Podcasts about Preemption

An aws engineer discovered a 50% regression in postgres throughput while testing the new Linux 7.0 kernel. The cause turns out to be massive TLB and page faults exacerbated by Postgres process-based design. In this backend engineering show episode I dive deep into how this was discovered, the root cause and the possible fixes and workarounds. Intermediate and Advanced Backend Engineering Course Bundlehttps://courses.husseinnasser.com/bundleMy Book, Root Cause: Stories and Lessons from Two Decades of Backend Engineering Bugs https://amzn.to/4cKfZhe 0:00 Intro2:30 The Discovery6:30 Spinlocks9:25 Preemption 13:00 Root Cause17:00 How Postgres Processes exacerbated the problem 22:30 Is the fix easy?25:50 Summary

A unanimous Supreme Court decision could have major implications for freight brokerages

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Young and the Restless spoilers show that Victor Newman, portrayed by Eric Braeden, confronts Matt Clark. The week of May 25th also brings two major medical crises.  Y&R spoilers reveal that Patty places a distress call concerning Jack, while Adam learns about Sally's pregnancy from Billy. The tension between Victor and Phyllis escalates as Victor gains an upper hand. This week also sees Nick's life hanging in the balance as he collapses during a phone call, pushing Sharon, Victor, Sienna, and Noah into panic mode.  The Young and the Restless spoilers indicate that Abby makes a promise to Devon, likely concerning Dominic, while Lily begins to see Cane in a new light. Nikki is haunted by nightmares, possibly triggered by her own addiction issues and Nick's collapse. Victor makes a shocking decision to help Nick, leaving the family stunned.  Y&R spoilers hint that Jack receives surprising news about Diane from Kyle, hinting at a possible mystery. Phyllis gives Patty a history lesson, and Nikki and Victor step up to help Nick face his addiction.  You are listening to Belynda from Soap Dirt. The most listened to podcast for soap operas. Visit our Young and the Restless section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/young-and-the-restless/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Young and the Restless Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/young-and-the-restless-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

This week, Dave and Ben look at how the Trump administration is reshaping federalism through AI policy alongside looking at a lawsuit filed by a college student against a dating app for using her image without permission. Afterwards, Ben sits down with Jen Sovada, Claroty's Public Sector GM, to discuss national cybersecurity strategies and how these initiatives depend on public-private trust. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Links to today's stories: ⁠How the executive branch is reshaping AI federalism. A college student is suing a dating app. Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠N2K Pro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ members on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing dives into several new deals established between the Pentagon and major frontier AI models aiming to provide advance AI tools and avoid vendor locks. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last November, Calvin Duncan won an election to serve as the chief records keeper for the criminal courts of the parish that covers New Orleans.He received 68 percent of the vote, beating out a powerful incumbent. He has some personal experience with Louisiana courts. He was incarcerated for a murder conviction for 28 years. He studied criminal law to advocate for himself, and a judge eventually found him innocent. He was freed in 2011.But now, the Louisiana state legislature has moved to eliminate his position. State officials voted to combine his office with another in a move that state senators said was meant to save money. Duncan is taking legal action and a lawsuit over his role is now making its way through the courts. This situation is part of a larger trend across the nation where state legislatures are more and more often undoing decisions made by local officials.“State preemption” describes steps a state government can take to tell a local city or town council it can't do something. Legislators in states like Florida, Missouri, California, West Virginia, Michigan, and Louisiana have been using it to influence events and regulations in their communities.What's leading to more frequent, and public, fights between state legislatures and local governments? And what could defuse these fights?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

In the episode of Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today, we explore the White House's National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence published on March 20, 2026. This new framework represents the Administration's most concrete attempt yet to shape the future of AI governance in the United States. While it does not carry the force of law, it offers a revealing look at the policy direction the Administration hopes Congress will take. Joining our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group), for this discussion were Charlie Bullock (Senior Research Fellow at The Institute for Law and AI), Kristian Stout (Director of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law & Economics), and Greg Szewczyk, head of Ballard Spahr's Privacy and Data Security Group. Below are the key takeaways from the conversation. From Principles to Policy: A Clear Shift One of the most striking aspects of the new framework is how sharply it departs from last year's more principles-based "White House AI Action Plan." That earlier effort emphasized risk awareness, governance principles, and a balanced approach to innovation and regulation. On October 30, 2025, we produced a webinar entitled: "AI in Financial Services: Understanding the White House Action Plan – and What It Leaves Out", which featured the same speakers as the podcast being released today, plus Dean Ball, former White House senior advisor and one of the architects of the White House AI Action Plan. This webinar was then re-purposed into a two-part podcast series released on December 4 and 10, 2025. By contrast, the new framework is short, just a few pages, light on detailed policy prescriptions, and heavily focused on limiting regulation, particularly at the state level. As Charlie Bullock observed, the document is notable as much for what it doesn't include as for what it does. Rather than proposing robust federal oversight, it largely outlines areas where the government should refrain from acting. Federal Preemption Takes Center Stage The framework's most consequential and controversial feature is its strong endorsement of federal preemption of state AI laws. It proposes broad preemption in areas such as: ·        AI development ·        Liability for third-party misuse of AI systems ·        Restrictions on AI-enabled activities that would otherwise be lawful At the same time, it preserves certain state authorities, including: ·        Zoning and infrastructure decisions ·        State use of AI ·        "Generally applicable" laws (e.g., fraud, consumer protection, and child safety) This raises a critical question: How meaningful are these carve-outs? As we discussed, broadly worded exceptions, particularly for state "police powers", could significantly limit the practical reach of federal preemption and potentially preserve a patchwork of state regulation. The Patchwork Problem Isn't Going Away Even with federal action, the reality is that state-level AI regulation is already underway. Laws like Colorado's AI Act and emerging chatbot regulations illustrate how quickly states are moving. Greg Szewczyk noted that, unlike privacy law, where states have largely converged around similar frameworks, AI regulation could diverge in more fundamental ways. Without a consistent federal baseline, companies may face: ·        Increased compliance costs ·        Operational complexity ·        Uncertainty in deploying AI tools across jurisdictions Interestingly, some state regulators (including Democrats) may ultimately favor a well-crafted federal preemption regime if it provides clarity without sacrificing core protections. Innovation First—But Who Benefits? The framework strongly emphasizes: ·        AI infrastructure buildout ·        Faster permitting ·        Regulatory sandboxes ·        Access to federal datasets Kristian Stout highlighted that these priorities could accelerate innovation but they are not automatically startup-friendly. Large incumbents may benefit disproportionately due to: ·        Greater access to compute resources ·        Established compliance capabilities ·        Ability to absorb regulatory costs This tension between promoting innovation and preserving competition remains unresolved. Child Safety, IP, and Free Speech: More Questions Than Answers The framework touches on several critical areas but leaves key details unsettled: Child Protection It endorses tools like age verification and parental controls but offers little guidance on implementation. Compared to proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the framework appears less aggressive and more preemptive of state innovation. Intellectual Property Rather than legislating, the framework defers to the courts on issues like: ·        Fair use in AI training ·        Output infringement This "wait and see" approach avoids premature policymaking but prolongs uncertainty. Free Speech A novel component aims to prevent government "jawboning" of AI providers; i.e., informal pressure to shape outputs. While rooted in legitimate First Amendment concerns, its ultimate scope and constitutionality remain unclear. No New AI Regulator—For Now The framework rejects the creation of a centralized AI regulator, instead relying on existing agencies. This approach has clear advantages: ·        Agencies already understand their sectors ·        Avoids bureaucratic duplication But it also raises concerns: ·        Limited technical expertise ·        Resource constraints ·        Inconsistent oversight across agencies As discussed, a hybrid model, combining agency expertise with centralized technical guidance, may ultimately emerge. Will Anything Actually Pass? Perhaps the most sobering takeaway: major AI legislation is unlikely in the near term. As Charlie Bullock put it bluntly, companies should not invest significant resources preparing for this specific framework. The political reality is: ·        Deep divisions within and between parties ·        Limited legislative bandwidth before the midterms ·        Competing proposals with very different philosophies That said, elements of the framework may still surface incrementally in future bills. The Anthropic "Mythos" Moment: A Glimpse of What's Coming While not covered by the White House framework, our discussion closed with a timely real-world example: reports about Anthropic's advanced AI model, "Claude Mythos," capable of identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at scale. Whether somewhat overstated or not, the episode highlights a broader truth: ·        AI is accelerating existing capabilities, not inventing entirely new ones ·        The pace of advancement is increasing rapidly ·        Both risks and defensive tools are evolving simultaneously As Kristian Stout noted, this is less a radical break than a compression of time and accessibility, making powerful capabilities available faster and to more people. Final Thoughts The White House AI Framework signals an important shift in U.S. policy thinking: ·        Away from abstract principles ·        Toward concrete (if still incomplete) legislative direction It prioritizes innovation, federal uniformity, and limited regulation but leaves fundamental questions unresolved. For industry participants, the key takeaway is not immediate compliance but continued vigilance. The direction of travel is becoming clearer, even if the destination remains uncertain. We will closely continue to monitor developments closely on our blog, webinars and podcast shows. We will soon be releasing podcast shows with (1) Professor Mark Geistfeld of NYU Law School about ALI's relatively new project entitled "Principles of the Law Pertaining to Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence" and (2) with Professor David Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School about an article he co-authored with the CEO of the American Arbitration Association entitled "Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure, and the Courts are Coming." Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The dust is starting to settle after the annual whirlwind that is the final days of the legislative session at the Tennessee State Capitol.Today we take you inside the halls of power to wrap-up. We hear from reporters who offer their insights into what passed and why, what failed and what might surface again in 2027. From school vouchers and immigration policy to preempting local laws, what were the predominant issues and political dynamics that shaped the laws — and will shape our state's future? And we want to hear from you: How would you rate legislative performance? Were your priorities addressed? If not, what do you want from lawmakers next year? Join the conversation by calling 615-760-2000 or chiming in on the chat on our live YouTube stream.This episode was produced by Mary Mancini.Guests Marianna Bacallao, State Legislature reporter, WPLN Sarah Grace Taylor, Statehouse reporter, Nashville Banner Vivian Jones, State government and politics reporter, Tennessean

Andrew Mahler, Vice President of Privacy and Compliance Services, Clearwater, speaks with David Peloquin, Partner, Ropes & Gray LLP, about the emergence of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) in the health care industry and the accompanying legal and regulatory challenges. They discuss how agentic AI differs from earlier forms of AI, why this difference is legally meaningful in health care, some of the significant use cases that are being observed, the state legal and regulatory landscape, issues related to federal preemption and what a durable “patchwork” might look like, enforcement risks and how health care organizations should respond, and the core elements of an effective AI governance framework that can adapt to the changing legal and regulatory environment. David recently co-authored an article in Health Law Weekly about this topic. Sponsored by Clearwater.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Tmqe86Pd8Read David's article: https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/content-library/health-law-weekly/article/972e61f2-05a0-487d-987e-38c8b40b4dde/Paging-Dr-Algorithm-Navigating-the-Regulatory-Land Learn more about Clearwater: https://clearwatersecurity.com/ Essential Legal Updates, Now in AudioAHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Comprehensive members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal EducationLearn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/. 

Episode 286- Shoot New York’s Eye Out Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 286 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Air guns, BB guns, federal law, state law, preemption, New York ban, imitation firearms, gun rights, mental health, firearm safety, historical context, Vatican security, Pope’s stance, gun control, legal advice. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know, my whole life I’ve really loved air guns. I had BB guns and air rifles as a kid. I had my, of course, the classic Red Ryder, and I had a Crosman 760 XL. Now, that was the Crossman 177 pellet and BB rifle, and the XL had the beautiful golden receiver on it. I don’t know if any of you had an XL version of the 760, but that was a really fun, great air gun. And I had a Benjamin. Man, that was a powerhouse, and it was .22 caliber pellet. You can pump that baby up, and that was my number one squirrel killer. And all as a kid. I shot squirrels in my yard, where my father had a giant garden. He needed to keep the squirrel population down, and I shot those squirrels. Then I cut off their tails, and then I sold the tails to Mepps Lure company, which would buy squirrel tails. I think they still might do that. And that got me some money as a kid. And it was used, of course, to buy more pellets and fun things. And I progressed, as maybe some of you did, to a love of adult air guns. Evan Nappen 01:59 And then, of course, Robert Beeman and air rifle headquarters. They were bringing in those premier, phenomenal air rifles that today are the standard of an entire sector of what I’ll call the gun world. Some of you may have had great RWS guns. My favorite were the Feinwerkbaus. I’ll never forget, my dad got a Feinwerkbau 124 from Beeman that he ordered. He had it custom ordered, and they worked out, worked up the innards on it. So, that thing was sweet. And ever since then, I’ve acquired many adult air guns. I have, you know, the finest Feinwerkbau ever made, the 300 series, the Olympic Feinwerkbau. It just shoots through the same hole. Evan Nappen 03:01 There are so many phenomenal air guns. And today, of course, the revolution in air guns is the pre-charge air gun. They have air guns that have tremendous ability for hunting, and air guns are just a blast. They’re fun. They’re a great way of learning firearm safety and shooting skills. A great way of Page – 2 – of 10 introducing young folks into firearms and the fun and joy of shooting. So, air guns are great. I have a deep love of air guns. Always have. I’m a collector of air guns. I love the history of air guns. And you may know that an air gun was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition, which made a lot of sense, because the ability to get gunpowder in the wilderness is not an easy task. And with an air gun, there’s always air around. They would pump up that air gun and could use it to take big game. It was that air rifle. It is actually still known and around, that was used on the St. Louis, you know. When they left St. Louis, they had it with them on that great exploratory mission under President Jefferson. And air guns, even at one point, they were used militarily by the Austrians. Napoleon had the death penalty for anybody caught with an air rifle, and those were able to fire repeatedly with enough power to be used militarily. There’s an amazing history and air guns. But the modern sporting air gun today, all the way down to the BB gun, has a tremendous role. Evan Nappen 05:02 Yet, despite the tradition and the history of air guns in America, New York is now proposing a law to ban BB guns and air guns. The law that New York Democrats, of course, are proposing is to ban air guns by making air guns all being placed in a category of “imitation weapons”. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/04/13/new-york-lawmakers-take-aim-at-bb-guns-n1232199) And by doing that, it would require that every air gun has a plug and specific coloration, and by putting them in that category, they will no longer shoot. Okay? So, you know, what’s the point there? The idea here being, if you make them an imitation firearm, and then they want to raise the age from 16 to 18. They’re selling this nonsense under a typical gun oppressionists lie of claiming police-involved shootings involving individuals who possessed an air gun, which was designed to look like a firearm. You know, the same way they sold the nonsense of cop-killer bullets, of which no cop has ever been killed by one. But why should that stop them from banning so-called cop-killer bullets. Anytime they get any angle that they can sell to the public and fool the public, who doesn’t have an understanding of guns as such, they do it. Evan Nappen 07:11 And here, New York now may become subject to what would essentially be a ban on air guns and BB guns. But let me say right now on the Gun Lawyer podcast that if New York succeeds in passing this law, there is a magic bullet, shall we say, that can kill this law. New Yorkers can shoot the eye out of New York’s air gun ban. The way to do it, I’m going to give you right now how to kill an air gun ban. It is under the United States Code, Title 15 (Commerce and Trade, Chapter 76), Section 5001. (https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-15/chapter-76/) Evan Nappen 08:12 And this, my friends, is a federal law. It is a federal law that deals with imitation firearms. The reason this federal law is such an incredibly powerful weapon is that this federal law is an area of firearm pre-emption law. What it means is that federal law preempts state law. Federal law supersedes and is superior to, overrides. Overrides it, my friends. Overrides it. And because of that, we are able to take out state laws that attempt to interfere with air guns, and, for that matter, imitation firearms. The very thing that New York is attempting to use as the vehicle to create an air gun ban. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 09:27 Let me tell you about Section 5001. Section 5001 first defines and lays out what is required to be on imitation firearms. It lays out what we have seen in the last few decades of having the distinctive markings, the blaze orange plug on look-alike or toy air guns and other imitation firearms and such. The look-alike firearm, which is what the law refers to, is defined as any imitation of an original firearm which was manufactured, designed or produced since 1898 including and Evan Nappen 10:21 limited to toy guns, water guns, replica non guns, airsoft guns firing nonmetallic projectiles, you know, such as airsoft and such. The term does not include any look alike, non firing collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898 or traditional BB, paintball, or pellet firing air guns that expel a projectile through the use of force or air pressure. And lo and behold, this section has a statement that says, preemption of state or local laws or ordinances. Preemption. The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of state or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section. Okay. Then it goes on and it says, ready? No State shall and then number one, prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm. So, replica collector firearms are protected. And two, very important here for New York and any other state that wants to try to ban air guns, prohibit the sale parentheses, other than prohibiting the sale to minors end parentheses, of traditional BB, paint ball or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure. So, should New York be as repressive and stupid as to attempt to ban air guns, federal law preempts and nullifies, supersedes, that state law. Evan Nappen 12:54 Let me tell you another little factor, very interesting. I used this law successfully to attack New Jersey’s assault firearm law. In the case of Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen versus Florio, which you can find at 744 F. Sup. 602, back in 1990, I challenged the then Attorney General, Robert Del Tufo. I brought an action, a civil action, challenging New Jersey’s assault firearm ban on a number, and magazine ban, by the way, on a number of things. One of the specific challenges was utilizing 15 U.S.C. 5001, which is the air gun preemption. New Jersey’s assault firearm ban, as written, included air guns, because air guns are firearms in New Jersey, and the ban on assault firearms and magazines by definition included air guns. And this case with Judge Garrett Brown, federal judge, had an injunction, which, by the way, this is why today you can still buy air guns, BB guns, pellet guns in New Jersey that may seem at first to fall under the definition of New Jersey’s assault firearm law because of this case and its outcome. The court found that the prohibition as it affects air guns was unconstitutional in that it was preempted under this federal law. Evan Nappen 15:06 So, there’s even case law enforcing this federal preemption as it comes to air guns, even in an assault firearm ban, no less a ban that specifically attempts to ban air guns and BB guns. So, I am giving this to New York as information, folks, and anywhere else that there is an air gun ban that we have a weapon. Believe it or not, air guns, BB guns, etc, are more protected than firearms in America. More protected because federal law preempts state laws from banning them. If we had federal preemption for firearms, then the only firearm law would be the federal law, and no state law banning guns would stand. But we don’t have federal preemption. Our federal gun laws, except with very limited narrow, a few laws like Page – 4 – of 10 Title 18, 926a for interstate transportation and for LEOSA, for law enforcement carry, and retired law enforcement carry, and for armored car carry. Except for a few areas like that, we don’t have federal preemptive laws on firearms, but we do have a federal preemptive law that protects air guns, BB guns and replica firearms. Evan Nappen 16:55 If we ever wanted to wipe out all the state bans, we’d simply have to make the federal law preemptive, but instead, the federal law specifically says it’s not preemptive. So what it does is it creates a situation, when it comes to firearms, that the federal law is the minimum gun law for the United States. Then the states are given carte blanche to go crazy, to do whatever the hell they want, to maximize the gun laws. Then the only thing that possibly limits states is the Second Amendment and its impact that we’re gaining ground every day in the courts. But if we simply said that the Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, and any of its other amendments are preemptive, it would wipe out all state bans instantly. Well, we haven’t done that, but we did do it for air guns, folks, and BB guns and replica firearms. It needs to be known out there so that when these attempts at bans are made by states or towns, this weapon, this hammer in our law, can be used to defeat them. Teddy Nappen 18:19 Out of curiosity, just thinking on New York and their other attempts, you know, they, I give them credit, they’re always very creative on finding ways to take away people’s rights. Could they make any laws that either try to make weird compliance requirements for air guns or air pellet guns? Where they would be effectively banned, basically, without saying, oh, you can’t have it. You just have to have all these different bells and whistles. Or is it just full preemption? And there’s nothing they can do. Evan Nappen 18:52 Well, it might, you might be able to create a license or permit system, maybe, if there’s no ban. Because currently in New Jersey, you still need a Firearms ID Card to purchase an air gun, or, you know, long arm. Air guns are technically defined as shotguns, even if they have a rifle barrel, and therefore a firearm, because they don’t fire fixed ammunition. So, it puts them into the shotgun long arm category, which is why you would need a Firearms ID Card. And if it’s a handgun, then you would need a Pistol Purchase Permit, if you’ve acquire those air guns in New Jersey. Now, if you acquire air guns outside New Jersey, federal law doesn’t view them as firearms. If the state you’re in doesn’t view them as firearms, like Pennsylvania doesn’t, you can acquire air guns outside the jurisdiction of New Jersey, and you can bring them back to New Jersey and possess them in New Jersey. Without even having a Firearm ID Card, if you possess them, by way of the exemptions. But New Jersey regulates air guns by way of firearm licensing, but it doesn’t, it cannot ban them. Judge Brown declared New Jersey’s assault firearm law a de facto ban, and because it’s a de facto ban, you can’t ban air guns with a ban, and the de facto band did just that. So, maybe New York, in theory, could create, you know, licensing, maybe. Depending on how they structure it. But an outright ban that forces guns that are air guns into an imitation firearm category, that requires a plug, is completely and utterly contradiction to the federal preemption law regarding those type of guns. Teddy Nappen 20:59 Watch as Hakeem. Watch as Hakeem Jeffries introduces a bill to repeal the air gun preemption. Page – 5 – of 10 Evan Nappen 21:06 You never know, right? I mean, he might. He might decide that. But this was fought for back in the day, and it was great that, I know, Daisy played a major role, by the way, in getting that legislation through. And it is why we have actually stronger protections for air guns, BB guns and traditional pellet firing guns of that nature, and for that matter, paintball as well. Even though we also have the In Re Gong case in New Jersey that protects paintball markers and why you can have paintball. Essentially soft air falls under this protection as well. So, it’s interesting how our laws have evolved. But this preemptive federal law needs to be better known and out there, to be used to stop these repression Second Amendment states from doing their thing. Teddy Nappen 22:11 Just to play with the idea. Let’s say, if things get very, very bad and the states start legislating. In terms of technology, do you think they’ll ever get to a point for air guns to be essentially like carry guns, almost where there’s a way around it? Evan Nappen 22:27 Well, you know, we have Byrnas, right? They fire projectiles that are essentially pepper balls. It was, given how much, you know, we might be able to do that. But federal law doesn’t preempt carry. They would preempt sale. And according to Judge Brown as well, sale extends to possession. It’s not just limited to sale. And really Judge Brown in the logic in that case could actually be used, I think, as an argument against what recently has been determined in the weird trick, as they call it, the weird trick, where they’re claiming that a sale isn’t protected under the Second Amendment, just possession. And that they can ban the sale of various semi-automatics that they feel shouldn’t be possessed, even though they’re not banning possession, and that somehow you can distinguish that. Evan Nappen 23:38 But Judge Brown cut through that garbage in terms of the air gun preemption by saying no, it is a de facto ban. When you ban the sale, you ban the possession. You could follow the logic of Judge Brown in that case and maybe apply it even in these other challenges and fights that we have. But, yeah, I mean, to make an air pistol that has the power of a weapon probably could be done. Look, even I don’t want to get shot with anything, even a BB pistol. Who wants to get shot with anything? But whether it would be effective enough for general, truly effective self-defense, remains to be seen. I don’t know of any actual lethal handgun development in air guns out there that is truly designed to be a self-defense gun. I don’t know of that. Now, less than lethal, of course, you’re dealing with Byrnas, when it comes to less than lethal. Evan Nappen 24:43 Hey, let’s mention our good friends at WeShoot. So, WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s a wonderful indoor range. That’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and it’s where we got our certifications. As a matter of fact, WeShoot is offering New Jersey carry permit certification for a new price of only $225. You can get your certification that you need so that you can get your New Jersey permit to carry and get it right from we shoot. You can go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. You can learn about the great programs. They’re offering USCCA, NJ CCW, carry dates. They have that. They Page – 6 – of 10 have NRA CC carry dates, and they can help you doing renewal classes, right? They have all this here. They have New Jersey carry certification for seniors, and they have special day for that. So, WeShoot is really going all out with multiple abilities here for you to get your certification. We are currently hovering somewhere around 90,000 carry permits, and we’re going to be breaking that 100,000, unless we maybe even already have. In order to join the ranks of those that choose to be defenders instead of victims, check out WeShoot. We shoot will help you to get your New Jersey carry and other states carries as well. They even have more training. From novice to the most advanced shooter, they can meet your needs. Great pro shop, too. They can get you set up with the perfect firearm for defending yourself and your loved ones or for enjoying a great day at the range. They have great rentals and a great facility. We love WeShoot, and I know that you will, too. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 27:01 Let me also not forget to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. The Bible of New Jersey gun law. It is 120 topics, all in a question and answer format, and it’s over 500 pages. It will help you from becoming a GOFU. And it is the guidebook used by all. It is the authority of New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. Go right there, and you’ll be able to order your book. You’ll have it to you within a matter of days. So, Teddy, what is on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 27:45 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. I think everyone’s been kind of seeing the news hit with what’s been going on. You know, Trump with the Pope. And I want to start things off. To every, you know, all the Catholic listeners, do not think on this as a theological lens. Think of this as a political. They were not, you know, I’m not arguing spiritual, the spiritual aspect of it. I am talking the politics, the hard core politics. And what do I see here? I see an individual arguing. If you were to listen to someone who made an argument for climate change, open borders, against capitalism and economic inequalities, and also pushing for gun rights oppression, you would assume it’s a woke Democrat, progressive. Yet, those are the views espoused by the Pope. The sources are here for that. (https://www.newsweek.com/what-pope-leo-said-abortion-gun-control-2070019) You can look it up. You can see it all across the internet. Teddy Nappen 28:51 Crowder did a great job breaking it all down. (https://rumble.com/v78i7r0-trump-vs.-the-vatican-why-the-pope-should-stay-out-of-politics.html) But I wanted to dive a little deeper on the thing that matters to us the most, which is the Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 28:59 Wait. Who’s Crowder? Teddy Nappen 29:00 Steven Crowder. He is Louder with Crowder. He does a great show. He breaks down the whole deal and shows what this individual, prior to becoming Pope, would go to bat on. Bashing Trump, bashing J.D. Vance, pushing for open borders. Oh, my God, what’s that thing surrounding the Vatican? Page – 7 – of 10 Evan Nappen 29:19 Oh, you mean the wall. It’s pretty crazy. I’ve been there. Vatican is cool. It really is. Teddy Nappen 29:24 Yeah, and that’s what I mean. You have to. And then, of course, he goes on and says, I don’t want to talk about politics, but then voices his opinion on every political stance. It’s incredibly disingenuous. And almost I want to call, to call, like, cognitive dissonance, where he’s understanding, like, how much that comes off. So, just to point out a few things here. This comes right from the NCR online, right here. From the Pope, when it was two bishops, we hold prayer. This is after one of the big shootings. We hold prayer for the countless to the countless children killed and injured every day around the world. Let us plead to G-d to stop the pandemic of arms, large and small. I have heard that term many times, the pandemic of arms. Where does that come from? Oh, the gun rights oppressors. And the same Cardinals. Evan Nappen 30:24 Well, wait and the reason is, by making it, putting it in a health context, they want to use it. So, they can use it to go after the political issue regarding health insurance. They want to make it a health issue. This was their actual plan, and I personally heard it espoused early on by Josh Sugarman, when Hillary Clinton was pushing for national health care. How they want to make guns a health issue, and they sure as hell have done a good job of that, actually. And they’ve gotten the CDC involved. They got the pediatricians and the doctors. You’re asked questions about, are you a gun owner? By your doctor. This didn’t happen by magic. This is all part of the plan. So, by calling it pandemic, by looking at it in that way, it’s pushing the gun rights oppression via the political issue of health care. Teddy Nappen 31:32 Yeah, and also the fact that his fellow Cardinals at that time were also taking it a step further, saying the facts are clear. Guns are plentiful and common sense attempts to limit their availability have largely been rejected in the name of freedom not found in our Constitution. Huh? I don’t think they read the Constitution, or they skipped some pages. You know, they only went to the things that mattered to them. But I didn’t hear him call out and say, no, no, we’re not about that. We’re not about disarming our people. By the way, it doesn’t really work out too well when a group of individuals are disarmed. You know, those of religion, of religious faith. Just looking at history, mind you. Going back, by the way, this goes back even prior to, when he was just the Cardinal. In 2017 after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, he reposts Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat, to my colleagues, your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers. None of this ends unless we do something to stop it. Increase access to mental health care and stronger, quote, unquote, sensible gun control laws. Hmm, I wonder what that sounds like. Evan Nappen 32:48 Yeah, it’s true. Well, you know, there’s the politics of it, then there’s the economics of it. You know, there’s donations and such. There’s all these kind of things that have unfortunately skewed, skewed what’s going on. As a matter of fact, I want to mention, and I don’t know if I ever told you, Teddy. About the time that Frank Perdue, okay, remember Frank Perdue with Purdue chicken there? Well, he wanted to better promote chicken, which was always his mission. You know, it’s true, true story about him. Page – 8 – of 10 Remember his slogan? It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. Right? That was his slogan for many, many years. You’d see Frank Perdue’s face on billboards. It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. And this is a true story now. I know this is a little bit off the topic, but I’m going to get back to how this applies to what you’re talking about. Evan Nappen 33:49 But they did try to market in Spain, true story. And when the translators translated, it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken in Spain, they put up the billboards with Frank’s face, you know, with his slogan. And the translators for the word “tough” used the word “macho”. We all you know, in America, macho means tough. However, in Spain, in Spanish, “macho” means “sexually excited”. So, everyone was driving by billboards with Frank Perdue’s face, saying, it takes a sexually excited man to make a tender chicken. But I digress. Evan Nappen 34:27 Let me tell you about what happened when Frank Perdue really wanted to market chicken. And, you know, he went to the Pope and he said, I would like you to change, Give us this day our daily bread, to Give us this day, our daily chicken. And the Pope said, No way. I’m not going to do that. He goes, look, we’ll donate $10 million to the church. What do you say? Pope said, No, not doing it. Frank Perdue upped his offer, 100 million. The Pope wouldn’t do it. Finally, Perdue says, look, $1 billion to change, give us this day, our daily bread, to give us this day our daily chicken. And look for a billion dollars. He figured how much good the church could do around the world with a billion dollars, and agreed to do it. And at that time, the Pope had a big meeting with all the Cardinals and everyone, and he said, I have good news and I have bad news. He said, the good news is the Purdue chicken company has donated $1 billion to the Catholic Church, and it’s going to be wonderful for us. The bad news is we lost the Wonder Bread account. Okay, so anyway. I know. That was pretty bad. Teddy Nappen 35:51 Well, I know. Funny enough, sure enough, from MSN last Thursday, Pope Leo also met with David Axelrod, Democrat strategist. Evan Nappen 36:00 Oh, really? Teddy Nappen 36:01 Advisor to Barack Obama. Evan Nappen 36:03 Oh, is that all. Teddy Nappen 36:03 Right up in the midterms, when, when things are coming up and trying to go after the Catholic vote. But this is my point. This is where and to show the true hypocrisy. Like I said, that wall surrounding Vatican City and yet talks about open borders. I thought to myself, what do the Vatican guard carry? What does Page – 9 – of 10 the Swiss guard carry? What is their, what is their choice? (https://maxtacticalfirearms.com/blog/vatican-armory-swiss-guard/) Evan Nappen 36:26 Wait, the Swiss guard has guns? Teddy Nappen 36:28 I know, right? Evan Nappen 36:29 In the Vatican? Teddy Nappen 36:31 Not just guns, the deadly assault firearms. If they can define it for me. Evan Nappen 36:36 No way, no way. Wait, actually, I think they’re truly assault firearms because I believe they’re select fire. So, those are actual assault firearms, not the nonsense of what the gun rights oppressionists claim are assault firearms. So, what model? Do you know what model they have? I think it’s one of the SIGs. Teddy Nappen 37:03 Well, the original one, they were using the K31s. Evan Nappen 37:07 Oh, well, those are bolt actions. Teddy Nappen 37:11 They decided to upgrade after, apparently, there was an attempted attack on the Pope in 1981. So, they upgraded their arms, and now they are using, apparently, they got the Sig Sauers. They love Sig Sauer. They got the Sig Sauer SG 552 commando as their current choice. Evan Nappen 37:32 Oh, commandos. Nice. Well, look, I totally am in favor of the Pope and the Vatican being protected by firearms. Absolutely. It makes sense. But then try to promote disarming anybody else, that’s another story. Teddy Nappen 37:50 Yeah. And also, they upgraded themselves with Sig Sauer P220s, and along with the and that’s there. By the way, the Honor Guard carry those. The plain clothes travel ones will carry Glock 19s. Evan Nappen 38:03 So, other than having a wall and having guns, that all makes sense for their positions. Page – 10 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 38:13 Oh, and also on the politics sevens, when they want to swap out every occasion, oh, G-d, okay. Evan Nappen 38:21 Well, Teddy, I appreciate you pointing this out. And as you said, it’s not about the spiritual issue. It’s just that the politics are there, and we have to be vigilant about the politics. No matter where it creeps in. Even if it’s in our beliefs. You know, it’s still there, and we need to always vigorously defend our rights and put the arguments forward. And that’s what’s important. Evan Nappen 38:52 Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. And this week’s GOFU, you know the GOFU is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. And I’m going to tell you, man, I have seen it. This one is just everywhere, because New Jersey has made anyone who gets a mental health commitment, involuntary or voluntary, it becomes a disqualifier to get a gun. Folks, let that sink in. If you voluntarily check in to get mental health help, as soon as you voluntarily commit to getting the help, guess what? You now have cost yourself your gun rights. Under New Jersey law, within five days of that, you’re supposed to turn in your Firearms ID Card. You become disqualified under New Jersey gun law. If you simply have seen any doctor or psychiatrist for a mental health reason, New Jersey will question you about it. And now you will have the added burden, just on seeing a doctor, no less a voluntary commitment, okay? Just seeing the doctor. Now you’re going to have to find a doctor willing to say that you’re safe for firearms. And the problem is, doctors are cowards. Even if they know you’re good for guns, they don’t want to say it. Because if there’s ever a problem, they’re afraid they’re going to get sued. And if you ever have a voluntary commitment, well, that’s just a per se bar. If it’s an involuntary commitment, well, you’re not only banned under state law, but you’re banned under federal law, my friends. Beware of the mental health trap that exists which will disenfranchise you of your gun rights. And look, I get it. If you need mental help, then I don’t want to say, don’t get it. But make sure you have, in your calculation, what will the ramifications be? It’s not something to do lightly, that is for sure. Evan Nappen 41:23 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 41:34 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 E286_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";

Did you know that according to a recent Pew survey, more than 70% of American adults are concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals in their food and drinking water? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Stacy Malkan, co-founder and editor at the nonprofit public health research group, U.S. Right to Know. Malkan describes how chemical industry lobbyists influence federal policy to favor profits over public health, and exposes the Trump administration's relationships with Bayer/Monsanto.Related Websites:  https://usrtk.org/pesticides/tracing-bayers-ties-to-power-in-trumps-washington/ 

In this episode of the Trend Talk podcast, a companion series for the 2026 Trend Report for Planners, Joe DeAngelis, research manager at the American Planning Association (APA), sits down with Nestor Davidson, the Emma Bloomberg Professor of Real Estate at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. An urban law expert, Nestor delves into the complex dynamics between state and local governance, highlighting the adversarial relationships and the challenges of state preemption. Their conversation covers the importance of shared governance and the need to protect local representation, while acknowledging the shortcomings of local politics. They also explore how these issues intersect with broader environmental, political, and social trends, emphasizing their impact on cities, planners, and planning practices across the country. The 2026 Trend Report for Planners is created by APA in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

This week, Ben sits down with N2K's Lead Analyst, Ethan Cook, to discuss the Trump administration's new national AI framework. The framework covers a variety of key areas such as minor protections, IP rights, and federal preemption. Additionally, the two discuss the FCC's recent import ban of any new foreign made routers due to security concerns. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Links to today's stories: Trump releases new national AI framework. FCC bans the import of new foreign-made routers. Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠N2K Pro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ members on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing covers the a recent lawsuit from a coalition of state attorney generals regarding the DoJ's approval of HPE's acquisition of Juniper Networks for $14 billion. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Caveat Briefing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can states hold pesticide companies accountable — or does federal law preempt? In this episode of People, Places, Planet, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with Patti Goldman, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, and Cecilia Diedrich, Staff Attorney at ELI, to unpack one of the most consequential environmental law cases of the Supreme Court's current session: Monsanto v. Darnell. At its core, this case asks whether federal pesticide law — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, potentially shielding pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto from liability for harms caused by products like Roundup (glyphosate). With oral arguments scheduled for April 27, 2026, the stakes couldn't be higher — not just for pesticide litigation, but for the future of toxics accountability across the board. We break down the science behind pesticide risks, the role of tort litigation in driving corporate accountability and regulatory reform, and why the Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for PFAS litigation, microplastics liability, and chemical safety regulation more broadly. We also explore how recent Supreme Court decisions, including Loper Bright, are reshaping the landscape of federal agency deference and what that means for environmental and public health protections. If you're interested in learning about toxics litigation more broadly, ELI's Toxics Litigation Project recently published a landscape analysis of toxics litigation and how scientific advancement and uncertainty, state and federal law, and judicial doctrine intersect in the ongoing effort to address the risks and consequences of toxic exposures in the United States and abroad titled, "Current Trends in Toxics Litigation." Additionally, for more information on FIFRA, check out our FIFRA, Explained episode. Introduction: Pesticides & FIFRA (3:17)Role of Tort Litigation in Accountability (13:44)The Roundup Litigation: Failure to Warn, Glyphosate, and the Road to the Supreme Court (19:07)Monsanto v. Durnell: Preemption and the Circuit Split (25:13)Beyond Roundup: Implications for the Future of Toxics Litigation (40:15)Concluding Thoughts: Science, Oral Arguments, and How to Protect Communities Going Forward (48:55) ★ Support this podcast ★

A conversation about war, propaganda, moral numbness, and what it takes to stay human and responsible in a collapsing public sphere. Recorded on 3 March 2026 (Day 4 of the US-Israel-Iran-Lebanon-GCC War)In this conversation, your host (Jay Humphries) and philosopher/psychologist Andreas (Dr Andreas Schreiber) begin with the language of war — pre-emption, deterrence, inevitability, and the way political language can make violence feel necessary, controlled, or already decided.From there, we move into something deeper: how repeated exposure to suffering changes us, how public trust collapses, how Europe and the West seem increasingly unable or unwilling to act independently, and how narrative itself becomes a trap.This is not just a conversation about geopolitics. It is also about meaning, morality, and responsibility. We talk about numbness after Gaza, double standards around civilian lives, the psychology of power, the failure of institutions, the roots of individualism, and what happens when technology, ideology, and fear begin to shape human consciousness more than truth does.At the centre of it all is one question:How do we stay human, connected, and responsible when the world around us is being explained through language that distances us from reality?For more details on Dr Andreas Schreiber:www.curavitae.eu/logotherapie-existenzanalyse/logotherapie/00:00 Frustration and Context 00:35 The Language of Preemption 03:46 Dystopian Wordplay 05:11 Precrime and the Policing Analogy 05:51 Numbness After Gaza 07:38 Double Standards and Civilian Lives 09:15 Negotiations Undermined 10:44 Regional Escalation 12:49 Nuclear Weapons as Deterrent 14:40 Nuclear Claims and the Iraq Echo 15:57 Gulf Destabilisation and Trade 18:54 War Momentum and Europe's Entry 22:01 Trust Collapse and UN Failure 23:11 Europe, NATO, and the Support Debate 25:19 The Reality of Regime Change 25:54 Germany and the Trust Crisis 26:14 Europe as Vassals? 28:04 NATO, Insults, and Compliance 28:55 Spain Breaks Ranks 30:14 Language and Narrative Traps 36:08 Inevitability and the Framing of War 38:35 Capitalism and the Roots of Individualism 44:59 Community, Balance, and the Tech Hijack 47:35 Secularisation and Lost Morality 50:24 Nietzsche and Self-Made Values 53:23 Power Corrupts Even Gurus 54:25 Energetic Connection and Responsibility Follow us on Instagram: @hocosoconversation and Linkedin: HoCoSo Conversation

In Episode 129 of DC EKG, Joe Grogan sits down with returning guest Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the R Street Institute, to break down the surge of state by state AI laws and why a patchwork approach could slow innovation, especially in healthcare. Adam explains how more than a thousand state AI bills are flooding the zone, what types of “everything bills” are emerging, and why some states are trying to set national standards from Albany or Sacramento. Joe and Adam connect the federalism debate to real world health innovation, including mental health chatbots, algorithmic discrimination laws, and why compliance costs hit “little tech” hardest. They also discuss Adam's “AI Articles of Confederation” framing, the failed effort to create a federal moratorium on state AI rules, and what a better model could look like, such as regulatory inventories, learning labs, and sandbox style approaches that allow experimentation without shutting innovation down. Key link: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/congress-should-lead-on-ai-policy-not-the-states/ In This Conversation Why state AI bills are accelerating and what is driving them “Mega measures” that try to regulate frontier models, child safety, jobs, and copyright in one bill New York and California style rulemaking with national spillover The Micron example and how permitting and lawsuits can stop progress Algorithmic discrimination laws and why healthcare gets hit hardest Mental health chatbot bans and the access and workforce tradeoffs Preemption and why Congress keeps punting Alternative models: inventories, learning labs, sandboxes, and targeted gap fixes Timestamps0:00 What is happening with state AI bills right now1:36 Adam's background and how he got into AI policy5:55 The shift from federal regulation to state action10:27 What these state bills try to regulate13:29 Micron, permitting delays, and stopping progress20:00 Why some red states are pushing AI Bills of Rights26:24 “AI Articles of Confederation” and why it matters31:01 The attempted moratorium in the “big, beautiful bill”38:03 Preview of “The AI Terrible Ten” and worst state models39:43 Mental health chatbot bans and the mental health crisis44:25 What governors should do instead of rushing to regulate49:05 What Adam is tracking next51:48 What AI tools Adam uses52:42 Where to find Adam's work SEO Keywordsstate AI laws, AI policy, federal preemption, healthcare innovation, algorithmic discrimination, mental health chatbots, interoperability, AI regulation About Our GuestAdam Thierer is a Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute focused on technology and innovation policy. He writes and speaks widely on AI governance, federalism and preemption, and how regulatory models can either accelerate or stall innovation, including in healthcare. Podcast: DC EKG with Joe GroganEpisode: 129Guest: Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street InstituteSponsor: Survivors for Solutions – https://survivorsforsolutions.orgExecutive Producer: John “CZ” Czwartacki, DC EKG PodcastProducer: Julie Riga, Stay on Course Studios – https://www.stayoncourse.studio

In Episode 129 of DC EKG, Joe Grogan sits down with returning guest Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the R Street Institute, to break down the surge of state by state AI laws and why a patchwork approach could slow innovation, especially in healthcare. Adam explains how more than a thousand state AI bills are flooding the zone, what types of “everything bills” are emerging, and why some states are trying to set national standards from Albany or Sacramento. Joe and Adam connect the federalism debate to real world health innovation, including mental health chatbots, algorithmic discrimination laws, and why compliance costs hit “little tech” hardest. They also discuss Adam's “AI Articles of Confederation” framing, the failed effort to create a federal moratorium on state AI rules, and what a better model could look like, such as regulatory inventories, learning labs, and sandbox style approaches that allow experimentation without shutting innovation down. Key link: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/congress-should-lead-on-ai-policy-not-the-states/ In This Conversation Why state AI bills are accelerating and what is driving them “Mega measures” that try to regulate frontier models, child safety, jobs, and copyright in one bill New York and California style rulemaking with national spillover The Micron example and how permitting and lawsuits can stop progress Algorithmic discrimination laws and why healthcare gets hit hardest Mental health chatbot bans and the access and workforce tradeoffs Preemption and why Congress keeps punting Alternative models: inventories, learning labs, sandboxes, and targeted gap fixes Timestamps0:00 What is happening with state AI bills right now1:36 Adam's background and how he got into AI policy5:55 The shift from federal regulation to state action10:27 What these state bills try to regulate13:29 Micron, permitting delays, and stopping progress20:00 Why some red states are pushing AI Bills of Rights26:24 “AI Articles of Confederation” and why it matters31:01 The attempted moratorium in the “big, beautiful bill”38:03 Preview of “The AI Terrible Ten” and worst state models39:43 Mental health chatbot bans and the mental health crisis44:25 What governors should do instead of rushing to regulate49:05 What Adam is tracking next51:48 What AI tools Adam uses52:42 Where to find Adam's work SEO Keywordsstate AI laws, AI policy, federal preemption, healthcare innovation, algorithmic discrimination, mental health chatbots, interoperability, AI regulation About Our GuestAdam Thierer is a Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute focused on technology and innovation policy. He writes and speaks widely on AI governance, federalism and preemption, and how regulatory models can either accelerate or stall innovation, including in healthcare. Podcast: DC EKG with Joe GroganEpisode: 129Guest: Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street InstituteSponsor: Survivors for Solutions – https://survivorsforsolutions.orgExecutive Producer: John “CZ” Czwartacki, DC EKG PodcastProducer: Julie Riga, Stay on Course Studios – https://www.stayoncourse.studio

Episode 11 Federal Preemption: State-Level Challenges to the NLRA Hosted by Mark G. Eskenazi and Katherine Cohodes Important legal battles playing out in New York and California could change how federal and state labor laws work together. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the participants and should not be considered the views of Fox Rothschild LLP or its attorneys. This podcast is for informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Brandon Milhorn, CEO of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, argues that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is pushing beyond its statutory authority in areas including trust charters, stablecoins and mortgage escrow interest. He also discusses the rise of so-called "Franken-charters" and the risks he sees in the growing stablecoin market.

Was this a preemptive war — or long overdue self-defense? Tara breaks down the Iran strikes, the October 7 connection, Biden's billions, and what Trump actually said about being the “peace president.” Plus: The Supreme Court debates whether marijuana users — even drug dealers — should have Second Amendment rights.

This week, Dan and Donnie welcome Andy Architect (COO) and Megan Striegel (Senior Director of Public Policy) from NPMA to discuss the 2026 Legislative Day event, March 15-17 in Washington, D.C. They share priorities for this year's hill visits, including state pesticide preemption and legislation related to credit card swipe fees and wildlife services. They also cover practical advice for industry members who cannot attend Legislative Day in person, including suggestions for local advocacy and networking opportunities.      Guest: Andrew Architect, COO & Megan Striegel, Sr. Director, Public Policy, NPMA Hosts: Dan Gordon, PCO Bookkeepers & M&A Specialists Donnie Shelton, Triangle Home Services

In this episode, The Armchair Attorney Matt Leffler discusses the upcoming Supreme Court case involving C.H. Robinson and why its ruling could finally bring clarity to freight broker liability, negligent hiring claims, and federal preemption under the F4A! We talk about how conflicting court decisions have created uncertainty for brokers, why the industry relies on FMCSA data to vet motor carriers, and how a ruling against brokers could drive smaller players out of the market due to rising insurance and legal costs. Matt also covers the growing tension between state tort laws and federal regulation, the role of the US Chamber of Commerce, and what brokers must do right now to manage risk - strict carrier vetting, avoiding operational control over drivers, and staying within established protocols. This decision will shape broker liability, insurance requirements, and the future structure of the freight industry, and it's something every broker moving freight today needs to understand, so make sure to tune in!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

In this episode, Jerome Walker, co-chair of the Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies, convenes Task Force subcommittee members Austin Brown, David Lisson, and Stuart Levi to examine President Trump's December 11 Executive Order, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence." They explore key issues, including the executive order's implications and challenges; the evaluation of state AI laws and potential federal restrictions on state funding; the creation of an AI litigation task force; and whether this approach can effectively balance innovation with regulation. The panelists also share their perspectives on how AI policy may evolve under this new national framework. If you are interested in learning more about emerging AI developments and policy, join us for the 2026 Artificial Intelligence Conference on June 18 to hear from industry experts and connect with leading legal professionals across the field. Register at: https://services.nycbar.org/SLIT/ 00:00 Introduction and Overview of the Executive Order 09:08 Challenges in Establishing a National AI Framework 15:44 Implications of the AI Litigation Task Force 34:44 Federal Funding and State AI Laws 41:32 Preemption and Deceptive Conduct in AI Models 47:01 Future Outlook 55:56 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

In this episode: The pace is picking up in the Florida Legislature, which is now into the third week of its 2026 session. Bills have begun moving that would give a tax break to Philip Morris; let people pay for vending machine lottery tickets with debit cards; strip local communities of the power to regulate everything from religious gatherings to home playgrounds; block teenagers from obtaining birth control without permission from a parent — oh, and rename a major airport after Donald Trump. An update from Day 15 of Florida's 60-day legislative session.Show notes The bill's discussed in today's show: House Bill 377 — Heated Tobacco ProductsPassed the House Ways & Means Committee by 14-1 vote (vote sheet)Senate Bill 530 — State LotteriesPassed the Senate Regulated Industries Committee by a 9-0 vote (vote sheet)Senate Bill 1444 — Preemption to the StatePassed the Senate Community Affairs Committee by 6-2 vote (vote sheet)House Bill 173 — Parental RightsPassed the House Health & Human Services Committee by a 19-7 vote (vote sheet)Senate Bill 706 — Commercial Service AirportsPassed the Senate Transportation Committee by a 9-0 vote (vote sheet)Senate Bill 332 — Public MeetingsPassed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 10-0 vote (vote sheet)House Bill 167 — Former Phosphate Mining LandsPassed the Senate Rules Committee by a 22-0 vote (vote sheet)House Bill 1119 — Materials Harmful to MinorsPassed the House Education & Employment Committee by a 16-5 vote (vote sheet)House Bill 7009 — OGSR/Public Service CommissionPassed the House State Affairs Committee by a 24-1 vote (vote sheet)House Bill 981 — Tributaries of St. Johns RiverPassed the House Budget Committee by a 28-0 vote (vote sheet)Senate Bill 290 — Department of Agriculture and Consumer ServicesPostponed by the Senate Rules Committee without a voteStories discussed on today's show: DeSantis grants tax favor for Philip Morris after $500,000 giftFlorida AG made sweeping claims in confidential abortion caseWho's behind a thorny Florida property rights bill? A real estate empireA gun company gave lots of money to Florida lawmakers. Now it's lobbying for legal immunity.Questions or comments? Send ‘em to Garcia.JasonR@gmail.comListen to the show: Apple | SpotifyWatch the show: YouTube Get full access to Seeking Rents at jasongarcia.substack.com/subscribe

Our podcast show this week consists of a webinar we produced on November 10, 2025, titled, "Breaking Developments in National Bank Act Preemption." Join our panel of top legal experts as they break down how landmark court rulings are changing the rules for national banks, examine the growing application of state law, and discuss what these changes mean for compliance, risk, and the future of consumer financial services. Meet the Panelists: ·                 Alan Kaplinsky (Host & Moderator): Senior Counsel and former Practice Group Leader and Founder of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr ·                 Professor Arthur Wilmarth: Professor Emeritus at George Washington University Law School, widely recognized for his scholarship on National Bank Act preemption. ·                 John Culhane, Jr.: Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr specializing in national bank compliance and regulatory strategy. ·                 Ronald Vaske: Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr advising financial institutions on regulatory and compliance matters. ·                 Joseph Schuster: Partner of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr guiding national banks on state law adaptation and implementation. Key Points Covered: ·                 Landmark Court Decisions: Recent cases like Cantero in the Supreme Court and Conti in the First Circuit Court of Appeals have moved National Bank Act preemption away from blanket coverage, requiring courts to carefully assess each state law's impact on national banks. ·                 Dodd-Frank's Transformative Impact: The Dodd-Frank Act codified the legal standard established by the Supreme Court in the Barnett Bank Case that state laws are only preempted if they "prevent or significantly interfere" with national bank authority, and curtailed the OCC's sweeping preemption powers. ·                 Erosion of Uniform Federal Standards: National banks now face the reality of complying with an increasing patchwork of state laws, which challenges the traditional advantage of a federal charter. ·                 Compliance Strategies in Practice: Banks are proactively reviewing and updating their products, disclosures, and processes to ensure compliance with varying state requirements using robust legislative tracking methods. ·                 What's Next - Regulatory and Litigation Outlook: The panel anticipates ongoing legal and regulatory developments and urges institutions to prepare for further changes by starting comprehensive compliance reviews now. This episode delivers vital updates and practical guidance on the evolving landscape of national bank preemption, making it essential listening for anyone involved in consumer financial services, banking compliance, or regulatory strategy.  Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this rapid response episode, Lawfare senior editors Alan Rozenshtein and Kevin Frazier and Lawfare Tarbell fellow Jakub Kraus discuss President Trump's new executive order on federal preemption of state AI laws, the politics of AI regulation and the split between Silicon Valley Republicans and MAGA populists, and the administration's decision to allow Nvidia to export H200 chips to China. Mentioned in this episode:Executive Order: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial IntelligenceCharlie Bullock, "Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed Executive Order on AI Preemption," Institute for Law & AI Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlNavigating the Complexities of Constitutional Law: Federalism and State SovereigntyThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of critical constitutional law doctrines that define the relationship between state and federal powers. It covers foundational concepts such as due process, preemption, the anti-commandeering doctrine, the dormant commerce clause, and the Pike balancing test, while also addressing modern challenges in federalism and state taxation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these doctrines for legal education and exam preparation.In the realm of constitutional law, the tug-of-war between federal and state powers is a perennial topic of debate and analysis. This dynamic is vividly illustrated in the doctrines of anti-commandeering and the dormant commerce clause, which serve as critical tools for understanding the balance of power in the United States.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Protecting State SovereigntyThe anti-commandeering doctrine is a cornerstone of state sovereignty, ensuring that the federal government cannot coerce states into enforcing federal regulations. This principle was solidified through landmark cases such as New York v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA, which underscore the importance of political accountability and the prevention of federal overreach. By prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state resources, this doctrine maintains a healthy balance of power and protects the autonomy of state governments.The Dormant Commerce Clause: Ensuring a Unified National MarketOn the flip side, the dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting protectionist measures that could fragment the national market. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining economic unity across state lines, as seen in cases like City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey. The Pike balancing test, a key component of this doctrine, evaluates whether a state's regulation imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to its local benefits. This nuanced analysis is essential for preserving the delicate equilibrium between state interests and national economic cohesion.Modern Implications and ChallengesRecent cases, such as the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, highlight the ongoing relevance and complexity of these doctrines. The Supreme Court's decision in this case reflects the challenges of applying centuries-old principles to contemporary issues, particularly in an interconnected economy. As states continue to assert their regulatory powers, the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy remains a dynamic and evolving landscape.Understanding the interplay between federal and state powers is crucial for navigating the complexities of constitutional law. As these doctrines continue to shape the legal landscape, they offer valuable insights into the ongoing dialogue between national authority and state sovereignty. For students and practitioners alike, mastering these principles is essential for engaging with the ever-evolving field of constitutional law.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest developments in constitutional law and deepen your understanding of the intricate balance of power in the United States.TakeawaysGovernments can't deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.Procedural due process focuses on fair procedures for deprivation.Substantive due process protects fundamental rights from government interference.Federal law preempts contrary state law, with express and implied preemption.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal government from forcing states to enact laws.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state commerceConstitutional Law, Federalism, Due Process, Preemption, Anti-Commandeering, Dormant Commerce Clause, Pike Test, State Taxation, Supreme Court, Legal Education

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

In this episode, Katherine Forrest and Scott Caravello explore the White House's push to override state AI laws and unpack a wave of lawsuits claiming modern AI-powered tracking tools violate the decades-old Video Privacy Protection Act—all while sharing travel tales (and cheese-pie cravings) from Serbia. ## Learn More About Paul, Weiss's Artificial Intelligence practice: https://www.paulweiss.com/industries/artificial-intelligence

The push for a federal standard on AI is back. With support from President Trump, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise is looking to add an effective ban on state-level AI regulation to the end of year National Defense Authorization Act. Despite the White House's backing and strong support from the tech  industry, the effort is facing bipartisan pushback, including from Republican governors like Florida's Ron DeSantis and Democrats in Congress.The battle is shaping up to be a redux of the moratorium effort from the summer, when a ban on state AI rules came close, but failed to make it into the One Big Beautiful Bill. While that preemption effort didn't come with any federal standards in its place, this time proponents of federal preemption are working to assure skeptics that this won't just be a ban on state rules, but will establish some federal safeguards on AI safety and child protection.Can Congress agree to create a national standard that goes beyond simply telling states what they can't do? Have the politics changed much since July when the prior effort failed? Will proposed safeguards be enough to move skeptics and those concerned about AI's societal impact?Evan is joined by Dean Ball, senior fellow at FAI. Previously, he was Senior Policy Advisor for Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the primary staff drafter of America's AI Action Plan. He is the author of the Hyperdimensional Substack, where his work focuses on emerging technologies and the future of governance.

In this episode, we start by discussing Greg's trip to India and the upcoming India AI Impact Summit in February 2026 (00:29). We then unpack the Trump Administration's draft executive order to preempt state AI laws (07:46) and break down the European Commission's new “digital omnibus” package, including proposed adjustments to the AI Act and broader regulatory simplification efforts (17:51). Finally, we discuss Anthropic's report on a China-backed “highly sophisticated cyber espionage campaign" using Claude and the mixed reactions from cybersecurity and AI policy experts (37:37).

President Donald Trump appears to be eyeing an executive order that would target individual state efforts to rein in artificial intelligence and initiate several actions aimed at preempting those laws. A draft order viewed by FedScoop includes plans to establish an AI litigation task force to challenge state AI statutes, restrict funding for states with AI laws that the administration views as “onerous,” and launch efforts to preempt state laws via the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and legislation. In response to a FedScoop inquiry about the six-page draft order, which was also marked “deliberative” and “predecisional,” a White House official said that until announced officially, “discussion about potential executive orders is speculation.” The document comes as long-discussed desires by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to preempt state AI laws and clear the field for AI companies appear to be coming to a head. Republican lawmakers are again planning to include a state AI law moratorium in the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, and Trump, in a Tuesday social media post, voiced clear support for a federal standard to be included in the NDAA or another bill. The Defense Department's CTO has revised its list of critical technology areas — reducing the number of research-and-development priorities by more than half. The Pentagon announced on Monday that the 14 critical technology areas established during the Biden administration will be trimmed to just six categories. In a video shared on LinkedIn, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael emphasized that the shortened list will steer the department's efforts to efficiently deliver the emerging capabilities that warfighters need. Michael said Monday in a statement: “When I stepped into this role, our office had identified 14 critical technology areas. While each of these areas holds value, such a broad list dilutes focus and fails to highlight the most urgent needs of the warfighter. 14 priorities, in truth, means no priorities at all.” The focus areas in the updated catalog include applied artificial intelligence (AAI); biomanufacturing; contested logistics technologies (LOG); quantum and battlefield information dominance (Q-BID); scaled directed energy (SCADE); and scaled hypersonics (SHY). Since its creation, the Pentagon's outline of critical technology areas has included the most pressing challenges and capabilities needed for modern warfare. The list serves as a guide for where the department should focus its investment, research and development efforts. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

This week on The Whiskey Trip, Big Chief steps into one of the most impressive private whiskey sanctuaries in Texas, Kevin Hemingway's Hemingway House of Bourbon. Built on passion, hospitality, and a deep love for the spirit, Kevin's space is a living museum of rare bottles, Texas standouts, and stories collected over years of sharing pours with friends. Surrounded by this curated treasure trove, Big Chief and Kevin sit down for a four pour journey that explores the past, present, and future of American whiskey. They open the evening with Milam & Greene Provisions, a new 80 proof blend combining Texas pot still whiskey with Kentucky and Tennessee bourbon. It is light, approachable, and intentionally crafted to welcome new whiskey drinkers while still offering nuance for seasoned palates. Big Chief and Kevin break down how the Texas component adds warmth and character and why this bottle will likely find a permanent place on entry level whiskey shelves. The second pour brings the heat with Wild Turkey Master's Keep Beacon, the 2025 release from the iconic Lawrenceburg distillery. This limited edition blends 16 year and 10 year Kentucky straight bourbons and comes in at a bold 118 proof. With rich oak, leather, seasoned rickhouse funk, caramelized citrus, and a long, classic Wild Turkey finish, Beacon showcases everything fans love about Master's Keep. Kevin and Big Chief reflect on how Beacon fits into the series and why this release is already generating so much anticipation. In the second half, they dive into a Texas standout, 1845 Distillery's Preemption rye based bourbon. Made with Yellow Corn, Elbon Rye, and Malted Barley, this bold whiskey ages for five years before being double oaked in lightly charred and toasted barrels. Bottled at 115.4 proof, it delivers a powerful blend of Texas rye spice, deep sweetness, and toasted barrel richness. Big Chief and Kevin talk about 1845's rising profile and why Preemption represents the next chapter of Texas distilling. To close out the night, they finish with something truly unique, Dark Arts Ripple Rye. This is a Straight Rye Whiskey finished in maple syrup barrels and treated with toasted amburana oak staves. Distilled in Indiana, aged 7.5 years, and bottled at 110.74 proof, this pour brings an otherworldly profile with maple sweetness, rye bite, exotic amburana spice, and a long warming finish unlike anything else on the table. Big Chief and Kevin dig into why Ripple Rye is gaining such a cult following and how finishing techniques like this are pushing modern rye whiskey forward. Throughout the episode, Big Chief and Kevin share stories, compare regions, debate aging philosophies, and celebrate the kind of friendship that forms when great whiskey is poured with intention. Inside Hemingway House of Bourbon, surrounded by its history and heart, this episode reflects everything The Whiskey Trip stands for: community, curiosity, and chasing down the next great pour. Wherever you are listening from, whether it is your truck cab, a back porch, or the bar top of your favorite local, this one invites you to slow down, sip deep, and enjoy the ride. Take the Ride with Big Chief. 

Welcome to AI Unraveled: Your daily strategic briefing on the business impact of AI.Today's Highlights: We are switching to "Special Episode" status for a critical infrastructure deep dive. We tackle the GPU Scheduling Nightmare—why your expensive H100s are sitting idle, why default Kubernetes fails at AI orchestration, and the new playbook enterprises are using to reclaim millions in wasted compute.Strategic Pillars & Topics

Former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Yaakov Katz joins Noam Dworman and Dan Naturman to dissect the failures behind October 7, the moral and strategic crises of modern Israel, and the political culture that allowed catastrophe to take root. Based on his new book While Israel Slept, Katz lays out how a nation of elite intelligence, defense technology, and Iron Dome confidence was blindsided by its own assumptions. Buy Yaakov Katz's book — While Israel Slept — on Amazon: http://bit.ly/4o3b7XE He addresses: Whether Israeli journalism should expose government failures during wartime The growing rift between American and Israeli public opinion Why Israel misread Hamas for decades Netanyahu's political survival and the myth that Israel “built up” Hamas How AI is used in IDF targeting and whether it saves or costs civilian lives The accusations of an Israeli “stand-down” on October 7 The uncomfortable moral math of urban warfare in Gaza Chapters: 00:00 – Introduction 01:10 – Journalism in wartime Israel: Patriotism vs Accountability 04:40 – Why Israelis didn't see Gaza's destruction 08:10 – Media bias and trauma after October 7 13:00 – AI targeting, 972 Magazine, and how truth gets distorted 21:10 – “While Israel Slept” – The Premise and Title's Origin 22:30 – Israel's strategic blindness: Containment and Complacency 26:50 – The myth that Israel “wanted” Hamas 30:00 – Netanyahu, Qatar, and paying for quiet 34:00 – The failure of imagination on October 6 35:10 – Hezbollah and the deterrence paradox 38:20 – Can Israel learn from this? Preemption vs Occupation 40:50 – The Right, the Left, and the Gray Zone 44:00 – Morality, civilian deaths, and propaganda math 50:00 – The antisemitism question and media narratives 56:00 – Netanyahu's communications failure 57:20 – Conspiracy theories: the “stand-down” myth 01:00:00 – Friendly fire and the Hannibal Directive 01:03:20 – Why Israel must investigate itself 01:06:10 – Closing thoughts and the future of Israeli democracy

Former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Yaakov Katz joins Noam Dworman and Dan Naturman to dissect the failures behind October 7, the moral and strategic crises of modern Israel, and the political culture that allowed catastrophe to take root. Based on his new book While Israel Slept, Katz lays out how a nation of elite intelligence, defense technology, and Iron Dome confidence was blindsided by its own assumptions. Buy Yaakov Katz's book — While Israel Slept — on Amazon: http://bit.ly/4o3b7XE He addresses: Whether Israeli journalism should expose government failures during wartime The growing rift between American and Israeli public opinion Why Israel misread Hamas for decades Netanyahu's political survival and the myth that Israel “built up” Hamas How AI is used in IDF targeting and whether it saves or costs civilian lives The accusations of an Israeli “stand-down” on October 7 The uncomfortable moral math of urban warfare in Gaza Chapters: 00:00 – Introduction 01:10 – Journalism in wartime Israel: Patriotism vs Accountability 04:40 – Why Israelis didn't see Gaza's destruction 08:10 – Media bias and trauma after October 7 13:00 – AI targeting, 972 Magazine, and how truth gets distorted 21:10 – “While Israel Slept” – The Premise and Title's Origin 22:30 – Israel's strategic blindness: Containment and Complacency 26:50 – The myth that Israel “wanted” Hamas 30:00 – Netanyahu, Qatar, and paying for quiet 34:00 – The failure of imagination on October 6 35:10 – Hezbollah and the deterrence paradox 38:20 – Can Israel learn from this? Preemption vs Occupation 40:50 – The Right, the Left, and the Gray Zone 44:00 – Morality, civilian deaths, and propaganda math 50:00 – The antisemitism question and media narratives 56:00 – Netanyahu's communications failure 57:20 – Conspiracy theories: the “stand-down” myth 01:00:00 – Friendly fire and the Hannibal Directive 01:03:20 – Why Israel must investigate itself 01:06:10 – Closing thoughts and the future of Israeli democracy

Climate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because climate change is global in scope, the source of emissions is often seen as less important than their overall volume. Yet despite extensive efforts by many countries, including the United States at various times, worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise.Frustration with this state of affairs has led some state and local authorities to pursue climate litigation in addition to legislative or regulatory action. These lawsuits allege that energy producers are responsible for substantial monetary harms; and taken together, they seek many billions or even trillions of dollars in damages. Many recent cases focus on claims that companies misrepresented the effects of fossil fuels on the environment in violation of state consumer protection laws.On October 8, 2025, join us for a panel discussion examining the legal and policy issues raised by these cases, including: • Preemption under the Clean Air Act and federal common law; • Challenges in demonstrating causation and attribution; • Possible implications for First Amendment protections; • Allocation of damages among dozens of energy companies, including state-owned firms that may be shielded by sovereign immunity. • The contributing role of both plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of fossil fuels; and • Whether litigation is likely to help advance efforts to address climate change.Featuring:David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity ProjectProfessor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolProfessor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityAdam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC

In this episode, special guest host Tamara Chafin (Risk Pool's Communications Officer) interviews Scott Houston (Risk Pool Intergovernmental Relations Manager) about the dearth of city authority in Texas to regulate firearms.Futher Information:Local Governments and Firearms:  Avoiding a Jam V5 (Comprehensive Paper in Q&A Format)Local Governments and Firearms:  Avoiding a Jam V5 (Cheat Sheet)Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23Texas Local Government Code Section 229.001

We use a clip sandwich to illustrate how Jimmy Kimmel got taken off the air, and who's taking credit. Then, guest host Preston Mulligan is joined by Robert Huish, from Dalhousie University. The introduction to the interview with Professor Huish features an extended version of the clip we broadcast of Brendan Carr from the FCC.

Who's speaking up for startups in Washington, D.C.?In this episode, Matt Perault (Head of AI Policy, a16z) and Collin McCune (Head of Government Affairs, a16z) unpack the “Little Tech Agenda” for AI- why AI rules should regulate harmful use, not model development; how to keep open source open; the roles of the federal government vs states in regulating AI; and how the U.S. can compete globally without shutting out new founders. Timecodes: 0:00 – Introduction 1:12 – Defining the Little Tech Agenda4:40 – Challenges for Startups vs. Big Tech6:37 – Principles of Smart AI Regulation9:55 – History of AI Policy & Regulatory Fears19:26 – The Role of Open Source and Global Competition23:45 – Motivations Behind Policy Approaches26:40 – Debates on Regulating Use vs. Development35:15 – Federal vs. State Roles in AI Policy39:24 – AI Policy and U.S.–China Competition40:45 – Current Policy Landscape & Action Plans42:47 – Moratoriums, Preemption, and Political Dynamics50:00 – Looking Forward: The Future of AI Policy56:16 – Conclusion & DisclaimersResources: Read the Little Tech Agenda: https://a16z.com/the-little-tech-agenda/Read ‘Regulate AI Use, Not AI Development : https://a16z.com/regulate-ai-use-not-ai-development/Read Martin's article ‘Base AI Policy on Evidence, Not Existential Angst: https://a16z.com/base-ai-policy-on-evidence-not-existential-angst/Read ‘Setting the Agenda for Global AI Leadership':https://a16z.com/setting-the-agenda-for-global-ai-leadership-assessing-the-roles-of-congress-and-the-states/Read ‘The Commerce Clause in the Age of AI”: https://a16z.com/the-commerce-clause-in-the-age-of-ai-guardrails-and-opportunities-for-state-legislatures/Find Matt on X: https://x.com/MattPeraultFind Collin on X: https://x.com/Collin_McCune

The provided sources discuss the legal doctrine of preemption, particularly focusing on federal preemption of state laws in the United States. They explain that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes federal law as paramount when conflicts arise. The texts outline two main types of preemption: express preemption, where federal law explicitly states its intent to supersede state law, and implied preemption, which occurs when federal intent to preempt is not explicit. Implied preemption is further divided into field preemption, where federal regulation is so pervasive it leaves no room for state law, and conflict preemption, where state law either makes compliance with federal law impossible or obstructs federal objectives. The sources also highlight the ongoing debate between state and federal powers, with different stakeholders advocating for broader or narrower applications of preemption depending on their interests.The primary function of the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2, is to establish federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that validly enacted federal laws override conflicting state laws and constitutions, providing legal hierarchy and national uniformity.Federal preemption is the doctrine that invalidates conflicting state laws when Congress exercises its legislative power to displace or override state authority. Its core constitutional basis is the Supremacy Clause, which mandates that federal law prevails over inconsistent state enactments.Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states its intent to override state law, often through a specific clause. Implied preemption, in contrast, arises when courts infer Congress's intent to preempt state law from the federal law's structure, purpose, or comprehensiveness, even without explicit language.Field preemption occurs when federal regulation is so comprehensive or the federal interest is so dominant that courts conclude Congress intended to occupy an entire regulatory field. A common characteristic courts look for is a "pervasive scheme of federal regulation" that leaves no room for state supplementation, as seen in areas like alien registration.Conflict preemption applies in two main situations: first, when compliance with both federal and state law is physically impossible (impossibility preemption); and second, when state law "stands as an obstacle" to the accomplishment of federal objectives (obstacle preemption).The "presumption against preemption" instructs that federal law should not be interpreted as superseding states' historic police powers (e.g., public health, safety) unless Congress's intent to preempt is "clear and manifest." It reflects the constitutional principle of federalism, preserving a meaningful role for state autonomy.State common law, particularly tort law, can be affected by obstacle preemption. For instance, in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., a state tort law requiring airbags was preempted because it stood as an obstacle to a federal regulation that gave manufacturers a range of options, including not installing airbags, reflecting a federal objective of flexibility.The Supremacy Clause directly binds state courts by requiring judges in every state to apply federal law, even if it contradicts state law or state precedent. This means state judges cannot refuse to hear federal claims or decline to enforce federal statutes due to local disagreement.Yes, federal agency regulations issued under valid statutory authority have the same preemptive force as federal statutes if properly promulgated. Similarly, executive agreements, when entered into pursuant to constitutional authority (especially regarding foreign affairs), can also preempt conflicting state laws.A "savings clause" in a federal statute is a provision that explicitly limits its preemptive effect, stating that certain categories of state law are not preempted. Its general purpose is to preserve state author

It's now or never as the party pushes to make their escape from Storm's End Want more world details? Check out our World Anvil page! https://www.worldanvil.com/w/senta-lelandsteel Like our Stuff? Let us know on social media! Connect with us: Twitter: @IncorrigiblePar Instagram: instagram.com/incorrigibleparty Facebook: facebook.com/groups/theincorrigiblepartypodcast/ Website: http://incorrigibleparty.com/ Youtube: The Incorrigible Party YT Twtich: https://www.twitch.tv/incorrigibleparty Support us and get exclusive mini campaign content! https://www.patreon.com/incorrigibleparty Music by Tabletopaudio.com and Sorastro Music The Incorrigible Party podcast is sponsored by the amazing and very generous Critical Hit Design!

Americans, we need your help to stop a dangerous AI bill from passing the Senate. What's going on? The House Energy & Commerce Committee included a provision in its reconciliation bill that would ban AI regulation by state and local governments for the next 10 years. Several states have led the way in AI regulation while Congress has dragged its heels. Stopping state governments from regulating AI might be okay, if we could trust Congress to meaningfully regulate it instead. But we can't. This provision would destroy state leadership on AI and pass the responsibility to a Congress that has shown little interest in seriously preventing AI danger. If this provision passes the Senate, we could see a DECADE of inaction on AI. This provision also violates the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule which is meant to prevent non-budget items from being included in the reconciliation bill. What can I do? Here are [...] --- First published: May 15th, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qWcabjNqxEBNQY3cv/urgent-americans-call-your-senators-and-tell-them-you-oppose --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

In this conversation, Mark Walters and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey discuss the evolving landscape of gun rights, focusing on the challenges posed by the ATF, the Second Amendment Protection Act in Missouri, and the implications of youth gun laws. They emphasize the need for accountability in enforcing gun laws and the importance of vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights against progressive agendas. The fight for gun rights is evolving post-Heller decision. Missouri's Second Amendment Protection Act aims to protect state rights. The ATF is seen as a hindrance to gun rights and should be abolished. Preemption laws are crucial for maintaining gun rights at the state level. Youth gun laws are under scrutiny, questioning the age restrictions for gun ownership. Emergencies should not justify the infringement of constitutional rights. The importance of holding local governments accountable for violating gun laws. The role of the federal government in regulating firearms is contentious. The conversation around gun rights is becoming more urgent and complex. Vigilance is necessary to protect Second Amendment rights from progressive attacks. David Hogg is criticized for his role as a spokesperson. The definition of 'survivor' is debated in the context of Parkland. Florida is urged to adopt open carry legislation. Gun rights advocacy is ongoing in Massachusetts despite challenges. The political landscape is shifting with younger voters leaning towards Trump. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of situational awareness for gun owners. The fight for gun rights is a continuous battle in states like Massachusetts. Women for Gun Rights is actively working to protect Second Amendment rights. The push for open carry reflects a broader trend in gun rights advocacy. Mark Walters expresses optimism about the future of gun rights in Florida. Florida's open carry legislation is a significant step forward for gun rights. David Hogg's rise in politics reflects the Democrats' struggle to find strong leadership. The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to military action. Political correctness in sports is affecting public celebrations and events. The panelists emphasize the importance of good guys carrying guns for community safety. Open carry helps change the culture around gun ownership. The conversation highlights the disconnect between politicians and the public's desire for freedom. The military's potential involvement in cartel violence raises questions about sovereignty and security. The Kansas City Chiefs' decision not to hold a Super Bowl rally reflects broader societal fears. The discussion underscores the ongoing battle for Second Amendment rights in America. gun rights, Second Amendment, Missouri, ATF, preemption, youth gun laws, legislation, accountability, firearms industry, political landscape, David Hogg, gun rights, Florida, open carry, Massachusetts, political landscape, survivor status, advocacy, Second Amendment, women in firearms, Florida, Open Carry, David Hogg, Cartels, Gun Rights, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Political Commentary, Sports Politics, Military Response

The conversation also touches on the challenges faced by gun rights advocates in Massachusetts, particularly the duty to retreat law, and the efforts of organizations like Women for Gun Rights to protect Second Amendment rights. Missouri's Second Amendment Protection Act aims to protect state rights. The ATF is seen as a hindrance to gun rights and should be abolished. Preemption laws are crucial for maintaining gun rights at the state level. Youth gun laws are under scrutiny, questioning the age restrictions for gun ownership. Emergencies should not justify the infringement of constitutional rights. The importance of holding local governments accountable for violating gun laws. The role of the federal government in regulating firearms is contentious. The conversation around gun rights is becoming more urgent and complex. Vigilance is necessary to protect Second Amendment rights from progressive attacks. David Hogg is criticized for his role as a spokesperson. The definition of 'survivor' is debated in the context of Parkland. Florida is urged to adopt open carry legislation. Gun rights advocacy is ongoing in Massachusetts despite challenges. The political landscape is shifting with younger voters leaning towards Trump. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of situational awareness for gun owners. The fight for gun rights is a continuous battle in states like Massachusetts. Women for Gun Rights is actively working to protect Second Amendment rights. The push for open carry reflects a broader trend in gun rights advocacy. Mark Walters expresses optimism about the future of gun rights in Florida. Florida's open carry legislation is a significant step forward for gun rights. David Hogg's rise in politics reflects the Democrats' struggle to find strong leadership. The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to military action. Political correctness in sports is affecting public celebrations and events. The panelists emphasize the importance of good guys carrying guns for community safety. Open carry helps change the culture around gun ownership. The conversation highlights the disconnect between politicians and the public's desire for freedom. The military's potential involvement in cartel violence raises questions about sovereignty and security. The Kansas City Chiefs' decision not to hold a Super Bowl rally reflects broader societal fears. The discussion underscores the ongoing battle for Second Amendment rights in America. gun rights, Second Amendment, Missouri, ATF, preemption, youth gun laws, legislation, accountability, firearms industry, political landscape, David Hogg, gun rights, Florida, open carry, Massachusetts, political landscape, survivor status, advocacy, Second Amendment, women in firearms, Florida, Open Carry, David Hogg, Cartels, Gun Rights, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Political Commentary, Sports Politics, Military Response

Another classic RT with thew crew featuring David Hogg an eerie replica of NAZI propagandist Joseph Goebbels , Trump possibly attacking Mexican drug cartels at US Border, FL Open Carry push, and much more! In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses significant topics including Florida's push for open carry legislation, the political rise of David Hogg, the implications of cartel violence, and the response of the U.S. military. The conversation also touches on the impact of political correctness in sports, particularly regarding the Kansas City Chiefs. The panelists share their insights and opinions on these pressing issues, emphasizing the importance of gun rights and the Second Amendment. The fight for gun rights is evolving post-Heller decision. Missouri's Second Amendment Protection Act aims to protect state rights. The ATF is seen as a hindrance to gun rights and should be abolished. Preemption laws are crucial for maintaining gun rights at the state level. Youth gun laws are under scrutiny, questioning the age restrictions for gun ownership. Emergencies should not justify the infringement of constitutional rights. The importance of holding local governments accountable for violating gun laws. The role of the federal government in regulating firearms is contentious. The conversation around gun rights is becoming more urgent and complex. Vigilance is necessary to protect Second Amendment rights from progressive attacks. David Hogg is criticized for his role as a spokesperson. The definition of 'survivor' is debated in the context of Parkland. Florida is urged to adopt open carry legislation. Gun rights advocacy is ongoing in Massachusetts despite challenges. The political landscape is shifting with younger voters leaning towards Trump. Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of situational awareness for gun owners. The fight for gun rights is a continuous battle in states like Massachusetts. Women for Gun Rights is actively working to protect Second Amendment rights. The push for open carry reflects a broader trend in gun rights advocacy. Mark Walters expresses optimism about the future of gun rights in Florida. Florida's open carry legislation is a significant step forward for gun rights. David Hogg's rise in politics reflects the Democrats' struggle to find strong leadership. The designation of cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to military action. Political correctness in sports is affecting public celebrations and events. The panelists emphasize the importance of good guys carrying guns for community safety. Open carry helps change the culture around gun ownership. The conversation highlights the disconnect between politicians and the public's desire for freedom. The military's potential involvement in cartel violence raises questions about sovereignty and security. The Kansas City Chiefs' decision not to hold a Super Bowl rally reflects broader societal fears. The discussion underscores the ongoing battle for Second Amendment rights in America. gun rights, Second Amendment, Missouri, ATF, preemption, youth gun laws, legislation, accountability, firearms industry, political landscape, David Hogg, gun rights, Florida, open carry, Massachusetts, political landscape, survivor status, advocacy, Second Amendment, women in firearms, Florida, Open Carry, David Hogg, Cartels, Gun Rights, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Political Commentary, Sports Politics, Military Response

This week they discuss and article from Forbes by Erik Ofgang where he highlights the 6 must-try bourbons in 2025. They smoke the La Barba Purple and drink the 1845 Preemption Reverence Cask strength https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikofgang/2025/01/14/6-must-try-bourbons-in-2025/

What's the middle ground between local zoning tyrannies and state preemption? Mark Miller of the Pacific Legal Foundation discusses ways to expand housing production amid restrictionist local zoning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: a declaration that suspended the 2nd Amendment in a Florida city during Hurricane Helene; a police chief in Massachusetts who was reprimanded for speaking out against an unconstitutional law; Brandon Herrera's re-creation of the would-be Trump assassin's SKS and the surprising results of its performance; Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's motion to dismiss has been denied; the NRA and Firearms Policy Coalition teaming up on a court case; and President Biden's Executive Order on gun control, and how it could be nothing, or it could be terrible. Myles talks about concealed carry holsters for lefties; and David continues his interview with Anthony Battaglia of Accurate Mag. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic Florida City Issues Gun Ban because of Hurricane Helene FL Statue 870.044 Preemption with teeth (section 3e) Ware police chief scolded for using department Facebook to oppose Mass. gun law Brandon Herrera-Testing the Second Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump 'Rust' armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed denied release from prison FPC, NRA Team Up on Second Amendment Brief in Ninth Circuit Appeal Challenging Federal Gun Ban USA Vs. Duarte (includes details on Duarte's arrest) FACT SHEET: President Biden and Vice President Harris Announce Additional Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Save Lives Southpaw Corner Handgun Radio 427 – Worst Carry Options Alien Gear Holsters Bordertown Holsters StealthGearUSA Ventcore 2.0 IWB Mini Holster CrossBreed Holsters Gun Lovers and Other Strangers GOA GOALS Accurate Mag Retro-Arms Brena Bock Author Page David Bock Author Page Team And More  

On May 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cantero v. Bank of America, reversing and remanding the case to the Second Circuit. Rather than articulating a bright line test for preemption, the Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to conduct a “nuanced analysis” to determine whether the National Bank Act preempts a New York state law that requires the payment of 2% interest on mortgage escrow accounts. Per the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit must apply the preemption standard described in the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a state consumer financial law is preempted “only if” it discriminates against national banks in comparison with state banks; is preempted by another Federal law; or “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,” as determined “in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States” in Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Nelson. See 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1). We open today's podcast episode, which repurposes a recent webinar roundtable covering the Cantero decision, with a new preface by moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group. This preface provides an update on an important post-Cantero development: a Ninth Circuit opinion issued on August 23 in another preemption case, Kivett v. Flagstar Bank. Alan explains why the Ninth Circuit's new opinion in Kivett applies a standard that is totally inconsistent with the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in Cantero. Today's episode then proceeds with a discussion featuring Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Partner Joseph Schuster, and four attorneys who each filed an amicus brief in Cantero. These experts share their reactions and explore potential next steps and possible outcomes as the Second Circuit and other courts proceed with efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's Cantero mandate.

This is a rebroadcast of the Gray Center’s Federal Preemption and Environmental Regulation Webinar. We hosted this event on April 29, 2024, to discuss the issues involved in two pending cases where energy companies have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Clean Air Act preempts attempts by Honolulu, Hawaii, to redress certain […]