. It was Bush, the Republican, the neocon, and this is one of the things that you got to always remember. Even though they may have the “R” there, they’re not necessarily a friend of the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 34:47 Yeah. And then the article tries to highlight more of like 2014 where the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. put sanctions on Russia. So, there goes all the Russian AKs. Evan Nappen 34:57 Well, not just Russian AKs. I mean, we were getting a lot of great guns, really cool guns from Russia, you know. We’re getting SKSs – originals, beautiful guns. I mean, phenomenal. Russian SKSs are probably the best SKS ever made, machined, gorgeous. Mosin-Nagant rifles, right? They were very Page – 12 – of 14 reasonable, and you know, you want to do the enemy at the gates, man. You got your gun and super strong, tough rifles. You know, a lot of great stuff could come in, and now we don’t see it anymore. And prices have skyrocketed. I mean, if you look at SKS prices today, holy crap. You’d be lucky to find a Chinese SKS that you used to be able to buy for less than $100, one in great shape today for 600 bucks, you know? I mean, easily 600, some even more. I’ve seen Russian SKSs pushing $2,000 a piece at the gun show. I mean, the prices are just unbelievable, because the market has a limitation now to the quantity that’s out there. And by the way, there’s probably only a 10th of the amount of Russian SKSs compared to Chinese SKSs. Even with that, the prices are way up there, and one of the reasons is that the SKSs, for example, are excellent functioning rifles. They’re handy. They function great and are very popular. Evan Nappen 36:36 With AKs, you know, there was that whole growth of it, and we were able to have all that great, cheap ammo. Once you got into an introductory, reasonable AK, then you wanted to up your game with other AKs, and all that. But what’s happened is, with the close out of that, we’ve become more, much, much more AR focused. The AR-15 platform, and everything about it. That’s all, a lot of it is U.S. made, and kind of America’s rifle. I would have to say today that America’s rifle, without a doubt, is the AR-15. Teddy Nappen 37:17 I would also say there’s also just the customization, and I think modularity. Evan Nappen 37:23 Its modularity seems to appeal to a lot of gun folks, because you can add and change and put all kinds of whistles and bells. Teddy Nappen 37:32 That also goes to the tone of American culture versus like the Eastern Bloc of the AK 47. We’re very individualistic, where we will make it so it is something that works for us, versus, you know, the AK 47 is designed, it is designed in that shape or form. You can do some small mods, but generally speaking, you pick up an AK 47 it’s, you know, hold it up to another one, like that’s the level of it. Evan Nappen 37:58 That’s an interesting point, Teddy, about how in those countries they don’t. It’s hard to find a Bubba AK in countries where they make the AKs, isn’t it? They don’t Bubbafi much, do they? But we love to modify, change, and customize, and that’s actually a lot of the fun of it. Let’s face it, it’s fun. It’s fun to add the accessories to fit your needs, make it look cooler, make it function better, make it more appropriate for whatever your needs may be. But then again, the anti-gun rights crowd will suddenly take any given feature and demonize certain features. So, if they are intrinsically evil, that if for some reason you have a telescoping stock on your AR or any other semi-auto, because your stock moves one or two inches back and forth, somehow that is such a huge impact on crime. Teddy Nappen 39:09 Or has a barrel shroud, which they can’t define. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 39:12 Oh yeah, well, they try to. Remember. Teddy Nappen 39:15 The shoulder thingy that goes up, you know, the seat belt. Evan Nappen 39:18 The shoulder thingy that goes up is a barrel shroud. Isn’t that interesting? These are the experts that are voting for these laws. They have no clue what they’re even voting for, nor do they care. As long as it’s going against gun owners, they’re for it. They don’t care what it is. Teddy Nappen 39:39 Yeah, and I will say, just from the article, like, they try to, of course, they try to say, oh, Trump’s tariffs is what killed the AK market. There’s like also going from Russia, Ukraine, which they tried to say, you, oh, Poland is one of the key suppliers of Ukraine. No, the United States is one of the key suppliers of military to Ukraine. We’ve, you know, what is it, 40 billion, 80 billion, like crazy amounts, like they’re just still in that. And then again, tariffs are non-inflationary. We’ve known that, we’ve proven it. And I love how they try to say, well, we could get more AKs if we removed tariffs on Poland. Evan Nappen 40:21 Well, you know, it’s pretty bad when the Left media is trying to lure removal of tariffs by saying we could get more AKs in the country. That’s a pretty interesting stretch for them. Teddy Nappen 40:34 I know why they’re doing it. They’re trying to turn gun owners. They’re trying their best to turn gun owners into the debt, which is a ridiculous concept. They’ve demonized them, called them racist, call them everything under the sun. So, good luck trying to convince a gun owner to be considered a Democrat. If they are voting Democrat, you’re voting for your own destruction. I’m sorry. Evan Nappen 40:54 And speaking of destruction of gun owners, that is what GOFUs are. GOFU is our Gun Owner Fuck Ups. Every show we like to highlight the GOFU of the week, and this week’s GOFU is something that is constantly coming my way in the practice of law. And some of you listeners may say, yeah, it’s obvious, but I still have to say it because I keep getting case after case after case. It’s real simple, folks. You need to know your state’s gun laws. Most people understand that they need to know their state’s gun laws, but it doesn’t end there. If you travel out of state, you need to know the state’s gun laws that you’re traveling to. I constantly get cases of individuals that come from other states and end up being criminally charged in New Jersey because New Jersey’s gun laws are nothing like the gun laws of the state they were traveling from. The reverse is true, my friends. The reverse is true. Evan Nappen 42:13 You may have a New Jersey carry permit, but you need to know, if you don’t know, that no other state in America is recognized by New Jersey. No other state’s gun license is recognized by New Jersey. New Jersey has no reciprocity per se. When you travel, there are states where you can carry, because Page – 14 – of 14 despite New Jersey not recognizing their carry license, they’re willing to recognize any lawfully issued state carry. Many of the states, over 70% of the land mass in America, is constitutional carry, where as long as you’re law-abiding, you can carry even without a permit. But you still have to know, because I get calls from New Jersey folks that are getting jammed up in other states, making the mistake that others frequently make coming into New Jersey. Evan Nappen 43:24 So, the GOFU is real simple. Know the gun laws. Know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you are residing in, and know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you may be traveling in. It’s critical! I see it every day as a classic of virtually all GOFUs. This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 44:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E291_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This week on The Narrative, Aaron and David address the Supreme Court’s 7–2 ruling that blocked a 5th Circuit decision that had temporarily restricted mail-order abortion pills nationwide. Justice Thomas’s fierce dissent invoked the Comstock Act against mailing drugs, and the FDA Director Marty Makary’s abrupt resignation brought renewed hope to many pro-life advocates. On a related note, in Ohio, David recently testified in favor of House Bill 324, the Patient Protection Act, which mandates in-person doctor visits and bans mail delivery for high-risk drugs. The legislation effectively defeats pro-abortion objections at the Statehouse by neutrally targeting all high-risk medications rather than uniquely targeting abortion. After the news, Parker Thayer, a researcher with Capital Research Center and contributor to the Daily Wire, shares his insights on the massive Medicaid home-care fraud scheme in Ohio that proved the state’s optional GPS and signature verification systems failed to track actual patient care. Following the report's publication, Ohio implemented a total freeze on new home-care companies and restored mandatory GPS tracking. Listen now or queue up the podcast for your commute!

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

In this episode, Imani and Jess unpack the Supreme Court's order on mifepristone access and explain where it fits in the Trump administration's crusade to redefine motherhood nationwide. Expert Repro Journalism That Inspires. Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a member today. B*itch, Listen now has its own dedicated feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you get your podcasts. If you already subscribe to Boom! Lawyered, sign up for B*tch, Listen so you won't miss it.

We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes.Key Topics[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings[00:17:32] - Virginia's redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito's dissent[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court's posture toward the administration[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform[01:05:47] - The President's public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases

Trump frantically tries to reshape opinions of his cringe-worthy visit to China. Also disgraced Justice Thomas cites the antiquated Comstock Act of 1873 to threaten people's right to birth control and porn. And what can we learn about the expected visit of El Nino in 2026. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – For more than 34 years, Justice Thomas has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. What have we gotten out of the second-longest serving justices in American history? Some good, some bad, and some ugly. However, I must admit, I think there is more good than bad and ugly from Justice Thomas' tenure. During that time, the SPLC...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – For more than 34 years, Justice Thomas has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. What have we gotten out of the second-longest serving justices in American history? Some good, some bad, and some ugly. However, I must admit, I think there is more good than bad and ugly from Justice Thomas' tenure. During that time, the SPLC...

Our journey through the centuries of religious practice, attitudes, and constitutionalism has reached the 20th century, when several presidential elections set mileposts for the American religious debate.  The first major party Catholic candidate, Al Smith, met the worst sort of vitriol and prejudice, and was destroyed by it.  This cast a shadow over the later campaign of John F. Kennedy, and he answered it in a speech that we analyze and place in context, even as we thrill to the great man's voice one more time.  We then trace a line from that speech, through several Supreme Court memberships, to the American cultural and constitutional religious landscape as the 21st century dawns.  Fittingly, perhaps, one of the jurists who has been prominent on this issue, Justice Thomas, celebrates a milestone on the Court.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this episode, we unpack a whirlwind week of legal battles, political maneuvers, and international tensions, highlighting key developments affecting democracy and global stability. Stay tuned as we break down the implications of redistricting chaos, Epstein's mysterious notes, and escalating conflicts in the Middle East. Key Topics: Virginia Supreme Court decision on district gerrymandering and its procedural challenges The political fallout from court rulings on redistricting efforts across states The controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's purported suicide note and conspiracy theories The ongoing US-Iran tensions including recent naval skirmishes and diplomatic efforts The state of the US economy under Trump, including job reports and inflation concerns The integrity of the Supreme Court and its role in partisan politics The influence of race, progressivism, and historical context in current judicial and political debates Media coverage, censorship, and the transparency of military and governmental actions Timestamps: (00:00) - Introduction: News overview and importance of the week's topics (02:00) - Virginia Supreme Court decision stalling redistricting efforts (04:00) - Gerrymandering's impact on midterm elections and political landscape (06:00) - Court's procedural errors and the partisan battleground (09:00) - The potential realignment of Southern districts and racial implications (11:00) - The court's stance on partisan gerrymandering; political expert insights (13:00) - The Supreme Court's energy: politically motivated yet legally balanced? (15:00) - Justice Thomas's speech on progressivism and American governmental shifts (17:00) - The dangerous rhetoric about race, progressivism, and their historical narrative (19:00) - Epstein's suicide note: authenticity, conspiracy theories, and media response (23:00) - The bizarre and cryptic contents of Epstein's alleged note and legal questions (26:00) - The significance of Epstein's death: truth, cover-ups, and public trust (30:00) - Tensions with Iran: naval skirmishes, diplomacy, and strategic questions (37:00) - War or no war? The confusing nature of recent US-Iran military activity (40:00) - US economic reports: job growth, inflation, and political spins (43:00) - The disconnection between job numbers and everyday economic reality (44:00) - Gas prices, grocery costs, and the public's economic skepticism (48:00) - Political narratives about taxing the wealthy and social reforms (50:00) - The impact of political pandering on local and national elections (54:00) - The looming scandal: legal repercussions for Trump administration figures (61:00) - The potential prosecutions, cover-ups, and post-presidency consequences (66:00) - The importance of accountability and truth commissions in American democracy (69:00) - Closing remarks: reflections on justice, truth, and upcoming political battles Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcast Follow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.social Intragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcast Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVw This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here: https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcast Purchase Brian's book "Free The Press"    Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mea Culpa welcomes Frank Figliuzzi to help us figure out the legal ramification of everything going on in Washington DC. Figliuzzi is a national security contributor and regular columnist for NBC News and MSNBC. At one time, Figliuzzi was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served for 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the entire government. He is also the author of the national bestseller “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau's Code of Excellence.” Michael and Frank talk about the Tennesee, the Supreme Court, and the indictment.

Today on America in the MorningIran Attacks US Navy & US Military Responds Iran appears to be stalling on responding to the peace deal offered by President Trump, and the president says there could be a deal next week, but all of this comes as Iran on Thursday attacked three Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US military retaliated with airstrikes on Iranian military facilities.  Correspondent Rich Johnson reports that Thursday's incidents, ones that the president downplayed as a “love tap,” are stoking fears the attack and counterattack could derail both the talks and the cease-fire.     Tennessee's New Redistricting Map Following this week's Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's congressional districts, several states immediately embarked on redistricting plans of their own.  Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has quickly signed into law newly redrawn congressional maps voted on Thursday in a special session of the state legislature which eliminates the state's lone majority-Black Democrat district.  Joan Jones has the story from Nashville.   Massive School Cyberattack Students and staff at hundreds of school districts, colleges and universities, including Harvard, Penn and Duke, have been the victims of a massive cyber data breach.    Rubio Visits Pope Leo Secretary of State Marco Rubio went to Italy, meeting with Pope Leo at the Vatican.  Correspondent Nicole Winfield reports the meeting comes after President Trump's criticism of the Pontiff.   Hegseth & Kelly A Federal appeals court is taking up the Trump administration's efforts to censure Arizona Senator Mark Kelly over comments he made last year.  Correspondent Clayton Neville reports.   Profiting From High Gas Prices High gas prices are becoming the norm, and oil industry analysts are saying that we can be paying $4 dollars or more per gallon well into the summer driving season as the war with Iran continues.  While Americans and others around the world pay higher gas prices, the oil companies are reaping the profits.  America in the Morning's Jeff McKay has details of who is benefitting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.   Thomas Makes History Clarence Thomas is making Supreme Court history, becoming the second-longest serving justice on the bench.  Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, speaking on Fox News, praised Justice Thomas for both his legal knowledge and his personality.   Court Rules Against Trump Tariffs A federal court ruled Thursday against the new global tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed after losing his tariff case at the Supreme Court.  Mississippi Tornadoes Mississippi is assessing the damage and cleaning up after several tornadoes that ripped through parts of the state.  Correspondent Haya Panjwani reports. Firebomber Gets Life A man who firebombed a crowd in Boulder, Colorado will spend the rest of his life in prison.  Lisa Dwyer reports on the sentencing of a man who attacked pro-Israel demonstrators almost a year ago.   Finally   The plea was not guilty.  Correspondent Ed Donahue reports on a civil rights group that is being taken to court in a federal case, and went on the offensive against acting-Attorney General Todd Blanche. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Finally, and you could tell Justice Thomas has been waiting for this moment for 30 years, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering districts just for black people is racist. Republicans could gain 12 seats from this decision, but more importantly, it leads us away from being a racist society.

Finally, and you could tell Justice Thomas has been waiting for this moment for 30 years, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering districts just for black people is racist. Republicans could gain 12 seats from this decision, but more importantly, it leads us away from being a racist society.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for April 29, 2026. We open with a landmark day at the United States Supreme Court — two massive decisions that will reshape elections, redistricting, and the fight for life in America for decades to come. We dig deep into the Callais decision, which effectively ends the use of race as a primary basis for drawing congressional districts, overturning decades of lower court precedent that the majority says forced states to engage in the very racial discrimination the Constitution forbids. We walk through Justice Alito's majority opinion line by line, explain what Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act actually says versus how it has been misapplied, cover Justice Thomas's concurring opinion noting that redistricting was never in the Voting Rights Act to begin with, and ask the question Barack Obama apparently hasn't considered — if racial gerrymandering is the only way black candidates can win, how did you get elected president? We also cover the Supreme Court's ruling protecting crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey from a politically motivated fishing expedition by the state's attorney general, who demanded 10 years of donor records from a clinic that had committed no crime — simply because it doesn't perform abortions and actively counsels women on alternatives. The Court said that's not an investigation. That's political retribution designed to silence free speech through fear of association. In our Top 3 Three Things You Need to Know, North Carolina has identified 34,000 dead people still on its voter rolls through a routine data cross-check — a number state officials say was far higher than expected. We talk about why this isn't unique to North Carolina, why 17 blue states are currently refusing to cooperate with federal voter roll verification efforts, and why every illegal vote cast in the name of a dead person is an act of voter suppression against a living one. Then the Supreme Court strikes down racial gerrymandering in a ruling that could eventually reshape dozens of congressional districts across the country. And the United Arab Emirates — the target of more than 2,800 Iranian missile and drone attacks in the past month — announced it is leaving OPEC, potentially beginning the unraveling of the entire organization that Iran helped found. Our American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson tackle a question that applies to Apple, private schools, churches, and businesses of every kind — why do organizations so often decline or collapse after losing their founders? We talk about Steve Jobs and what happened to Apple in the 1990s without him, a private school in Arlington, Texas that had a waiting list and is now closing its doors after pushing out its visionary founder, and why jealousy among the people closest to the founder is almost always at the root of it. The lights of the party are gone. And it goes dark. We dig deep into the redistricting earthquake — walking through exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling means for Louisiana, which had been forced by a lower court to draw a 250-mile-long, two-mile-wide district linking black neighborhoods from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. Louisiana will have to redraw its maps for the third time since 2020. We also connect the ruling to Representative Cleo Fields' press conference response, correct the historical record about Louisiana's voting history, and point out the uncomfortable truth that it was the Democrat Party — not the Republican Party — that wrote and enforced the poll taxes, literacy tests, and property requirements that Fields invoked to condemn today's decision. We also cover the April Gallup survey showing that high cost of living remains the number one financial concern for Americans, with 55% saying their financial situation is worsening — and we put that in context against the continuing inflation baked in from Biden-era spending that is still working its way through the economy. For our Bright Spot, the U.S. Geological Survey has discovered 2.3 million metric tons of economically recoverable lithium in the Appalachian region — enough to manufacture 130 million electric vehicles, 180 billion laptops, or 500 billion cell phones, and enough to replace 328 years of lithium imports. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum calls it reclaiming America's mineral independence. We call it one of the most significant resource discoveries on American soil in a generation — even if most of it sits under blue states that have spent decades fighting mining. We also cover Rosie O'Donnell claiming the White House Correspondents' Dinner assassination attempt was staged — including apparently Butler, Pennsylvania — and respond accordingly. And we close with King Charles presenting President Trump with the bell of the HMS Trump, a British submarine that sank six Japanese ships during World War II, with the message — should you ever need to get a hold of us, just give us a ring. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of CURE America, host Donald T. Eason shares his thoughts on Star Parker's nationally syndicated column praising Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's powerful speech delivered on April 15 at the University of Texas at Austin.   Star Parker calls Thomas's address one of the greatest speeches marking America's upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Donald adds his personal reflections, noting how Thomas's words carry special force because they come from his own life — growing up poor in the Jim Crow South.   Despite segregation and discrimination, Thomas and the Black community around him firmly believed that their equality and dignity came from God, not from government. Donald contrasts this with his own upbringing in Detroit and shares how he only truly embraced the Declaration of Independence after becoming a Christian in his early 20s.   Justice Thomas emphasizes that the Declaration's most important line is the final pledge: the signers mutually committed "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Without courage and devotion, the words are just ink on paper. He warns that progressivism — a foreign idea from 19th-century Germany — rejects God-given rights in favor of government power, leading to family breakdown, massive debt, and weakened freedom.   Thomas challenges Americans: Do we still have the courage of the soldiers who stormed Normandy? He calls on all of us to stand up for our founding principles with the same devotion that built this nation.   As we approach America's 250th birthday, Donald encourages viewers to focus on faith, family, freedom, and personal responsibility — and to reject the idea that government, not God, is the source of our rights.   Let us renew our commitment to the principles that made America the greatest nation on earth.

Move over Trump Derangement Syndrome! The left is clearly afflicted now with a full-blown case of Thomas Derangement Syndrome—after Justice Clarence Thomas's speech last week about the Declaration of Independence, which, let's face it, gives leftists the heebie-jeevies with all that talk about how we are "endowed by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. With the band back together again this week, we dissect the left's hysterical reaction which indicate to us that Thomas hit a raw nerve with "Progressives," who are actually quite regressive.We also divert briefly to John Yoo's typically idiosyncratic observations on executive power in the Declaration, and then conclude this segment with each offering our favorite quotes from Justice Thomas's speech.From there we turn to the big news of the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (which Steve suggests should be known more accurately as the Southern Poverty Libel Center, but also wondering why there is no Northern Poverty Law Center, or Midwestern Poverty Law Center. Is there no poverty or racism in those regions?).

Steve Hayes is joined by Jonah Goldberg, David French, and Kevin Williamson to discuss the Trump administration's ongoing negations with Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel's alleged excessive drinking, and Justice Clarence Thomas' recent speech at the University of Texas. The Agenda: —Is the end near? —Consequences of Trump's impatience —Bad negotiating strategy —⁠Kash Patel's drinking⁠ —⁠Investigating 2020 election fraud⁠ —⁠Justice Thomas' speech on progressivism⁠ —NWYT: ⁠Tucker Carlson's apology⁠ Dispatch Recommendations: —⁠Online Gambling Is Breaking Containment ⁠—⁠The Son Also Rises⁠ —⁠Overturning Religious Precedent⁠ —⁠The emergency docket's mistaken birthday⁠ Show notes: —⁠John McCormack's reporting on Tucker Carlson⁠ —⁠Steve Hayes' piece on Tucker Carlson⁠ The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠by clicking here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1. Purpose of the Book The book aims to: Tell Clarence Thomas’s personal life story, especially his rise from extreme poverty. Explain his judicial philosophy and jurisprudence in plain, accessible language. It is based on approximately 9.5 hours of exclusive, one‑on‑one interviews between Ted Cruz and Justice Thomas. Cruz emphasizes that the book is written for non‑lawyers, including students and general readers. 2. Clarence Thomas’s Background and Life Journey Grew up in severe poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, raised primarily by his grandfather. Initially spoke a Gullah/Geechee dialect, not English. Experienced racism, hardship, family conflict, and personal struggles, including anger and a period of heavy drinking. Attended seminary with the intention of becoming a Catholic priest, later leaving due to disillusionment. Educated at Holy Cross College and Yale Law School. Underwent a major ideological transformation, moving from left‑wing Black Power activism to conservative principles over many years. 3. Professional Rise and Historic Achievements Faced career obstacles due to perceptions surrounding affirmative action. Worked under Republican Senator John Danforth, which became a turning point. Served in: The Reagan administration The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Appointed in 1991 as the second Black Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. On track to become the longest‑serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (by 2028). 4. Judicial Philosophy (“Going Further”) Thomas’s jurisprudence emphasizes: Originalism and the original meaning of the Constitution The belief that rights come from God/nature, not government A color‑blind Constitution Judicial restraint: judges should interpret and apply law, not create policy His opinions are intentionally plain‑spoken and accessible, reflecting his background and respect for ordinary citizens. The title Going Further reflects his tendency to push legal reasoning to its foundational principles rather than incremental change. 5. Confirmation Hearings and Public Attacks The book examines the 1991 confirmation hearings, including: Allegations by Anita Hill Intense political and media attacks Cruz draws parallels between Thomas’s hearings and later Supreme Court confirmations (e.g., Brett Kavanaugh). Thomas is portrayed as enduring racialized hostility and vilification because of his conservative views. 6. Legacy and Moral Example Clarence Thomas is presented as: A model of personal resilience, discipline, and principle Someone who maintained convictions despite decades of criticism Cruz argues Thomas would be widely celebrated if he were liberal, but instead has been marginalized. The book frames Thomas as a role model for principled living, not just for lawyers but for all Americans. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French push back against the New York Times ⁠reporting⁠ on the birth of the shadow docket, discuss Justice Sotomayor's apology after criticizing him in personal terms during a speech at the University of Kansas School of Law, and interview  Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt about ⁠McGirt v. Oklahoma⁠. The Agenda:–The birth of the shadow docket–Who leaked Dobbs?–Justice Sotomayor apologizes to Justice Kavanaugh–Justice Kagan's screaming tantrum–Justice Thomas's talk on the Declaration of Independence–We are the McGirt podcast Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. This week, Jim and Greg break down two high-profile congressional resignations, the radical views of popular lefty podcaster and influencer Hasan Piker, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's baffling stance on the Iran war, and some badly needed judicial wisdom from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.First, they welcome the resignations of Caiifornia Rep. Eric Swalwell and Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales. Swalwell is the Democrat who was running for governor until sexual assault and other allegations forced him out of the race. Gonzales, a Republican who is married, had an affair with a married staffer who later committed suicide by self-immolation. They react to the resignations and what's left of the Democrats running for governor in Caiifornia.Next, they react to lefty podcaster Hasan Piker doubling down on his claim that Israel is a thousand times worse than Hamas. Piker is a prominent voice on the left and some candidates have asked him to campaign with them. You'll also learn who Piker sees as the biggest terrorist organization in the world.Then they throw up their hands as longtime New York Times columnist Tom Friedman says he's conflicted over who he wants to win the Iran war. We'll explain the absurd reasons for his conundrum and just how deranged that thinking is.Finally, after all of that bad news, Greg and Thursday guest host and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli close with some refreshing wisdom from Justice Thomas about the proper role of judges.Please visit our great sponsors:Schedule a free gold strategy session with Noble Gold. Visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML to learn how to build lasting financial security.Better plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

For the second week in a row, the 3WHH gang (minus one) were on the road, this time recording live in the corner of a hotel lobby before the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society. The sound quality of this episode is . . . authentic. Yes, I'll go with that. John Yoo couldn't make the meeting, so we have a special guest, our old pal Glenn Ellmers. With John absent, we get our freak on about the Clean Air Act . . . actually we didn't do that. We did worse: We get down in the weeds of metaphysics, radical historicism, the theological-political problem (especially in the context of this week's feud between the President and the Pope), dishing on Laura Field's terrible book Furious Minds, contrasting Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence of "feels" versus Justice Thomas's jurisprudence of principle—the principle of the Declaration of Independence. And finally, we take up the perennial question, what's the matter with kids today. And as such the exit music this week is "Kids," from moe:Kids will try to run you overKids will try to bring you downKids will never say they're sorryKids back then are older now

Joe talks about the breaking news coming out of the Middle East, Senator Johnson putting a pompous Leftist in his place, and Justice Thomas dishing out some sage adviceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For decades, Americans viewed the Supreme Court as an impartial referee standing above the political fray. However, public trust in this vital institution has recently plummeted to historic lows. Many observers blame a surge in ideological rulings that align with the party of the President who appointed each justice. If the referee is suddenly wearing a team jersey, the fundamental systems of democracy and capitalism begin to break down. Georgetown University Law Professor Steve Vladeck joins Luigi and Bethany to argue that the real culprit isn't just partisan justices, but a complete abdication of responsibility by Congress. Rather than viewing judicial reform as a zero-sum game of packing the court, he proposes that lawmakers must reclaim their constitutional authority to check judicial overreach. He explains how special interest groups have successfully manipulated this power vacuum to reshape American regulations. This perspective completely reframes the crisis from a partisan dispute into a structural collapse of institutional power. This episode explores the hidden mechanisms that allow unaccountable judges to unilaterally rewrite the rules of our economic system, why decades of political complacency allowed this shift and what actionable steps can actually fix it. Vladeck answers whether the business community will ultimately regret enabling a system that erodes the reliable rule of law and why saving our markets may require Congress to finally stand up and do its job. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From July 16, 2024: On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.