 versus Christopher Wilson. And I guess the question is, Hawaii doesn't seem to buy the Bruin case by the United States Supreme Court, which is a very interesting set of circumstances. And for this discussion, we have our old friend, Aaron Davis, and our new friend, Shira Feldman, of the Brady Group in Washington, D.C. Welcome to the show, ladies. Thank you today. It's always an absolute pleasure to be on your show and to be talking about issues related to gun safety and litigation with you and how it impacts Hawaii. And I, you know, I've been on your show a few times. I love coming on, but I am thrilled and over the moon to have my colleague with me today, Shira Feldman. Shira runs our constitutional law department here at Brady. And she does a fantastic job. First of all, she's a scholar on everything constitutional law related. And secondly, she does a fantastic law of standing up for gun safety laws and managing all of that efforts all over the country. So she is a wealth of knowledge on everything related to the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court, and this Hawaii case. So welcome, Shira. Oh, yeah. Shira, thank you for showing up with us. It's very important. And you guys stayed up late for this. We appreciate that also. So let me start with you, Shira. So this case, Christopher Wilson, this case, can you state the case? We used to do that at NYU. Shira and I are schoolmates from NYU. She went to Columbia. We always wondered why Columbia's endowment was bigger than NYU. And more recently, we found that NYU's endowment is bigger than Columbia. I'm sorry I said that, Shira. I'm not responsible for any of those endowments, I can tell you. So, yeah. So Christopher Wilson was arrested and prosecuted for a number of things in Hawaii, one of which was trespass, which is not an issue here. But he was also prosecuted for having a firearm and ammunition outside his home or place of business without a license. And those are crimes in Hawaii. And so he was prosecuted for those crimes. And he argued that he should not be prosecuted for them because he says that those laws violate his individual right to self-defense outside the home, which he says is found in both the federal constitution and the Second Amendment, but also in the Hawaii Constitution. So that's what this case is about. A lower court agreed with him and the Hawaii Supreme Court then decided the case. Unanimously. Unanimously, yes. And it reversed the lower court. And it said that the Hawaii Constitution has no individual right to self-defense in it. I love that. I want to go on record. I love that. But it's not final. They remanded it, right? Yeah. So now that his, so the lower court judge had dismissed the charges against him because she found that the law violated his right. So now that the charges have been reinstated, the case is sent back to the lower court for him to be prosecuted or he could flee or whatever happens next. So it's not, it's not a final decision in this case. That's right. And they were operating under the Hawaii version of the Second Amendment, which I haven't read it word for word, but I think it's pretty much the same as the Second Amendment in the federal Constitution. Yeah. I think the Hawaii Supreme Court says there are two commas and maybe three words that are different. So it's basically the same, yes. So what is this with the militia? You know, I always felt that they were linked in the Second Amendment that we don't, we don't allow all this, you know, freedom to use guns except in the case of a well-regulated militia. But the Supreme Court in the United States apparently doesn't feel that way. Can you talk about the militia issue and the punctuation issue? Yes. So it's not surprising that you would think that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has to do with militia because the amendment begins a well-regulated militia, comma, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, comma, shall not be infringed. So you can see why a lot of people, including people in this country until 2008 in the court system, thought that that Second Amendment was about a militia. And people tend to forget that at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified, we have a standing army in this country. So it made sense that you would have militias of the various states. They've sort of evolved now into the National Guard that would need weapons. But as you're noting, the Supreme Court of the United States decided something different in 2008. Before that, people had always understood this to be a collective militia right. But in a decision called District of Columbia versus Keller in 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said that, in fact, the Second Amendment is about an individual right to bear arms and it's about self defense. You know, what troubles me, and maybe you've been able to reconcile this, you know, legally, but so you have the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruin establishing this right to carry. And that's regrettable. I mean, I grew up in New York, I suppose you did too. And we had the Sullivan Law, you know, it was very important to have the Sullivan Law. And I think the Sullivan Law went away after that case. You can comment on that. But so the Supreme Court said that. And now we have the Hawaii Court saying, in so many words, they don't accept the Bruin case. And they ruled otherwise. And they said this is a state matter. We're going to look at the state constitution. And we, you know, interpret the state constitution differently, as the Supreme Court did in the Bruin case. I'm saying to myself, wait a minute, don't we have a kind of supremacy issue here? Isn't the Supreme Court in charge of this? How can the state of Hawaii and the Supreme Court of the state, which I love dearly in this case, how can the Supreme Court of the state have a different result than the Supreme Court of the country? Can you rectify that for me in some way? And if you can't, just tell me. I think I can. So she was a scholar. So the Hawaii Supreme Court here was deciding two questions. One was, do these laws violate the Hawaii Constitution? And one was, do they violate the federal Constitution? And the vast majority of this opinion is interpreting the Hawaii Constitution. And the amendment, the article in the Hawaii Constitution is very similar to the Second Amendment. That's like, you know, 20 of the 21 pages of this decision are concerned with that. And the Hawaii Supreme Court spends so much time on that, partly because they had never fully interpreted what that article meant before in the Hawaii Constitution. And they conclude that it is not about an individual right. So they reject the reasoning of ruin as it would apply to interpreting the Hawaii Constitution. But then when they go on and turn very briefly to the Second Amendment question, they do stick with ruin because they recognize that they are bound by it. It is what the US Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment means. But they explain why under ruin, Hawaii's laws are perfectly constitutional. They're perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment as ruin interprets it. How are they consistent? The Supreme Court says you may carry. And the Hawaii Supreme Court says you can't carry without a permit. So how are they consistent? Well, so the decision in ruin, there's a very important footnote, footnote nine, in which the Supreme Court says that it's not calling into question licensing schemes, right? It's not calling into question the 43 states in which you had permitting systems that it referred to as shall issue states, where states where you apply for a permit. And if you meet the criteria, you get a permit. And that is what Hawaii is now doing. So there is no tension between having a licensing scheme and being consistent with the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court has interpreted it in Heller and Bruin. And the Supreme Court has said in those cases, the right is not unlimited. It's not a straight jacket. You can still have regulations. You just have to show if the regulations implicate what it refers to as the plain text of the Second Amendment, you have to show that there's a history of having regulations like that. And there is a long history of having licensing and permitting regulations like those things in the United States. Well, now we get into the question of that word history and tradition, I suppose. So let's take a state, and I'm making this up, like the state of Abbott. And it sees this decision and says, gee, we want that too. We want to avoid gun violence. We want to disagree with the Supreme Court. So tomorrow morning, our legislature is going to adopt a licensing law just like Hawaii. And when that comes up to us, to the court, here in the state of Abbott, we are going to have the same finding that Hawaii did. Now, that's not a history. That's merely an oral tradition. It's a brand new licensing law. What happens? So if the challenge to the law in Abbott is under their constitution, then the Abbott Supreme Court will have the final say on what that constitution means. But if somebody wants to challenge it under the Second Amendment, they can still go into federal court to do that. And so whether that's through some kind of habeas petition, if it were in a criminal case, or whether they were to bring a proactive civil case, but they could still get into federal court and end up under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court if they're making an argument under the federal constitution, which they could always do. But I would still say that under the federal constitution, that licensing scheme is constitutional. Yeah, I guess I didn't mention. I'm sorry, Erin. No, I was just going to say, I think one of the really important sort of big picture things to think about when thinking about sort of the complexities of the Second Amendment and the interpretations of it is the fact that, you know, there are gun safety laws all over the country. And even though all of these gun safety laws, a lot of them are being challenged throughout the country in this post-Bruin world, they are still able to be upheld under Bruin. And the Bruin made everything very confusing because it set a new standard with which you needed to, with which you could challenge these laws. But these laws are being upheld. And I think that's a really important message when you think about all of this in a bigger picture setting. Well, is this, aside from the split note nine, did you say, Chira? Yes. Has the Supreme Court, you know, actually agreed that the states could do that? So it hasn't been presented to the Supreme Court in quite that way yet, right? So the law that was the issue in Bruin was a law where there was discretion on the part of state official to issue the license. And what the Supreme Court said in Bruin was, you can't have this discretion where you have to have a special reason to get a license. But you can still have a licensing scheme where you say that it's important that people have training or it's important that people not be mentally unfit in some way. So the Supreme Court said you can still have those things. But there has not been a case since Bruin that tests that, not before the US Supreme Court. So back to the hypothetical with the state of Abbott. The state of Abbott have to have a second amendment just like Hawaii in order to make the case here. Could the state of Abbott start from a statute instead? So I don't know if I understand the hypothetical. So this is very much like law school again. You're saying, could the state of Abbott just have a statute that has licensing? And then the question would be, how would somebody challenge that statute? Yeah, do you need a second amendment like Hawaii has? Right. So somebody, if they were in Abbott, but Abbott was part of the United States, they would still always be able to use the federal constitution as a way to bring a challenge. But Abbott could have a constitution that has no right to bear arms in it. That would be its decision. And then there would be no challenge under the Abbott constitution, but there would still be one under the US Constitution if somebody wanted to bring one. Under footnote nine, I suppose, the licensing. Okay. So the question, Erin, is what does this mean to the Brady Group? Is this case consequential to the Brady Group? You do litigation for the Brady Group. I know you do litigation that's not necessarily constitutional litigation in the way that she was describing, but you do litigation with gun manufacturers and the like. And the question is to the Brady Group, to its broad and important, its critically important mission, does this case mean anything? It does. I think it's a wonderful example of, first of all, states like Hawaii passing important gun safety laws, and then courts interpreting those laws in ways that keep the community safe. So to the extent that all of that is in place, of course, it's important to us at our organization, which is geared at gun violence prevention in communities across America. So yes, but I think it's most consequential to the citizens of Hawaii. I mean, they have good laws on the books, and they have a Supreme Court who has a very community safety interpretation of Hawaii's Second Amendment, and they're also able to uphold these laws under the Bruin standard. So I think it did both, which is really important for the citizens of Hawaii. Oh, that'd be a good idea to just whisper in their ear, so to speak. Hey, you guys, if you want to improve your gun legislation, why don't you follow footnote nine and the Hawaii Christopher Wilson case and see what you can do to reach the same result? And that way we'll have a kind of, I want to say undercurrent, but a certain level of gun control by virtue of this analysis. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, I think one of the most interesting things about the Second Amendment, more broadly speaking, is the fact that it's interpreted by judges and sometimes courts' interpretations over generations shift. And obviously, as Shira mentioned, the Second Amendment had a new interpretation under the Heller case and a follow-up different interpretation under the Bruin case. So it'll be interesting to sort of see the trajectory of courts' interpretations of the Second Amendment under the new Bruin standard and whether that at some point in our lifetime shifts. Well, that raises, go ahead, Shira. So I was just going to say if I could add something to that, because I think what Erin has said is really important. Courts are often in dialogue with one another, so they may not be directly reviewing one another's decisions, but all of these writings matter. We have lots of examples in the United States of cases where a famous dissent later on becomes the majority opinion that's particularly true in the context of the First Amendment under the federal constitution. And so when we have decisions like this that are so carefully and thoroughly reasoned explaining why the Hawaii Supreme Court disagrees with the methodology that the U.S. Supreme Court used in Bruin, I think that's a really good opportunity for courts and judges to think about this and to think about how they're interpreting things and to sort of talk to one another through their opinions. Yeah, I think you will. This is unusual in this moment in the Second Amendment space to see an opinion like this, and it's impactful. And I think you'll see additional scholarship and law review articles and things discussing it as time goes on. And as Shira said, it is important jurisprudence in the long trajectory of both the Hawaii Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Well, I think you've touched on a really important dynamic, Erin, and that is it changes. The law changes, especially constitutional law. And I think it's a really important point to note that courts talk to each other, and it's sort of a conversation at a very special level, and it does connect up with the change. But I'm also wondering, Erin, if we have a change in our society, whether people are really getting tired of seeing all the violence, whether next time around, somebody gets up on a platform and asks you to vote for them, local level, federal level. And that person says, you know, I'm here to control gun violence. It's a plank in my platform, whether that plank would be more appealing or likely to be articulated going forward. I don't know about the younger generations because I'm so old, but you guys know, maybe you can speak to how people are feeling and how, you know, public opinion may be changing in the country. I read one of your recent newsletters, and he noted that there have been 71 gun violence incidents in 2024. Well, 2024, not even three months old. And here we are 71. We're going for the all time record. So what is the change in public opinion? Do you see it? Do you feel it? Do you expect it? So my answer is yes. I think, you know, even in the time that I've been involved in this movement, I've seen tremendous transition and interest in terms of, you know, how people feel about it. I mean, in today's environment, guns are the number one killer of children, which is an unbelievable statistic. I mean, more so than car accidents. I mean, guns are killing, you know, are killing children. And so I think what that means is, you know, gun violence is really a ripple effect. It's not just the person who's shot, who's impacted. It's that entire community and support system around them. So what I think you're seeing across the country, whether you're, you know, going to a Super Bowl rally party or you live in an everyday community that's affected by violence is you're seeing generations of kids and people that are directly impacted, either personally or in this ripple effect that I'm talking about by gun violence. And I think that that is extremely motivating to that next generation. I mean, you I think you see candidates in Congress who are running on gun violence prevention platforms who are young and they're succeeding. I mean, which is something a generation ago you wouldn't necessarily see. You see, you always saw people, you know, running, you know, in favor of quote unquote, the Second Amendment or gun rights, but you didn't see people standing up for safety. And I think you're seeing that now. And to be honest, you know, this is a point I think I might have made before with you. But, you know, oftentimes gun owners are some of the people who care most about, you know, gun safety and ensuring that their communities are safe, you know, because they don't want dangerous people having access to a firearm. So I think the country as a whole, you know, when you take the whole Second Amendment piece and what a right what the right means out of it and you look at common sense gun violence prevention laws, I think you have a lot more, more common ground than may be expressed in the public in by gun rights groups. Hope so. You know, we talked earlier here about this remark, this quote that Judge Eddens gave in his opinion, saying, quoted from one of the federal cases, the Constitution is not a suicide act. Where did that come from? And what's the import of that particular quote? Yeah, I mean, it comes from a much older US Supreme Court decision, but I think it makes a broader point, right? Which is, we should never interpret the Constitution so as to force destruction. The notion that people have to walk around frightened all the time, or have to feel that they need a gun, because they think everyone else has a gun, that's antithetical to the American way of life. One of the things that Brady points out in some of the amicus briefs we file, including in defending Hawaii's gun laws, is that you shouldn't have a situation where the Second Amendment can trump all of the other amendments. And when you allow for guns everywhere, you chill very important other rights, like the ability of people to assemble and the ability of people to speak out on controversial issues. There is data to show that people are less likely to do those things when they think everyone has a gun. And that's incredibly important. Well, you know, I'm reminded, just a short digression, I'm reminded of so many photographs of people at the insurrection who were wearing guns. And they do as a matter of course. And they walked into the state capital, I forget what state it is, Michigan maybe, and they were wearing guns and nobody stopped them, nobody arrested them, nobody questioned whether they had a permit if that was possible. And so, yeah, I think the average citizen could get more and more concerned. And going to Aaron's point about the dynamic, the change in public opinion, you know, there could be changes within a short time frame in the Supreme Court about this. Do you see the possibility that the Supreme Court will change its mind? It does do that from time to time. Will change its mind on Bruin, hopefully within our lifetimes, with the existing judges, and maybe with some new judges? What's the future of it? Yeah, I think, you know, we at Brady think that Heller and Bruin were wrongly decided. We understand that they are the law of the land and we bring our cases and litigate accordingly, but we don't agree with them. And we hope very much that the Supreme Court will come to understand the error and the consequences of what it has done on this issue. You know, it's my sense, I didn't study it for this show, but it's my sense that the GOP candidates are in lockstep on, you know, open carry and the gun rights, second amendment gun rights, NRA position, and in large part the Democrats, maybe not all of them, but the Democrats are on the other side of the fence. So does that issue play in this election we're going to have in November? How important is it? I mean, Aaron mentioned there are some people running for office who use that as a, you know, a campaign platform plank, but how important is it in the larger experience of the election in November? I mean, I think it's incredibly important. You look at the fact that last year we got the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we got a piece of bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation for the first time in a very long time. And that suggests that regardless of what the individual members of Congress may want on these issues, the greater group of people in this country wants there to be action on this issue and strongly believes in it. And I think that matters quite a lot as we look at candidates for the election. Well, I do hope it feeds into the election that people have that issue in mind when they go to the polls. You know, one thing, and I do believe we talked about this before, Aaron, is the quality entertainment media. The entertainment media is so full of guns, it's just hard to believe. And people aren't watching network as much as they used to, they're watching cable. And the cable has movies. Every time you turn around, there are more cable channels showing movies. And every cable channel is showing more movies about violence and vengeance and guns. And it's just amazing that every character in the movie, every hero and every villain has a gun and shoots people. And then the good guys go to the hospital and somehow magically they survive and the bad guys don't. You know, the whole thing is like pulp fiction. But you know, don't you think this affects the way people, including legislators, including NRA people, including liberals who don't want to see any more guns, the way they think when they're surrounded with entertainment that always, always, always 99% involves guns? I think you're going to have to have us back for another show, first of all, to talk about this in detail because we're going on and on for a long time on it. But yes, you know, obviously what people are seeing out there informs their opinion. And I really, I want to highlight, you know, to your viewers today, that Brady has a fantastic new program called Show Gun Safety. And if you go to our website, www.bradyunited.org, you could easily see it, but it's a collaboration with Brady and people who are involved in Hollywood in terms of making sure that guns are portrayed responsibly in terms of how to store them and how to lock them up and accurately. So we have a whole community of people in the entertainment business who want to be part of the solution in their writings and they want to portray things in positive messages. The same way that, you know, in the Brady bunch, somebody put on their seatbelt and after seeing that everyone in America started putting on the seatbelt, the idea is to do something similar with guns and hopefully this public education campaign through the entertainment industry will have a larger role and hopefully we'll be back talking about the success of that and how it's really made a shift in our communities in the future. I hope so. You know, the Amara in that Baldwin movie, I think he escaped prosecution, but she didn't. She was found guilty of manslaughter yesterday, I think. How does that affect things? I mean, going to the whole point of entertainment and guns, it's dangerous even on the movie lot. What does that tell us? Does it tell us something? Why in the world was a live round on a movie lot? I do not have a good answer for that one. It shouldn't have been. Is there is a reality and, you know, people who are gun owners and use them, whether it's as props, have a huge responsibility to make sure those guns are used and stored in safe ways. And, you know, I do think as a separate issue, there are laws being passed across the country. If you have kids in your home, then you have a responsibility to lock up your firearm and that's been proven to save lives. I mean, if you look at the End Family Fire campaign, which is another programmatic piece of work that Brady does, it talks a lot about ways to save lives. And it's geared at gun owners so that they can, you know, save lives of children and people who are loved ones to them. That's true. Gotta do that. And maybe, and maybe that will help. Every, everything we can get going here to change public opinion, to raise awareness about this. So, Shira, you know, this guy, Pierre, somebody or other, the one who runs NRA or used to run NRA. Yeah. Why am I blocking on his name? Because I want to. So he's out of, he's out of office now. Does this change the NRA? Does it change what they are doing? How does policy get determined so that they go into court, including these constitutional cases? You know, will that change with Pierre's debaucher? The debaucher is a euphemism. Yeah, I confess that I don't know, but I certainly hope that the NRA comes to recognize that it is doing something very dangerous every day. And it's not just the NRA. You know, it's a number of different groups across the country that are bringing these cases and they all are doing it with complete disregard for the consequences. And those consequences are deadly. You know, the other thing I noticed in the paper is that in Uvaldi, that terrible shooting took place. It must be a year, a little more than a year ago. The local authorities excused the police of wrongdoing, of either negligent or intentional wrongdoing. And the community is up in arms. And I'm wondering, you know, between you two guys, you want to see elements that will show people how dangerous this is, that it has consequences. There is accountability. Your thoughts about Uvaldi? So I think one of the very important lessons from Uvaldi is why we cannot have military-style weapons on the streets. You know, we know that police were afraid to go in because of the armor they were facing, the ammunition and the weapons. And you know, Brady frequently makes the argument, and courts have agreed with us, that there is no room for these weapons of war on the streets of our country in civilian hands. It just makes absolutely no sense. These weapons have no purpose but to mow down crowds of people. They are not for self-defense. They are not even helpful for self-defense. And you look at a situation like Uvaldi and you really understand why these weapons have no place in this country. You know, I can't tell you how much I agree with you. I think about it all the time. It's absolutely loony tunes to permit weapons of war to be used, even owned, even possessed by ordinary citizens. What does the NRA, what does the gun lobby say when this is raised? Do they have an argument to say, oh no, this is necessary. This is part of the constitutional rights granted. What are they saying? That is their argument. I think they're wrong, but that is their argument. And they would argue that they need these weapons for self-defense, which all evidence, including their own documentation, shows us just not true. These are not the weapons you use for self-defense. And you don't need a large capacity magazine or a bump stock or an AR-15 to defend yourself. But to answer your question, yes, that is their argument. The bump stock was recently found legal. I forget where. So the bump stock case is currently before the Supreme Court actually about the ATF's bump stock rule. It was argued last week. And that rule is currently suspended because of the decision of a federal appeals court. And we're hoping very much that the Supreme Court recognizes the danger of that decision and allows the rule to go back into effect. I hope you guys have some level of optimism about that. But for me, I do not have a level of optimism. Jay, there are two cases, actually, this term in the U.S. Supreme Court. And both of them are going to be very interesting to see what the resolution is. And Chair certainly can provide more detail on both of them. But we are closely tracking what the court will do on both of these issues. Well, Erin, let's take a moment and talk about some of the at least categories of cases you're working on. Are you working together? My guess would be that you're in a different space as far as Brady litigation is concerned. But tell me, how it is for you and how closely you work with Shira? Well, so I sit right, you know, I sit in office away from Shira. So we work very, very closely. But we are on sort of separate sides of the legal world. You know, what I do, as you know, is I represent victims of gun violence in civil lawsuits, primarily against the gun industry for unlawful conduct in terms of, you know, the selling of firearms. And what Shira does is, so I have, well, let me back up a minute. So I have clients who live all over the country and they share the commonality of being victims of gun violence. So we bring these impact driven litigation. And a lot of what we do as well is we try and the gun industry has certain types of special protection. So a lot of our lawsuits challenge those special protections. And as a result of that, we create a really good body of precedent that other victims of gun violence are allowed to or then can bring cases and have access to justice. So that's what I do on the litigation side of Brady. And what Shira does is she, well, I'll let Shira tell you what she does, but she, you know, really defends gun safety laws in this Second Amendment space. So we are on two ends of the litigation space, but both of us using the courts to do really impactful, wonderful things. No, Shira, you mentioned the magic word amicus. And Brady must have a, you know, a great product and a great reputation with the Supreme Court and other courts in which you might file amicus briefs. And I wonder, you know, how much you are involved in that? What kinds of cases you select to file these briefs? Yeah, so we're very, we're very involved in and our amicus work is a large part of what I do. And we are cited by courts for our expertise on these issues. And the issues are pretty varied. So we weigh in on all kinds of gun safety laws, assault weapons bans, sensitive place protections, industry accountability laws, age restrictions. If you can think of a gun violence prevention law, we have probably helped to defend it. And, and Jay, I don't, I may embarrass Shira by this, but Shira, I'll tell Jay how many briefs you've done. Oh, we're grounded off to the nearest thousand, okay. I think at this point in our fiscal year this year, which, which runs from last summer to now, we're in the 40s, I believe. So we're, we're averaging several a month. But last week we filed five. So the pace is only increasing. Are the issues the same? I mean, can you use material that you have in one for another? Or do you have to reinvent it for each case? So sometimes it's a brand new issue. Often it's not reinvention, but we have to adapt things to the particulars of a specific case, the specific statuteed issue, specific history. But as litigation has progressed in a post-brewing world, we've had more and more issues where we have started to develop a body of language that we use to talk about them. I was just going to say, and Brady has waited on two, in two amicus briefs on behalf of the State of Hawaii. Oh, okay. Wow. Do you get to travel out here? That's what we're hoping. You know, my recollection is that if you file an amicus brief, you don't necessarily have the right to make oral argument to the appellate court. That's right. No, you don't, unfortunately. In a few courts you are allowed to request it, but so far I have not been able to figure out a way to have this give me a trip to Hawaii. I would really love it if I could figure out how to do that. Well, you know, what you do is you say, look, Erin invited me out, and I'm out here, and I just have a few words to the court while I'm here. Well, let's have some closing because we're running out of time, but I would like to ask you first, Erin, what's the future of all this? Is the Brady Group growing more successful as time goes by? Is gun violence diminishing or growing? Are the courts more impressed with what you tell them? Give me a handle on what we should expect in the future. You first, Erin. Well, I think that we are doing fantastic work over at Brady. I think we're having a very important impact, certainly in the litigation space and in the Second Amendment space as well. I think that what we're doing is saving lives. I mean, we obviously can't, we can't calculate how many lives we're saving, but I think we're doing a tremendous job protecting important laws as well as sending a message to the gun industry so victims of gun violence in the future don't have to be victims of gun violence. I also think we're doing fantastic programmatic work as well that is really changing the culture and putting, really highlighting that many of the myths that people believe that have been put forth by the NRA, like guns make you safer, we're poking holes in those, and people are starting to understand that guns don't make you safer because if they did, we'd be the safest country in the U.S. So I think we're doing great work. I think I would love to come on your show and say, tell you that I'm out of a job. I don't think that's happening tomorrow, but we're going to keep pushing towards it. Absolutely. We have to have a more perfect union and you're working for that too, Shira. So what is your thought about the future? What did you thought about the young lawyers from NYU and other schools that come around that participate in this, and that would do it volunteer too, I might add. What is your feeling about the generation coming up and also about the mental health issues that lead to the inappropriate acquisition and use of guns in this country? Yeah, so I think that from a legal perspective, the future of this movement for young lawyers is very promising. I think that more and more young lawyers are understanding the stakes here and really want to be involved in this issue, and we're seeing more and more of them involved, and that's so important to get young, young blood and also new scholarship, new ways of approaching these issues. And for better or for worse, we're in uncharted territory here on the constitutional issues because this interpretation is so new. So it's an opportunity to develop arguments and develop theories about how all of this works, and I think it's incredibly important. Thank you, Shira Feldman. Thank you, Erin Davis. As always, I look forward to our next discussion, and I wish you well in all particulars. Thank you so much. Thank you for having us. Aloha.