Podcasts about peruta

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** One of the obligations that apply on the festival of Purim is Matanot La'evyonim – gifts to the poor. People are generally very vigilant with regard to the Mitzva of Mishlo'ach Manot on Purim, and most of the money spent on this festival goes towards the purchase of Mishlo'ach Manot. It should be noted, however, that Halacha requires that one prioritize Matanot La'evyonim; one should limit his spending on Mishlo'ach Manot and even the Purim meal in order to increase his spending on Matanot La'evyonim. Most of the people to whom we give Mishlo'ach Manot do not need our gifts and can celebrate Purim honorably without these packages. The poor, however, need our assistance to properly celebrate the holiday. This is the primary obligation of Purim, and one should therefore allocate more money to this cause than to the other Mitzvot of Purim. Strictly speaking, the obligation requires giving one Peruta – a minimal amount – to two people in need (one Peruta to each). However, the Rishonim (Medieval Rabbinic scholars) write that one should give an amount with which the recipient can purchase a modest meal, consisting of bread and a dip. For us, this would mean approximately $5. Thus, to fulfill this obligation, one must donate $10, so that two people in need receive an amount with which they can purchase a modest meal. Women, too, are included in this obligation, and thus a husband must give a minimum amount of $20, to fulfill his and his wife's obligation. Of course, it is laudable to give more than this amount. Since Matanot La'evyonim constitutes a Halachic obligation, the $10 that one donates for this Mitzva cannot go towards his Ma'aser, the tithing of his earnings. However, if one gives more than $10 for Matanot La'evyonim, the excess amount may, indeed, be counted towards his Ma'aser contributions to charity. The Mitzva requires giving Matanot La'evyonim on Purim day itself. Somebody who knows a needy family may go to that family and personally hand them the money, and thereby fulfill his obligation. Preferably, the donation should be given anonymously, such as by putting the money in an envelope and anonymously leaving the envelope by the recipient's door. In most communities there are people who collect Matanot La'evyonim donations before Purim and distribute the money to the needy on Purim, which is the preferred method for fulfilling this Mitzva. Summary: The obligation of Matanot La'evyonim requires that each person donate a minimum sum of $10 to help needy Jews on Purim, or $20 for a married couple. This obligation should receive budgeting priority over Mishlo'ach Manot and the Purim meal. The money must be given to the poor on Purim day itself; generally speaking, this is done by people who collect donations before Purim and distribute the funds to the poor on Purim.

Riding Shotgun With Charlie #220 Matthias Quellenberg San Diego Firearms Academy   In 2022, I went to GunProm, hosted by San Diego Gun Owners. It was a huge event with over 750 attendees, the biggest 2A dinner I've attended. I was there with John Petrolino and we didn't really know many folks. We were put at the table with Matthais. We talked all night and exchanged contact info. The next day, he messaged me via Instagram and said he's seen the show, but didn't put it together after seeing me. The next week, Petrolinio messages me and says he's been messaging Matthias. I asked who and he replied “The German.” The name stuck.    In 2024, GRPC was held in San Diego, where he lives. We were able to film a show at the end of GRPC. Everyone was talking about “the wall” and I thought it was some sort of Pink Floyd tribute. Alas, it was the border wall. When he asked where we were driving, I replied “the wall.” We had to make sure we didn't cross into Mexico. I don't have a passport. He was packing.    Matthias grew up in Germany and served in the army. That was his first exposure to shooting and firearms. If it was a choice and an option for the citizens, he would have been a gun owner. But it's very elitist in Germany. The first gun he got to shoot was a Walther P1, the predecessor to the P38. He did boot camp, specialized training, then some office work, and ended up in the Ministry of Defense, similar to the Pentagon here. Then he became a boot camp instructor.    He met an American woman and they had a long distance relationship. Eventually, he made it to Boston. After they got married, he was able to get a green card and he applied for a License To Carry right away. They moved to California and settled in San Francisco. He found out there were only 2 carry permits issued in the city when he got there. In the same time, Fresno County issued over 6,000 permits.    Then life brought them to San Diego. Doing some research, he found out you needed to list your guns and serial numbers on your license and you could only have three guns on that carry license. He looked for an attorney who may want to pursue suing the state about this and ended up talking with the lawyers from the Peruta case. The lawyers thought they may be able to pair the cases, but it didn't fit their strategy.    Back in 2020 while he was Ubering, he would talk with his riders and gun owning came up. They were looking for guidance and opinions. Realizing that there could be a market, he became an NRA certified instructor and started San Diego Firearms School.    We got into talking about teaching gun classes. He teaches a couple classes a month. The next step for him is to get certified by the sheriff's department to be an instructor. In California, you have to take a short test to get the firearm safety certificate, which you need to purchase a firearm. Then you have to do a shooting qualification to be able to take the 16 hour course needed for the CCW permit.     Matthais won tickets to the GunProm back in 2022. That's when he started to see that there are so many more people involved in firearms and the bigger gun community in general. He's good friends with Desi Bergman (RSWC #217) and they both do lots for San Diego County Gun Owners. He even presented for one of their seminars.    I had a great time with Matthais. He's a great guy and he's out there busting his tail to make things happen. He's very active on Instagram, so follow him.  If you end up in San Diego, get an Uber driver with a German accent, and his good dog, Lucky,  there's a good chance it's Matthias!   Favorite quotes: “We don't have gun rights. Guns is not a thing in Germany.” “Within a week of me getting a greencard, I got my first gun and I applied for a License To Carry.”  “At the time, you can only have three guns on your license.” “So many people were asking me questions and looking for help and guidance.” San Diego Firearms School Website https://sandiegofirearmssc.wixsite.com/home   San Diego Firearms School Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sandiegofirearmsschool/   San Diego County Gun Owners https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/   Gun Owners Radio https://www.gunownersradio.com/ Second Amendment Foundation https://secure.anedot.com/saf/donate?sc=RidingShotgun    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms https://www.ccrkba.org/     Please support the Riding Shotgun With Charlie sponsors and supporters.    Dennis McCurdy Author, Speaker, Firewalker http://www.find-away.com/   Self Defense Radio Network http://sdrn.us/   Buy a Powertac Flashlight, use RSWC as the discount code and save 15% www.powertac.com/RSWC   SABRE Red Pepper Spray  https://lddy.no/1iq1n   Or listen on: iTunes/Apple podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/riding-shotgun-with-charlie/id1275691565

The Torah commands in Parashat Ki-Teseh that when somebody is found guilty of a violation, he must be given Makut (lashes). The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this command is actually intended for the benefit of the transgressor. The afflictions that sinners endure in this world have the effect of cleansing their record, such that they can be worthy of the eternal rewards in the next world. In G-d's great love for Am Yisrael, whom He treats as His precious children, He prescribed a system of punishment in this world so that violators can have the opportunity to receive great rewards in the world to come. Before the Malkut were administered, the violator would have his hands tied to a pole. The court official would tear the violator's shirt until his chest was exposed, and stand on a stone behind him. The whip was made from the hide of a calf. One-third of the prescribed lashes were directed to the front of the violator's body, and the other two-thirds struck his back. This command applies only in Eretz Yisrael, and only when there are courts consisting of judges who had received the official Semicha (ordination) that originated with Moshe Rabbenu. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if a court failed to administer Malkut when this was required, they were deserving of severe punishment, because it is the threat of punishment that deters prospective sinners and thereby ensures compliance with the Torah's laws. In this same verse, the Torah introduces a prohibition against lashing the convicted sinner more than the prescribed number of lashes. The Sages understood this command as establishing a general prohibition against striking a fellow Jew. This is inferred from the repetitious phrase in this verse – “Lo Yosif, Pen Tosif” – which implies that this prohibition is directed not only to the court official administering Malkut, but to all of us, forbidding striking our fellow. The Torah here states that a violator is given forty Malkut, but tradition explains this to mean thirty-nine. The Rambam writes that in truth, the verse should be understood literally, as referring to forty lashes, but tradition lowered the number to thirty-nine as a safeguard, to ensure that the court official does not exceed forty lashes. The Sefer Ha'hinuch questions why the Rambam advanced this novel theory, when the Gemara explicitly states that the word “Arba'im” (“forty”) in this verse means “one less than forty.” In any event, these thirty-nine lashes are the maximum amount the violation would receive. An assessment would be made by physicians beforehand to determine how many lashes the sinner could endure, based on his age and physical condition. If he could not tolerate even three lashes, then he would not receive any. The number of lashes needed to be a multiple of 3. Thus, for example, if the doctors determined that the violator could handle twenty lashes, then he would receive eighteen lashes. If, as the sinner is whipped, he lost control of his bodily functions, then he was not whipped anymore. If the whip was torn at some point after the court official began administering the Malkut, then he was required stop, without giving more lashes. If, however, the whip broke before the official began lashing the sinner, then he would repair the whip and proceed. If the sinner's hands were not tied well to the pole, and he was able to escape, then he was not given lashes thereafter. It is forbidden not only to strike one's fellow, but even to merely lift one's hand and threaten to strike him. This Halacha is inferred from the story told in Parashat Shemot (2:13) of Moshe approaching two men whom he saw fighting. He turned to the “wicked one” and asked why he was striking his fellow. The Sages understood that Moshe saw this man lift his hand to strike the other, and so this person is called “the wicked one,” as it is forbidden even to lift one's hand to strike somebody. This second aspect of the prohibition, which forbids striking one's fellow, applies in all times and places, and to both men and women. The first aspect of this command, of course, applies only in the Land of Israel, during times when courts are authorized to administer punishment. One who strikes his fellow must make a series of payments to compensate him for the harm inflicted. As such, the violator is not liable to Malkut, as one is not liable to Malkut if he incurred a financial obligation by committing the transgression. If, however, one struck his fellow and the harm inflicted was worth less than a “Peruta” (the smallest unit of currency), then since there is no obligation to pay, he is liable to Malkut for violating this prohibition.

Source material: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GFaYh7kGHMApTp_zUqB8cW8gu3QYJ9OxYhCoDsI-cxg/edit?usp=share_link

We're back for PART TWO after a successful spring 2022 US Supreme Court term, joined again by the (pro-bono) president of the 140-year old historic California Rifle and Pistol Association (he does not take a salary for the position), Chuck Michel. In this episode, Chuck breaks down the impact of the recent Right to Bear Arms (RTBA) case at the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down on Thurs 23 June 2022, NY Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf) and what California DOJ actually did after this ruling. They released private information on every law-abiding gun owner in California, including CCW holders who have proved a need for good cause, to world-wide criminals and terrorists -- anyone with an internet connection. There is a Blue Resistance to the ruling with this goal: to criminalize innocent conduct, making it harder for people to effectively defend themselves lawfully. The flawed assumption remains: The police are your bodyguards with a duty to protect you. It's not common knowledge, but that's false . (This is easy to verify with a little sweat equity). Chuck is the LA County-based Civil Rights attorney who prevailed at the 9th Circuit in the initial 3 judge panel which issued an opinion of the Court that is FAMOUS in California for being powerfully argued & beautifully written by Judge O'SCANNLAIN in Peruta v. County of San Diego in 2014 (a Right to Bear Arms case, conceal carry). That opinion was predictably reversed en banc only by ignoring the merits of the 3 judge panel opinion of the Court. SCOTUS in Bruen now changes everything for that en banc reversal. Recall, Chuck is nationally famous as the California "Freedom Week" attorney, which, if you don't remember, within the span of a few days in 2019, brought 1,000,000 standard capacity magazines into California. The District Court issued a wonderfully persuasive, masterfully argued Finding of Fact and Opinion of the Court Duncan v. Becerra (366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 - Dist. Court, SD California 2019). At issue there was the unConstitutionality of California's arbitrary and capricious 10-round magazine limitation. One can support the California Rifle and Pistol Association 501(c)3 tax-deductible educational foundation by making your book purchases through AmazonSmile, indicating you'd like to pick Jeff Bazos' pocket by designating a charity to support. It doe not raise the price one pays for the book. Be sure to check out Chuck's book, "California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearms Regulation" 2022 9th Edition here (remember to use AmazonSmile so that a charity gets part of the $). For more information about California Rifle and Pistol Association, check out : https://crpa.org/ For information on Chuck's boutique Long Beach law firm, check out : https://michellawyers.com/ For links to the major California-based, very persuasively written, masterfully argued, and influentially received Second Amendment opinions rendered by federal judges and mentioned above, check out : Peruta v. County of San Diego (2014) (Persuasive Original Three Judge Panel Opinion) : 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014. The nationally famous "Freedom Week" Federal District Court opinion that brought in about 1,000,000 standard capacity magazines in less than a week to California, Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 - Dist. Court, SD California 2019. The 9th Circuit 3-Judge panel op: Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F. 3d 1133 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2020. The Republican Professor is a pro-self-defense, pro-shooting-sports, anti-criminalization-of-innocent-conduct, pro-Constitutional-law-rightly-understood, pro-natural-rights-protected-by-positive-law, pro-education, pro-gun-safety-public-safety podcast. Therefore, welcome attorney Chuck Michel, pro-bono president of the 140-year-old California Rifle & Pistol Association. The Republican Professor is hosted and produced by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

The Torah commands toward the end of Parashat Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:25), “Lo Ta'asu Avel Ba'mishpat, Ba'mida Ba'mishkal U'bamesura” – “Do not make a perversion in judgment: in measurement, weight, or volume.” This verse introduces the prohibition against cheating people by using inaccurate weights and measures. The Gemara explains that the word “Mesura” refers to a volume of liquid equaling 1/33 rd of a Log. A Log is just 11.7 ounces, and thus a “Mesura” is an exceedingly small volume. The Torah specified this volume to show that when it comes to weights and measures, even the slightest discrepancy is forbidden and violates this Biblical prohibition. Whereas the prohibition against direct theft is transgressed only if one stole at least the value of a “Peruta” (the smallest unit of Talmudic currency), the prohibition against dishonest weights and measures is violated through even a minimal distortion. Significantly, the Torah introduces this command by stating, “Lo Ta'asu Avel Ba'mishpat” – referring to weights and measures as “Mishpat” (“judgment”). The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that anytime one weights or measures something for commercial purposes, he is, in effect, “judging,” as he is determining how much the other party needs to pay. As such, one who uses inaccurate weights and measures is no different from a judge who knowingly perverts justice by ruling incorrectly, based on personal biases. The Torah regards the perversion of justice as among the most grievous sins, referring to an individual guilty of this offense as a “Meshukatz” (despicable person) and a “Toeba” (abomination). Furthermore, the Sages warn of five grave consequences of the sin of dishonest weights and measures – it defiles the Land of Israel, defames the Name of G-d, causes the Shechina to leave, causes the Jewish People to be defeated by their enemies, and causes our nation's exile. The Gemara comments that the punishment for this sin is even more severe than the punishment of the Arayot – forbidden intimate relationships. Moreover, this violation is far more difficult to atone for than Arayot. A sin involving Arayot is an offense “Ben Adam La'makom” – between a person and G-d – and can thus be atoned with relative ease, through the process of sincere repentance. Using false weights and measures, however, is an offense against other people, and thus atonement requires making restitution and asking the victims for forgiveness. However, unlike a thief, who is required to pay the victim twice the amount he stole (“Kefel”), one who deceives people through the use of false weights and measures is required to pay only the amount he received from them unlawfully. The Sages enacted a number of different safeguards to protect against this violation. For example, if a person's scale or other device was chipped or otherwise became defective, he may not use it even accurately, adjusting the weight or measure to account for the defect. Although he will not be cheating his customers, nevertheless, it is likely that the device will be worn further with time, such that the proprietor will unknowingly be cheating his customers, and it therefore may not be used. Another example has to do with the ropes used for measuring land. If two brothers inherit a property and divide it between them, and Bet Din measures the two halves to ensure they are precisely equal, the Bet Din must measure both in the same season. The Gemara explains that ropes slightly contract in the summer heat, and thus if one property is measured in the winter and the other in the summer, one of the brothers will be receiving a slightly larger portion than the other. Although the discrepancy would be minimal, nevertheless, the Sages wished to avoid even this slight distortion of the relative sizes of the two halves. This prohibition, quite obviously, applies in all times, in all places, and to both men and women. Violators are not liable to Malkut, as this prohibition falls under the category of “Lav Ha'nitan Le'tashlumin” – a violation which can be rectified by paying that which was received unlawfully. The Rambam, in Hilchot Geneba (7:8), emphasizes that this prohibition forbids cheating anyone, whether a Jew or a gentile, and even an idol-worshipper. Furthermore, the Rambam adds, just as it is forbidden to cheat a Jew or gentile through the use of inaccurate weights and measures, it is similarly forbidden to cheat anyone – Jew or gentile – by intentionally miscalculating how much he owes. Tampering with the numbers in order to charge a client or customer a higher amount is strictly forbidden by Torah law. Interestingly, the Sefer Ha'hinuch, in discussing this Misva, goes through a variety of mathematical principles, including concepts such as pi and the Pythagorean theorem. He writes that it is crucial for people involved in commerce to familiarize themselves with mathematics in order to be able to make accurate calculations and thus avoid inadvertent violations of this Torah prohibition. Stories are told of great Sadikim who exercised particular caution when weighing and measuring in order to avoid inadvertent, slight mistakes to the detriment of the customer. When weighing or measuring merchandise, they would make a point of adding a little extra for the customer just in case the scale or measuring device was slightly inaccurate. The story is told of the patriarch of the famous Reichman family who, in his shop, would ensure to clean the dust off his scales each day, lest the weight of the dust slightly affect the weight of the merchandise he weighed for his customers. Some have speculated that it was in this merit that the family became exceedingly wealthy. The Torah affords the highest priority to honesty and integrity, which is why this prohibition is treated with such exceptional severity. We are to be especially scrupulous and honest in all our financial dealings, and avoid taking even slightly more from people than we are rightfully entitled to take.

Join our warm conversation with the (pro-bono) president of the 140-year old historic California Rifle and Pistol Association (he does not take a salary for the position), Chuck Michel. Chuck is a very successful Civil Rights attorney in Lost Angeles County who prevailed at the 9th Circuit in the initial 3 judge panel, a panel that issued an opinion that is FAMOUS in California for being persuasively argued, masterfully written opinion of the Court by Judge O'SCANNLAIN in Peruta v. County of San Diego in 2014 (a Right to Bear Arms case, conceal carry). That opinion was predictably reversed en banc only by ignoring the merits of the 3 judge panel opinion of the Court. Here's a link to that decision and you can read it for yourself to see: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16699306652731612622&q=peruta+v+county+of+san+diego+&hl=en&as_sdt=2003 Chuck is probably nationally famous as the California "Freedom Week" attorney, which, if you don't know, within the span of a few days in 2019, brought 1,000,000 standard capacity magazines into California. Michel was the prevailing attorney in that nationally famous California "Freedom Week" District Court victory in 2019, where the Court issued a wonderfully persuasive, masterfully argued Finding of Fact and Opinion of the Court Duncan v. Becerra (366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 - Dist. Court, SD California 2019). At issue there was the unConstitutionality of California's arbitrary and capricious 10-round magazine limitation. In this episode, Chuck reads the tea leaves, so to speak on the upcoming Right to Bear Arms (RTBA) case at the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)(expected any day now) and what the California Attorney General will probably advise the recalcitrant jurisdictions to do in order to obstruct the implementation of the likely ruling. We all want to pay very careful attention, here. One can support the California Rifle and Pistol Association tax-deductible educational foundation by making your book purchases through AmazonSmile, indicating you'd like to pick Jeff Bazos' pocket by designating a charity to support. It doe not raise the price one pays for the book. Books referenced in this episode are "Gun Truths: How Gun Laws Fail", as was Chuck's book, "California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearms Regulation" 2022 9th Edition. Last, for an insider's perspective on how surviving a mass murder in San Fransisco changed one attorney's perspective on self-defense, see "Coming to Terms: A Mass Shooting Survivor's Reckoning with Vulnerability and Self-Defense" with Forward written by Chuck. For more information about California Rifle and Pistol Association, check out : https://crpa.org/ For information on Chuck's boutique Long Beach law firm, check out : https://michellawyers.com/ For links to the major California-based, very persuasively written, masterfully argued, and influentially received Second Amendment opinions rendered by federal judges and mentioned above, check out : Peruta v. County of San Diego (2014) (persuasive 3-judge panel Opinion of the Court) : 742 F. 3d 1144 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014. And the persuasive, beautifully written, masterfully argued nationally famous "Freedom Week" Federal District Court opinion that brought in about 1,000,000 standard capacity magazines in less than a week to California, Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1131 - Dist. Court, SD California 2019. The 3-judge panel opinion reviewing that trial court opinion at the 9th Circuit is also well-worth reading (Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F. 3d 1133 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2020), all available on Google Scholar. The Republican Professor is a pro-self-defense, pro-shooting-sports, anti-criminalization-of-innocent-conduct, pro-Constitutional-law-rightly-understood, pro-natural-rights-protected-by-positive-law, pro-education, pro-gun-safety-public-safety podcast. Therefore, welcome Chuck Michel The Republican Professor is hosted and produced by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

The Torah in Parashat Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:4) commands, “V'eloheh Masecha Lo Ta'asu Lachem” – forbidding making an idol for pagan worship. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah here forbids making an object with the intention that it would be worshipped by another person. Even though the one who makes the idol has no intention at all of worshipping it, nevertheless, making the idol for somebody else to worship transgresses this Biblical command. The Torah forbids deriving any sort of benefit from an article of idolatrous worship. A gentile's idol becomes forbidden for use immediately once the idol is completed, even before anybody worships it, whereas a Jew's idol becomes forbidden for benefit only once it is worshipped. The idol's accessories, which are not actually worshipped, are also forbidden for benefit, but they become forbidden only once the idol is worshipped, even in the case of a gentile's idol. If a Jew receives payment for making an idol, then although he has violated this Biblical command, the money is nevertheless permissible for benefit. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that benefitting from this money is not considered benefitting from the idol, because the idol does not become forbidden until it is completed, when the Jew does the last bit of work to complete the idol. As such, the only money which would, in theory, be forbidden is the money received for the final action performed to complete the idol. The value of this final action is less than Peruta's worth – meaning, less than the smallest unit of currency, and a sum this small cannot be forbidden. Therefore, the Jew may benefit from the payment he receives for making an idol. The Rishonim debate the question of whether one is required to sacrifice his life to avoid violating this prohibition. Idol worship is among the three sins which one must avoid even at the threat of death, but it is unclear whether this includes also the prohibition against making an idol for an idol worshipper. If a pagan orders a Jew to make an idol, threatening to kill him if he refuses, is he required to surrender his life rather than make an idol? This question is subject to debate. Some draw proof that one does not need to surrender his life from Rashi's comments in the Book of Shemot (32:21) explaining Moshe's conversation with Aharon following the sin of the golden calf. Rashi writes that Moshe asked Aharon what kind of “Yisurim” – “suffering” – the people subjected him to when forcing him to fashion an idol. It seems from Rashi's comments that Aharon came under a great deal of pressure to make the golden calf, and he withstood the suffering inflicted upon him, but he did not go so far as to surrender his life. This would seem to suggest that one is not required to give up his life to avoid fashioning an article of pagan worship. This prohibition applies in all times and places, and to both men and women. One who makes an idol for somebody for the purpose of worship – whether that other person is a Jew or gentile – is liable to Malkut. One who makes an idol for himself has violated also a second prohibition, and is thus liable to two sets of Malkut.

“I'm not a prophet,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote in his controversial concurring opinion in McDougall v. County of Ventura. Second Amendment attorney Sean Brady disagrees. Joining appellate attorneys Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis, Sean says Judge VanDyke will be proven correct: the Ninth Circuit in the last several years has granted en banc review of every panel decision favorable to the Second Amendment, and has denied review to every unfavorable decision.(And a few days after taping, On March 8, 2022 the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review of McDougall.)McDougall involved Covid-19 orders shutting down gun ranges. The McDougall decision found Governor Newsom's executive orders violated the Second Amendment.Sean explains how the Ninth Circuit, and other circuits, have adopted a line of Second Amendment analysis that follows more closely Justice Breyer's dissent in D.C. v. Heller than the Supreme Court's majority. That is why, after writing the opinion for the panel, Judge VanDyke also wrote a concurrence, reaching the same conclusion but using this alternative line of analysis.But wasn't Judge VanDyke's concurrence jarring and off-putting? Perhaps. And it is an unusual style for a judge to resort to. But the three attorneys agreed that Judge VanDyke meant it, quite deliberately, to be at least slightly offensive: an affront to the modern taste for cool and logically seamless forms of persuasion. Judge VanDyke genuinely believes that, however it happened, the train has gone off the tracks, and it will take some shoving and heavy breathing to put it back again.Sean Brady's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Sign up for Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:McDougall v. Cnty. of Ventura, 23 F.4th 1095 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022).Louis Menand, American Studies.DC v. Heller, 552 US 1035 (2007).McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).Duncan v. Becerra, 742 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2018).Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995, 1997 (2017).Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021).Tim Kowal, “The Doomsday Provision,” the term coined by Judge Kozinski.NPR, “

The Torah commands in Parashat Vayikra (5:23) that a thief who stole an object must return it to the victim (“Ve'heshib Et Ha'gezela Asher Gazal”). This obligation applies only when the item still exists in its original form; if it has undergone a permanent change (“Shinui She'eno Hozer Li'briyato”), which cannot be reversed, then the thief pays the victim the value of the stolen item, instead. One example given by the Gemara is a thief who stole wood which he used as firewood. Since, quite obviously, the ashes cannot be turned back into wood, the thief pays the victim the value of the wood he stole. Another example is a thief who stole wool which he proceeded to dye a different color, or make into a sweater. In such cases, too, the thief pays the victim money, since he cannot return the stolen object. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if a person stole something which is valued at less than a “Shaveh Peruta” (the value of the smallest unit of currency), then although he has transgressed the prohibition against theft, he is not required to return the object. The reason, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, is because Am Yisrael “are the children of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, generous people, children of generous people,” and even an indigent member of our nation will forgive the theft of something so insignificant. Since it can be assumed that the victim foregoes on this small item, the thief is not obligated to return it, even though he has committed a forbidden act of theft. The obligation to return a stolen item applies as long as it is in the possession of the thief or his inheritors. It applies even if the victim had already despaired of ever receiving the item back; if it remains in the thief's possession, he must return it to the victim. The Gemara says that this obligation requires the thief to travel even across the world to find the victim so he can return what he stole. Even if he stole a very inexpensive item, worth just a “Peruta,” he must go through whatever trouble is necessary to return it to the victim. However, the Sages enacted that if the victim lives far away, the thief can bring the object to Bet Din and leave it with them. This provision was enacted out of concern that thieves would not bother repenting for their crimes if this required going through the trouble and incurring the expense of traveling great distances to return what they stole. In the interest of encouraging thieves to repent, the Sages allowed them to leave the stolen goods with Bet Din rather than have to travel to the victim. If the stolen item's market value rose in the interim, while it was in the thief's possession, the thief must nevertheless return the item, and cannot demand the appreciation value. If, however, the item intrinsically appreciated, such as if one stole an animal and it grew wool or gave birth to more animals, then the thief can keep the value which the animal appreciated. This provision, too, was enacted by the Sages in the interest of encouraging thieves to repent. The Gemara states that if a person owned an empty apartment, and a squatter came and lived there without permission, the owner cannot demand payment from the squatter unless the apartment is normally leased. Assuming the squatter did not cause any damage to the property, he owes nothing to the owner, because this situation falls under the category of “Zeh Neheneh Ve'zeh Lo Haser” – literally, “this one benefits, and this one does not lose.” Since the owner did not lose anything as a result of the squatter's presence in the apartment, he cannot demand payment. To the contrary, the Gemara says, in a certain sense, having somebody living in a residence is beneficial for the property, as it protects it from being overrun by Mazikin (harmful spirits) which occupy empty homes. It is only if the owner normally leases the apartment, and was prevented from doing so because of the squatter, that he may then demand payment, since the squatter caused him a financial loss. (Nowadays, of course, the squatter would in any event be required to pay for utilities such as water and electricity, as well as the “wear and tear” of appliances and furniture.) This Misva applies in all places and in all times, and to both males and females. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if a thief does not return the stolen goods to the victim, then he will be punished not only for the sin of theft, but also for failing to seize the opportunity he was given to rectify his mistake. If the Torah offers a person the opportunity to repair the damage he inflicted, and he chose not to, then this itself is a very grievous sin. The Sefer Ha'hinuch here teaches us a lesson which is directly relevant not only to theft, but to all forms of wrongdoing. The Torah offers us the opportunity to correct all our mistakes through the process of Teshuba. This is an opportunity which we can ill afford to squander. We may learn from this Misva that whenever we fail, we must do what we can to rectify the failure through repentance, as soon as we can.

If one mistakenly uses sacred property (“Hekdesh”) for personal benefit, he has committed “Me'ila,” an act which imposes upon him a number of obligations. One obligation is to pay a “Homesh” – a penalty of one-fifth the value of the benefit he derived. He must pay the treasury of the Bet Ha'mikdash not only the actual value of the benefit he received, but also an additional one-fifth. The Torah introduces this command in Parashat Vayikra (5:16): “Va'hamishito Yosef Alav” (“…and he must add onto it one-fifth”). The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah imposed this penalty as a deterrent, in order that people will exercise caution and ensure to avoid accidental desecration of sacred property. Once a person mistakenly uses a sacred item for personal benefit, the item is divested of its status of sanctity. Therefore, Halacha establishes that “En Mo'el Ahar Mo'el” – if somebody else then derives benefit from the item, he has no obligation to pay anything, since the item was no longer sacred at the time he benefited from it. If, however, somebody intentionally benefited from a sacred item, and then somebody benefited from that item accidentally, the second fellow is indeed obligated to pay, since the item had been sacred and it was he who caused it to lose its status of sanctity. Certain items possess what is known as “Kedushat Ha'guf” – intrinsic sanctity, and do not lose their status even after Me'ila has been committed. Specifically, animals which have been consecrated to be offered as a sacrifice, and the sacred utensils of the Bet Ha'mikdash, retain their status of sanctity, and therefore even after one has mistakenly made personal use of these items, others who do so are likewise required to pay. In order to be considered an act of Me'ila, the benefit which one received must be worth at least one Peruta (the smallest unity of currency). The laws of Me'ila do not apply in a case where a non-Kohen ate sacrificial meat which is allowed only for Kohanim, if he ate it after the meat became permissible for Kohanim. Once the blood of a Hatat (sin offering) or Asham (guilt offering) has been sprinkled, the meat is then allowed to be eaten by the Kohanim. If a non-Kohen unlawfully partakes of such meat at this point, this does not constitute Me'ila, because he ate the meat at a time when it was already permissible for human consumption. Although he acted wrongly by eating the meat, this does not fall under the law of Me'ila, and he is not required to pay. This Halacha applies even if he ate the meat after it had, for whatever reason, become disqualified for consumption. Since it had become permissible for consumption, this meat is no longer subject to Me'ila, even after it subsequently becomes invalid for consumption. It should be noted that whenever the Torah requires paying a “Homesh” (“one-fifth”), it does not mean 20 percent. A “Homesh” of $100, for example, is calculated by dividing 100 into four – yielding a quotient of 25 – and then adding that value to the principal. Thus, when one is required to pay the principal plus a “Homesh,” and the principal is $100, he must pay $125 (a 25 percent penalty). This law, of course, applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it applies to both men and women. As mentioned earlier, this applies only to one who derived benefit from sacred property accidentally. Separate laws apply to one who intentionally derived personal benefit from sacred property. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if somebody is uncertain whether he derived benefit from sacred property, then he is exempt from both the sacrifice which would normally be required, and from payment. He does not bring the sacrifice because if he had not, in fact, derived benefit from the item in question, then his atonement sacrifice is not a real sacrifice, and he will thus be in violation of sacrificing an ordinary animal in the Bet Ha'mikdash. As for the monetary payment, there is a famous rule that “Ha'mosi Me'habero Alav Ha're'aya” – one who wishes to extract money from his fellow bears the burden of proof. Since it is uncertain whether this payment is required, it is the Temple treasury which must prove that Me'ila has occurred in order for the person to be required to pay. As long as the payment requirement is uncertain, the individual cannot be obligated to pay the Temple treasury.

The Shulhan Aruch, in Hoshen Mishpat (Siman 34), discusses the qualifications required by Halacha for somebody to be eligible to serve as an "Ed," a witness. These guidelines are critically important in several different contexts, including testimony before a Bet Din that the defendant owes the plaintiff money, and the required witnesses who sign on a Ketuba or are present at the Kiddushin in a wedding ceremony. A person is not valid for these purposes if he does not meet certain qualifications.The Shulhan Aruch writes that a person who has the formal status of a "Rasha" ("wicked person") is not qualified to serve as a witness. He defines the term "Rasha" for the purposes of this Halacha as somebody who intentionally transgressed a Torah violation that is punishable by either Malkot (lashes), death, or Karet (eternal spiritual excision). A violator obtains this status regardless of whether he transgressed "Le'hach'is" – with the specific intent to anger the Almighty – or "Le'te'abon" – because he could not restrain his evil inclination. This Halacha is inferred from the Torah's use of the term "Rasha" in the context of a person liable to Malkot ("Ve'haya Im Bin Hakot Ha'rasha" – Debarim 25:2). If a violator of a prohibition punishable by Malkot is considered a "Rasha," then certainly violators of capital offenses obtain this status. Hence, one who willfully violates a prohibition that is punishable by Malkot, death or Karet has the formal Halachic status of a "Rasha" and is thus disqualified from serving as a witness.This does not apply to a person who willfully neglected a Misvat Aseh (an affirmative command), such as if somebody did not take a Lulab or eat in the Sukka on Sukkot. Neglecting a Misvat Aseh is not punishable by Bet Din, and therefore it does not render a violator a "Rasha."The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, (1829-1908), in his Aruch Ha'shulhan (Hoshen Mishpat 34:5), writes that a person is also disqualified from serving as a witness if he strikes his fellow. We read in the Book of Shemot (2:13) that when Moshe confronted the two quarreling Israelite slaves, he approached the "Rasha" to reprimand him for striking the other. This demonstrates that striking another person also places one under the category of "Rasha." As such, one who commits such a crime is ineligible to serve as a witness.However, the Aruch Ha'shulhan claims that this disqualification applies only Mi'de'rabbanan – meaning, on the level of Rabbinic enactment. According to Torah law, one who commits the offense of striking his fellow is nevertheless eligible to serve as a witness, but the Sages enacted a provision disqualifying such a person. The reason the person remains eligible according to Torah law, the Aruch Ha'shulhan explains, is that he is not liable to Malkot for such an offense. There is a Halachic principle exempting a violator from Malkot if his violation makes him liable to pay money, and one who causes physical damage to his fellow must pay monetary compensation and therefore does not receive Malkot. As such, if not for the Rabbinic enactment, such a violator would not be disqualified from serving as a witness. Others disagree, and claim that this disqualification applies even on the level of Torah law. In a case where a person causes his fellow less than a "Peruta"-worth of damage by striking him, he is indeed liable to Malkot, since there is no payment involved. Therefore, the crime of striking another person is considered a Malkot-level violation, even though in most cases Malkot are not actually administered. As such, according to this view, the violator is disqualified from serving as a witness on the level of Torah law.In any event, this discussion alerts us to the importance of carefully choosing one's witnesses whenever witnesses are required, such as at a wedding. One should ensure to choose as his witnesses the most righteous and pious men available, in order to guarantee their eligibility.Summary: A person who willfully committed a Torah prohibition that is punishable by corporal or capital punishment, or who intentionally beat his fellow, is disqualified from serving as a witness, such as at a wedding, for the signing of a Ketuba, or in a hearing of Bet Din.

The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists as the 58 th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to try cases involving a “To'en Ve'nit'an” – a plaintiff and a defendant, when a person has a financial claim against his fellow. The source of this command is a verse in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 22:8) which speaks of a certain situation of a monetary claim, and instructs, “Ad Ha'elohim Yabo Debar Shenehem” – the matter should be brought before a Bet Din. According to the Sefer Ha'hinuch, it is here where the Torah commands Bet Din to hear cases whenever a person has a financial claim against his fellow. Whether it's a situation of theft, damage, an unpaid loan, or an object entrusted to one's fellow which was not returned, people must have legal recourse when they feel they are rightfully owed money. The Torah therefore commands Bet Din to try these cases and issue a proper ruling according to the Torah's principles of civil law. The Sefer Ha'hinuch notes that this Misva is included among the Noachide Laws, the commands which apply to all mankind, and not only to the Jewish Nation. He explains that society cannot function properly without a fair and effective justice system, and therefore the Torah demands that all nations must have courts that hear people's claims against one another and adjudicate fairly. The Sefer Ha'hinuch cites in this context the Mishna's teaching in Pirkeh Abot (1:18) that the world “stands upon three pillars,” one of which is the “pillar” of “Din” – justice. Without justice, society would be overrun by chaos, as people would not feel accountable for their actions. And so all societies bear an obligation to establish courts where people who feel they have been wronged can bring their claims. The Sefer Ha'hinuch here presents a very long list of principles that apply in the Torah's system of civil law. We will briefly mention some of these rules: “Modeh Be'miksat Ha'ta'ana”: If a person claims that his fellow owes a certain sum, and the defendant agrees that he owes part of the sum, then the defendant must take a Shebu'a (oath) that he does not owe more than he says. This oath is required if the sum he admits owing is at least a “Peruta” (the smallest unit of money), and the amount he denies is at least two “Ma'a.” The exception is when the plaintiff claims the defendant owes two utensils, and the defendant admits to owing just one. In such a case, even if the utensils are worth less than a “Peruta” – such as if the plaintiff claims two small, simple needles – the defendant must nevertheless take an oath. “Hoda'a Mi'min Ha'ta'ana”: The defendant must take an oath only if he confesses to part of the plaintiff's claim, and not to owing something else. For example, if the plaintiff claims that the defendant owes wheat, and the defendant confesses that he owes barley, this does not qualify as “Modeh Be'miksat Ha'ta'ana,” since the defendant did not agree to anything claimed by the plaintiff, and so no oath is administered. “Meshib Abeda Eno Nishba”: If a person returns a lost item or sum of money to its owner, and the owner claims that the finder actually found more and kept some from himself, the finder is not required to swear. Although this is a situation of “Modeh Be'miksat Ha'ta'ana,” as the finder confesses to half of what the owner claims he owes, nevertheless, the Sages enacted a provision exempting a finder from an oath, due to the concern that people would otherwise refrain from returning lost objects which they find. “Kofer Ba'kol”: If the defendant denies the claim altogether, then he does not need even need to swear, and is not required to pay unless the plaintiff can provide witnesses to substantiate his claim. “Hoda'at Ba'al Din Ke'me'a Edim Dameh”: A litigant's confession has the legal weight of the testimony of one hundred valid witnesses. If a litigant confesses to owing something, his confession obligates him to pay the item or sum in question to the plaintiff. “Shomrim”: Watchmen who are entrusted with somebody's object, which they claim was lost, stolen or damaged, bear liability under certain circumstances, depending, in part, on the nature of their arrangement with the owner. For example, in the case of a Shomer Hinam – an unpaid watchman – who claims that the item was lost, Bet Din requires him to take three oaths: that the item is not in his possession, that he was not negligent in his duties as a watchman, and that he did not take the object for himself. After taking these oaths, the watchman does not need to pay the owner anything. “Hashud Al Ha'shebu'a”: If a defendant is required to take a Shebu'a, but his past history of dishonesty gives Bet Din reason to suspect that he may be prepared to swear falsely, he cannot swear, and must instead pay the plaintiff. “Migu”: If a defendant could have given a response to the plaintiff which would have been Halachically acceptable, then he is believed even if he gives a different response. “Gilgul Shebu'a”: In cases where a defendant is required to take an oath, Bet Din will impose upon him also oaths for other claims which otherwise would not have been required. “Pore'a Hobo Al Yedeh Shali'ah”: If a borrower gives money to a messenger and instructs him to bring the money to the lender, he cannot then retract the Shelihut (assignment of agency). “En Mekabelin Edut Ela Bi'fneh Ba'al Din”: Bet Din hears a witness' testimony only if the litigant against whom he testifies is present. “Ma'amad Shelashtan”: If Reuven owes Shimon money, and he is together with Shimon and another person, Levi, to whom Shimon owes money, then Shimon can tell Reuben to give the money to Levi, and this verbal instruction suffices to transfer the obligation, such that Reuben must now pay Levi the sum he had owed to Shimon. “Ha'mosi Me'habero Alav Ha're'aya”: Bet Din does not award a plaintiff money he claims from the defendant without proof. One who claims money from his fellow bears the burden of proof. “Masranut”: If a person wishes to sell his property, he must grant the owner of the neighboring property the right of first refusal. This is predicated upon the command, “Ve'asita Ha'yashar Ve'ha'tob” (“You shall do that which is upright and good” – Debarim 6:18), requiring that we conduct ourselves with basic decency and goodwill. This is just a small, brief sampling of the numerous principles on the basis of which Bet Din reaches decisions in civil cases, for the purpose of maintaining a just, peaceful society.

Is the ring worth a Peruta?

Die Größe der Übervorteilung ist vier Silberstücke, die Größe einer Forderung zwei Silberstücke und die des Geständnisses der Wert einer Pruta. Bei fünf Angelegenheiten ist der Wert einer Pruta erforderlich: Das Objekt des Geständnisses muss eine Pruta wert sein; eine Frau kann man sich durch den Wert einer Pruta antrauen; wer von Heiligem einen Nutzen im Wert einer Pruta hat, begeht eine Veruntreuung; wer einen Wert von einer Pruta findet, muss es ausrufen lassen; und wer seinem Nächsten den Wert einer Pruta geraubt und es abgeschworen hat, muss ihm denselben selbst nach Medien nachführen.

Today we are joined by Jim Peruta, a 45 year veteran of the Fire Buff Photography scene.   Jim runs his own website at res23cue.net and is a member of the Connecticut Fire Photographer's Association. Jim and I discuss what it takes to be a fire buff photographer and what someone should do or should not do if they are looking to buff a fire scene. We have a lot of links in this podcast, and all of them can befound in the show notes at www.scannerschool.com/session21 Please support Scanner School by becoming a Patreon Supporter at www.scannerschool.com/support

Hallitus pitää kiinni työttömiä koskevasta aktiivimallista, vakuuttaa sinisten puheenjohtaja eurooppa-, kulttuuri- ja urheiluministeri Sampo Terho. .. Lisää >> http://ift.tt/2nsefiO

This podcast features guest contributor John Hollis joins us for our special report – “Culture of Impunity”: The Connecticut Valley Hospital Patient Abuse Scandal. John is a retired CVH employee and former union steward.American News Network Summary Judgement co-hosts Rachel Baird and Ed Peruta talk about the Hartford Civilian Police Review Board, and Peruta’s lawsuit against the Hartford Police. Peruta is a former Wethersfield police officer. We will also have information on grassroots hurricane disaster relief efforts in Houston, Florida and the Caribbean islandsCommunity Party Radio Show is hosted by author and political activist David Samuels, author of the book False Choice: The Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. Pick up your copy of the book on Amazon.Community Party Radio Show airs Tuesday and Wednesday nights at 8p est / 7p cst /5p pst on www.SoMetroRadio.com. You can also hear the show on the iRadio station SoMetro Talk that is available on apps like TuneIn and SoMetro Magazine. SoMetro Radio and SoMetro Talk are original member stations of the GET GLOBAL NETWORK.Take the time to subscribe to the show on iTunes, iHeart Radio, Google Play, Stitcher, Spreaker and other podcast platforms.

This podcast features guest contributor John Hollis joins us for our special report – “Culture of Impunity”: The Connecticut Valley Hospital Patient Abuse Scandal. John is a retired CVH employee and former union steward.American News Network Summary Judgement co-hosts Rachel Baird and Ed Peruta talk about the Hartford Civilian Police Review Board, and Peruta’s lawsuit against the Hartford Police. Peruta is a former Wethersfield police officer. We will also have information on grassroots hurricane disaster relief efforts in Houston, Florida and the Caribbean islandsCommunity Party Radio Show is hosted by author and political activist David Samuels, author of the book False Choice: The Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. Pick up your copy of the book on Amazon.Community Party Radio Show airs Tuesday and Wednesday nights at 8p est / 7p cst /5p pst on www.SoMetroRadio.com. You can also hear the show on the iRadio station SoMetro Talk that is available on apps like TuneIn and SoMetro Magazine. SoMetro Radio and SoMetro Talk are original member stations of the GET GLOBAL NETWORK.Take the time to subscribe to the show on iTunes, iHeart Radio, Google Play, Stitcher, Spreaker and other podcast platforms.

This podcast features guest contributor John Hollis joins us for our special report – “Culture of Impunity”: The Connecticut Valley Hospital Patient Abuse Scandal. John is a retired CVH employee and former union steward. American News Network Summary Judgement co-hosts Rachel Baird and Ed Peruta talk about the Hartford Civilian Police Review Board, and Peruta’s lawsuit against the Hartford Police. Peruta is a former Wethersfield police officer. We will also have information on grassroots hurricane disaster relief efforts in Houston, Florida and the Caribbean islands Community Party Radio Show is hosted by author and political activist David Samuels, author of the book False Choice: The Bipartisan Attack on the Working Class, the Poor and Communities of Color. Pick up your copy of the book on Amazon. Community Party Radio Show airs Tuesday and Wednesday nights at 8p est / 7p cst /5p pst on www.SoMetroRadio.com. You can also hear the show on the iRadio station SoMetro Talk that is available on apps like TuneIn and SoMetro Magazine. SoMetro Radio and SoMetro Talk are original member stations of the GET GLOBAL NETWORK. Take the time to subscribe to the show on iTunes, iHeart Radio, Google Play, Stitcher, Spreaker and other podcast platforms.

July 2nd, 2017: Firearms Attorney John Dillon on the Mag Ban, SDCGO on Peruta, The Gun Range San Diego The right to self-defense is a basic human right. Gun ownership is an integral part of that right. If you want to keep your rights defend them by joining San Diego County Gun Owners (SDCGO), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Gun Owners of California (GOC), and Gun Owners of America (GOA). Join the fight and help us restore and preserve our second amendment rights. Together we will win. https://www.gunsportsradio.com https://www.sandiegocountygunowners.com https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ https://www.gunownersca.com/ https://gunowners.org  

Dana’s back from vacation and wraps up the health care craziness with a California woman who threatens to go to Planned Parenthood in Mexico. Dana summarizes SCOTUS decisions of the Travel Ban reinstatement and the Peruta v California decision on right to protect. Dana notices something interesting at Turks and Caicos on their immigration laws. Plus, Mitch McConnell’s response on vote delay. The UN Women releases toolkit to help narrow gender gap for procurement professionals and more Twin Peaks obsession. Also, John McEnroe makes comments about Serena Williams. That and much more!

Mike, Kevin and Earl talk about the bill the AZ Governor recently signed protecting the state from any future universal background check laws that may be proposed. Maj. Bill calls in and tells us about the Dallas Sheriff that came out against concealed carry on a national level, joining gabby gifford's gun control group. Mike and Kevin go over the particulars of a potentially big Second Amendment case coming up in the Supreme Court, Peruta vs. California. All of this and our usual dose of hi jinx and shenanigans.

FOX's Eben Brown has your 'FOX Bullet Points': I'm Eben Brown. New York Magazine is taking some flak for saying the NRA has found an ally in the terrorists of the Islamic state group. The magazine says their sources from ISIS, and previously al-Qaeda, had often joked about how easy it would be for one of their henchmen to get an AR-15 at a gun show in the much of the United States. The article was meant to highlight the NRA's stance on the supposed 'gun show loophole' regarding background checks. And it may come to pass that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the deciding factor in whether or not you have the right to keep and bear arms outside your home. The case is Peruta v California and has to do with the sheriff in San Diego not issuing permits to people who didn't provide a specific need to carry. Now that the high court has nine justices once again, there is belief the court will take up the case soon. And those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News! Follow Eben Brown on Twitter: @FOXEbenBrown

In this Episode: In The Crosshairs: The Peruta Case: A Textbook Example of Dishonest Federal Judges Q&A: Questions about 1) availability of AR-15 magazines; 2) carrying a round in the chamber of your self-defense handgun; and 3) where you can and cannot carry your handgun. Today’s Safety Tip: When to put your finger on the trigger.

EP095 GunBlog VarietyCast - The Cheesecake Episode   Blue Collar Prepping - Appetite Fatigue The Bridge -  Civility in Politics Pacifiers & Peacemakers - It’s Okay To Cry Tech Tips with The Barron  - The Teamviewer “Hack” This Week in Anti-Gun Nuttery - Some Wear Orange Call and Response Our Sponsor - http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/variety     Blue Collar Prepping - Appetite Fatigue World War 2 Britain study:  http://tinyurl.com/zjaxarf Hurricane Rita food fatigue: http://survivallife.com/appetite-fatigue-it-affects-more-than-your-waistline/ Survival pizza: https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/Articles.asp?ID=476   Felons Behaving Badly Gastonia Man Arrested for Shooting at Another Man - http://www.crimeincharlotte.com/gastonia-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-another-man/#.V1s4xrsrK70 Suspect - http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=1185480&searchLastName=Brooks&searchFirstName=Scott&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1   The Bridge - Civility in Politics 2016 Allegheny College Prize for Civility in Public Life - http://sites.allegheny.edu/civilityaward/   Plug of the Week Kuranda Chewproof Dog Bed - http://amzn.to/1ti8NAb Crib Mattress - http://amzn.to/25SD5rl Solid Color Crib Sheets Under $25 - http://amzn.to/21dmviN   Pacifiers & Peacemakers - It's OK to Cry It’s Okay to Cry - https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/okay-cry/   Fun With Headlines   Girl born without hands wins national handwriting competition - http://wkrn.com/2016/05/08/girl-born-without-hands-wins-national-handwriting-competition/     Tech Tips with The Barron  - The Teamviewer “Hack” How LinkedIn’s password sloppiness hurts us all - http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/how-linkedins-password-sloppiness-hurts-us-all/ TeamViewer confirms number of abused user accounts is “significant” - http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/teamviewer-says-theres-no-evidence-of-2fa-bypass-in-mass-account-hack/   The J Block - Peruta and the 9th Circus Peruta v. County of San Diego ruling - http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf Peruta v. County of San Diego: Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment to Uphold Ban on Concealed Carry - http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/peruta_v_county_of_san_diego_ninth_circuit_ignores_second_amendment_to_uphold_ban_on_concealed_carry.html Concealed carry, California and the 9th Circuit’s misrepresentation of the facts - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/10/concealed-carry-california-and-truth-about-9th-circuit-s-ruling.html   This Week in Anti-Gun Nuttery - Some Wear Orange Call and Response Joan Peterson Wears Orange - http://www.fox21online.com/news/local-news/wear-orange-for-gun-violence/39863354 North Carolina Wears Orange - http://abc11.com/society/nc-activists-in-orange-call-for-an-end-to-gun-violence/1368957/ Opioid-induced hyperalgesia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid-induced_hyperalgesia Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance - http://gocra.org/index.php Grass Roots North Carolina - http://www.grnc.org/   Stuff that grinds my gears Sean - Vorkosigan Series - Lois McMaster Bujold - http://amzn.to/1UIIY5i

Disrupting an active shooter can be very important-Unless you are a gun grabber,9th Circuit reverses itself in Peruta and invites Harris in to play,4 Countries that we tour on the Burl Ives Express,10 range bag necessities,Cali GOP is hugging the wrong tree,Beth Baca and I discuss Women and Guns.

Holder is retiring but who knows where he goes next,Bloombergs 50 million dollar desire for gun control is backfiring,How Gun control made the UK so violent,NBC shocked to find that more people want armed teachers,NJ and NY highlight the double standard,FBI releases mass shooting report,Moms Demand protest the place they claim to support,Hickenlooper about to pay the price for gun control,10 common mistakes when training with firearms,Peruta could change everything.

11 year old young lady kills cougar stalking her brother thanx to her excellent firarms education,Cali AG tries to wade in on Peruta case after she is suprised by the shocking 9th Circuit decision,ATF agents misplace-lose-have their guns stolen,Arms with Ethics or the next MAIG front?,MAIG member and Trenton NJ Mayor Tony Mack removed from office due to Federal conviction,Ladies in central Alabama provide a surge in sales as they tool up,Christies gun stance seemingly at odds with GOP,Missouri and Arizona edge closer to nullification,More Stand your Ground nonsense,NJ gun laws already tough on citizens,Same prosecuter differentapplication of law in DC,Can SWAT teams raid gunowners homes?,Want to support Ares Armor-Check out this deal on their full upper,RI Dem pushes Draconian AWB.

The Peruta ruling on the California Law requiring a person to "show good cause” has a great deal of local impact as one local Sheriff requires "good moral character” in addition to showing good cause. Dave, Jeff, and Pat on the 2nd Amendment and the ruling

The Peruta ruling on the California Law requiring a person to “show good cause” has a great deal of local impact as one local Sheriff requires “good moral character” in addition to showing good cause. Dave, Jeff and Pat on the 2nd Amendment and the ruling