 Hi, my name is Sandy Bear and this is our first session of the new year of the new academic year of the Vermont Institute of International and Agency of Involvement, or VIKI. And we are going to begin the session with talking about part of the Constitution. I'm in second amendment of the right to bear arms, a very controversial subject. An amendment that's been in controversy since the beginning of our republic. When this amendment was adopted as the second amendment out of the historic process that was known as the American Revolution. My own militias and individuals for arms to defeat the British Empire in the first anti-colonial revolution in history. And the first successful revolution which created a new public and a new world or in the Americas. And with us tonight to discuss both the controversial parts of the second amendment and also in the historic context of the second amendment is Jared Carter, who was a constitutional scholar, a professor at Vermont Law School. He added up the first amendment clinic at Cornell a year ago. And he does commentaries right now. Radio, TV, I'll do anything. I love talking about this stuff. Yes, I know. Okay, so Derek's trying to set the stage by talking about the second amendment in its legal and historic context. And also the present cases, he's also probably going to give us his interpretation of the second amendment. And welcome participation and what wants to argue and bring forth their views that will be also great. All right, so Derek take it away. Yeah, great, Sandy. Thanks and welcome folks tuning in out there in the zoom verse. Really happy to be here and participate in the, the, I guess the first time this year of the year lecture discussion. I really would like this to be as much of a discussion as we can have. My thinking is to sort of lay out a lot of what Sandy talked about. And then hopefully open it up for conversation and questions that we'll try to answer and share our thoughts and ideas about. So, I do want to first and just acknowledge that Sandy pointed out, I'm a first amendment person that's what I do. That's what I think my constitutional expertise is in. So when Sandy and Vicky invited me to come here and talk about the second amendment. I was really excited because it gave me an opportunity to sort of delve into a different area of, of the law. And while the first amendment is first for a reason in my view, the second met second amendment in many respects is equally important and perhaps equally controversial in a lot of ways. And what I think is really important to do when you start talking about a constitutional right and what it means and how it should apply is you really got to go to the words on the paper at the outset. And the second amendment as folks might know is pretty darn short. And you might say, well, how does such a short amendment become such a controversial topic. And these are difficult issues to wrestle with as as a society, you know, when people are very passionate on both sides of this argument, but here's what the second amendment actually said. We'll start there and then walk through some of the cases and what they say and how that history that Sandy alluded to comes in to that that conversation. So the second amendment says a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So in a lot of ways, and this will come back to the discussion here in a few moments. The second amendment is not a model of English language writing is a lot of interjecting clauses and commas. And as it turns out, those commas had a huge impact in many respects in how the court interpreted, but it's short. And the first clause, a well regulated militia. And what the courts have said on that front is they've looked back at history, starting with in fact before the revolution, and said that really the foundation of the United States, as the country is we understand it, came out of that revolution. And militias were a few part of that, that process right there was not factors of a big that was antithetical a lot of ways that standing army for many years in the United States. Exactly, significant limits during times of times of peace and so the militia were the way that the war, at least initially was fought. And so the US Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment through that historic lens. And I'm sure there's folks and we can talk more about this later that agree or disagree with the way that some and that's how the courts looked at the lens of the militia and do the lens of what the revolution and the militia were about which was at the time to defend the fledgling United States to fight against the English Empire. To fight against the English Empire, right. Exactly independence. And so the, the most, I guess important case that really gets at this is a case that came out of the District of Columbia called DC be heller. It was a challenge to a District of Columbia law that banned handguns and required that shotguns and rifles long, long, long guns were kept under lock and key when not in use. The US Supreme Court looked at that law and struck it down in large part because of that history and tradition that it's had consistently said is the basis for the second event. So the most important part of that is the court looked at that first clause a well regulated militia. And said that is not a limit on the constitution because a lot of folks in that in that case, said and there's so many people that believe, said that the militia clause was a limit on the second amendment that it was meant to meant to be that if you weren't part of the militia, the second amendment didn't really protect an individual right. The Supreme Court said no, because of the placement of the comma in the second amendment. They said it was a preparatory clause, not a limiting fact. And ultimately concluded that the second amendment enshrined an individual's right to possess arms, not an individual's right as part of a militia to possess farms. And they use what we refer to as the history and tradition pass to determine what sort of regulations of firearms could exist because heller didn't say, you know, you can't regulate firearms, right. In fact, they said said the opposite. It stated that there's certain sensitive locations like schools and hospitals and government buildings where firearms can be regulated. And that reasonable regulations that are grounded in these history, this history and tradition could also be grounds for regulating firearms. So it's not a, like many constitutional rights, it's not a right that is absolute. There are there are significant exceptions but heller set forth that basic principle of the history and tradition. Yes, yes. Yes, and heller focused primarily on the individual right to bear arms for the purposes of self defense. And, and, and not only self defense but defense of the whole. And there's a lot of folks that critique that analysis, quite frankly. And then they point to history and tradition that's different. And I think that is one of the. The heller case. The right of malicious. Individuals individuals. Yeah, and I think that because remember, there was no standing army in order for the militia to have arms, people had to have. How does the militia differ from the standing army, which is also. Yeah, I don't know if that's, I don't know if that's a constitutional piece, because clearly we have standing armies today. But there were certainly a few at the time. And for many for decades, they were standing armies and so. So some were paid some weren't they were volunteers they were essentially state and community military units that were organized and trained at more at the more local level. And they, and so they didn't have. There was no draft. Correct. Okay, so these were people who volunteered to be in militias and fight against what? Right. Definitely. They were volunteers and these militia didn't have arms there were no funds to fund that. And so these folks were able and I think this is where the history mission comes in because of the Second Amendment. These folks had arms that they would bring to their militia service. And I think that in a lot of ways is right. Exactly. And that's in a lot of ways is where I think this debate over what is the history tradition. And how should we interpret the Second Amendment comes up and it's of course a more vigorous debate now because, you know, of the gun violence that we see in the United States, which is very which is a. We are now live internationally when it comes to gun violence. I think it is. Yeah. Yep. Yeah, so I think homicides in the United States and my statistics are going to be exact, pulling from memory. Something like 70% of them are are are firing. I think Canada is next and it's 44%. New Zealand Australia and 12%. So it is lower. And I think it's, I think it's undeniable that the fact that we have the Second Amendment is why there are some firearms in the United States. Now, again, folks can disagree as to whether or not that's good, bad or otherwise. But I think it's a big reason because that right protects the individual's ability to have fire and it's based in that idea of self defense. Exactly. The question that was left open and really haven't had a very clear answer to it. I think this is. I would be surprised not to see this come up in case in cases in the future is once you step outside of how much regulation can happen with respect to guns. I think the Heller case pretty clearly says you can't tell people they can't have a loaded gun in their house or that they can't have a handgun self defense in their house. What about when you're out walking the streets? And there was a case that went up to the US Supreme Court last term, I believe, the New York State gun at rifle club club case, challenging some New York laws that regulated the use and possession of firearm concealed firearms outside of the home. And the US Supreme Court looked poised to strike that down to under the same rationale that it didn't tell her. But the laws were changed. And so the case was mooted. In other words, there was no longer a case for the parties to bring. And so we didn't get an answer from the court yet. But I think that's sort of the next question. And on the one side, folks who believe in a broad second of the right say, well, it's got to apply in the streets and out in public for the same self defense reasons. Those who prefer a narrow interpretation of the second amendment say, well, no, it was about self defense of self and home. And the data doesn't really support the idea that, you know, we're walking around the city ducks. And I think the Supreme Court, as it's made up now is probably going when this case does come back up. Well, it's probably going to interpret the second amendment broadly to include that that right in public. So it's an interesting and it's an interesting set of circumstances. I think there's ways to constitutionally deal with the second amendment using the history tradition tests that are more effective in both protecting the right to bear arms while also allowing for reasonable restrictions on arms in the United States because we clearly clearly have a pandemic of violence in the United States that differs from anywhere else in the world. And I don't think you can in it, we're going to be honest on just the second amendment. But clearly that has to be part of the conversation primer. And so I actually think so. Well, I think if you look at the number of firearms in the United States, I think it's, it's, it's something like 300 million, only 60 million of which I believe are actually registered and I'll confess that six, six of them are mine. So I am the fire. Well, because when I'm out hunting, you need a different type of firearm depending on the species you're pursuing. So I actually think, and I love for people to jump into the conversation. I actually think that rather it makes it work a lot better. And actually I think we protect the right more consistently with how firearms were used back then to ground it, not in the right to self defense, but to ground it in to the idea that a firearm at the time was an agricultural tool of hunting and certainly protecting your own home. And I think that would allow us to take sort of a first amendment approach to the second amendment and you can carve out certain types of firearms that would not be protected by the second amendment. All right, good. I'm glad I finally got someone to start talking. Great. So we look at the first, the first amendment. Even though it seems to be no law, the version of freedom of speech, we carved out all sorts of exceptions. I can't defend you. I can't incite riot. I can't threaten you with the true threat. I can't defend you. Well, no, but you, it can be prohibited. So I can defamation is exception. In other words, to the first amendment. So I think you can come up with a similar model for the second and say there are certain things that would be exempted from protection while still protecting that right. Yeah, but, but perhaps we wouldn't be able to own certain firearms that have been used that are that are crucially, you know, used by the military. They're still used by them. Right. They're used by citizens and I'm saying that on the March 15th is a, is a great weapon to defend their law set. Right. Because of the ability for you to use how precise it is. How do you say that? You have a very bold perspective. You have a very clever argument. I like that. I like that. I guess I don't know that they backfire gun shootings at schools. Right. No doubt, but I don't, I think it's, I think we probably correlation and cause it because there's a prohibition of bringing guns in schools. People bring guns to the schools. No, he used to bring guns into schools and pretty regularly there's a much more healthy environment. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think then we've got to be willing to it's going to be and it's not interest. I mean, I think then we've got to be willing to it's going to be and it's not interest. That old war on. In other words, You know, they, they, they get a case and now the cops have to get, you know, I don't rock it. Launchers and then we get a lot like it becomes, it becomes, I think, It's like, You know, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, The cops have to get, you know, I don't rock it. Launchers and they rock like it becomes, It becomes like a ridiculous. And I think you actually look at the data and actually have some data on the second amendment itself the fence and show me run through these. Cause I think, I think there's this narrative that's out there that says We're all sort of sitting ducks and you have to have these, you know, high-capacity, high-powered weapons in order to defend ourselves. And in fact, in 2017, the FBI reported that there were only 290 justify those homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. Okay? That same year, there were 10,000 greater-than-80s criminal homicides. In other words, guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide, justifiable homicides self-defense. The intended victims of violent crimes engage in self-protected behavior that involved firearms in 1.1% of attempted and completed incidents in the 2014 and 60s. Intended victims of property crimes engage in self-protected behavior that involved firearms, 0.3% of attempted and completed incidents. So the point is, there isn't actually a lot of data to back up this idea that we've got to have guns for self-defense. This is why I would argue that if we, instead of putting it in a self-defense bucket, which isn't really grounded in the reality of the world, all the problems, the spiteful problems we're seeing in Burlington right now around violence and drugs, but the reality of the world doesn't support an idea that we have that this should be grounded in self-defense. Firearms are very rarely used in self-defense. They're very often used for things like hunting, protecting your house as a tool of agriculture, which is what I think most people, even in the 1790s, used them for. And that allows us to still protect that right. But Jerry, what's wrong with forgetting someone? Go ahead. Keep on. I've said what I have to say. Christy, were you going to say something? Well, I think I would love to talk about data in this video, but I think that maybe you start talking about politics at this point, but the two political conversations we always had, the way the fact of reality versus perception and perception, it's that kind of stuff. And my understanding from the interactions and anecdotally, the people over at my tenant, I've had about more people in the last 12 months, only that they purchased a company, me, the family, than I had in the other nine years at the chair. So, in theory, perception is that people believe that this guy will keep those things. And no matter how much you talk about statistics, it's 1209 pieces, that you are 103, there's no doubt. This is what's always on people's minds. We have to combat what the reality is, what the data says, what we know. Because in any argument, anybody, any day, any one of us, using logic and emotion, what people do with emotion. So it's more about how they feel than what the projects go. Well, I think that you both, in a way, are forgetting somebody. And that is the historical context of the Second Amendment. It was not grounded necessarily only in self-defense, although it was also in self-defense. But it was, people have the right, and I want to ask two questions about this. So people have the right to bear arms in this country because it's perceived that the state, that they need to protect themselves against tyranny, that is the historical context. We are learning not about self-defense. Now that's an eight-year-old perception. And one of that, for example, is a conservative, because it's 39 states of America. I don't think there's any other constitution in the world that allows the right to bear arms. And that might be wrong. And what I'm talking about, I think it's because of our revolutionary tradition. And you are not addressing that. I think you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. I'm so glad I brought it up. I love the fact that you brought it up, people. I am. You're green. You're green. I'm not so independent. So you're also a libertarian. Yes. I have many things. All the many things I love about you. But I know you are absolutely right. But again, reality versus perception, we are basing this argument that it's against the tyrannical government. But I guess what? In defense of the tyrannical government. Yes. In an effort to artificial right. But the second that we mentioned that in state political climate, selected hearing, the way it's perceived is, that person that did talk about Trump rallies and believes in Q and A. I don't care what people believe. I've existed prior to Trump. I was, I'll tell you a personal story about how way I could defend the second half. Yeah. With a high school teacher in Madison, Wisconsin. And it was during the civil rights movement. It was during the Vietnam War. And I was constantly critical of the government. Yet I was a kind of a proponent, as most Democrats are, of climate control. And one of my students brought up, he criticized the government because it's tyrannical. And then you don't, you don't realize that people have the right to bear arms against the state. Right. And that's what it was. I think it was like a transformative moment. Interestingly, that so the New York pistol and rifle club case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, just this past turn, that was actually, I was more concerned about that piece of it because what it did is allow for this, this, you know, New York commission, this government body to decide who would get these permits and who wouldn't. And they could certainly do it in a discriminatory fashion. And so I think that was a better protection piece of problematic. But here's the thing, because you're absolutely right. That principle, that the Second Amendment was really meant to protect, allow people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government in the 1790s England. Right. So, so during the revolution, but I think the difficulty then becomes and, you know, maybe the answer is fine. But even if we say, okay, the pistol handguns, ARs, AKs, you know, none of that. You know how much money the U.S. government spends on the military. Well, I mean, you see those F 35 slide right. None of that is going to send us from the U.S. government. And if we think that it is, it's not. But you're arguing a different point. Yeah, totally different point. Why? Because the government has all these guns. Everybody knows it. You want the government to be the only entity on earth that has all the guns? Well, or do you want people to have also the right to have guns? And this is a unique right. You can't let the government have all the guns. If you're so against all these high-polluting weapons, I'd love the production of those weapons. Well, fair enough. But do it. Don't take away the right to bear arms from people. I'd love the production. But I'm not saying, I'm just saying, I think it, I think it doesn't really hold a lot of water to say, well, you've got to be able to have these guns. It does hold water. Yeah. And I'm not saying that the government will always have more guns than any people do. Right. In less, well, no, in less than what I'm going to say, there, and the Supreme Court actually said there is no right to have a Harrier jet. But unless we're willing to say, I should be able to, I should, I should be able to under the second amendment have a Harrier jet or an F 35. If I can afford it. That would be, that would actually protect us from the terror. My hunting rifle isn't going to do a darn thing. It is a different argument. It won't reach out to the government. I like that. It's important. Yeah. There are, there are problems. You're talking about a normal conflict. You're getting your own government. You have to recognize. There is a lot of distrusion. Who, who's the commander in chief, or they just, you know, the honest of the weapons that you're showing that, you understand? Your citizenry has those M to F 35s. So he says, he says, I mean, Joke, We're going to call it. Let's talk about how gun laws, this, have been used as a form and a tool of oppression, minorities. And a tool of ethnic cleansing. Let's talk about the dangerous side of the B-track. I'll tell you a bit. I'll tell you a bit about that. Recognize that early. And they changed my thinking, too, in the Black Panther Party. Right. Yeah. That was the Black Panther Party for self-defense. Yeah. Black people argued the right to bear arms. Yeah. And that was the Black Panther Party. They knew that they were gunned in a way by the government. They still argued that for self-defense. And for rights against the tyranny of the government. They needed to break their arms. Guess what happened then? Well, I'm from here when people say it's time to regulate. I said, you're right. It's time to give the government the issue of air, but it's not fair. No. Well, I would argue if you're so upset about the government having these type of weapons. I love the production of West Reds. Easy. A lot. And that would be constitutional. How do you not get it imported from outside the U.S.? Just I love the importation. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think we're straying a bit from the fundamental sort of second amendment case. Yeah. But I, well, okay. I mean, you're still making them yourself, right? If you give them out. Well, I guess, where do you stop? Where do you, how far do you let the government go? Like they only have blunderbuses. And bus kids like in 1791. I would rather go there. Yeah. Than to prohibit citizens' rights to bear arms. Let's say that the government doesn't have the right to bear those kinds of arms. Yeah. Why not? I mean, wouldn't have any dispute for me on that. And then we avoid that. Then we avoid the arms race. Yeah. Where we all have to get, you know, can say, oh, we'll certainly shoot out a man for sure. Yeah. That's the whole thing about nukes. Why didn't we allow the government of the United States to have an employer nukes? Yeah. Which will never happen, of course. I mean, I think the thing about the Second Amendment, that's so hard in a lot of ways. No, it's hard. I'm saying for us to like grapple with is, I feel like it's become, it's like, it's a partisan thing. And neither side can acknowledge any legitimacy in the other side's perspective. And I think it's, I think it's true. And so you, and so as a result, you can never sort of come to any sort of resolution around it. Right? And neither, both sides say, well, one side says, well, if you regulate anything, you know, where it's going to be tyranny of the government, the other side says, well, we can't, we can't let people have guns because, you know, then it's going to be, you know, in our year, whatever. Neither side really actually has a conversation about it. And neither side, neither side can, can recognize the, I'm not talking about us, right? We're all colleagues, but neither side, but large can, can acknowledge any validity in the other side of the second amendment. I'm not saying you. And I'm saying, yeah, it's just a solution. Okay. Which you know where people go to, nobody, because it's an capitalism. Absolutely right. Outlaw the production of these student weapons. Right. Why isn't that a solution? Was it because it's institutional? Right. Well, that would certainly deal with the tyranny of the government. Yes. Yeah. So therefore, I don't know. I don't get why it's the citizens who have to pay the price of this argument. Why doesn't the government have to disarm? It should. It could. But it doesn't. Right. Because it wants a monopoly on weapons. Right. Doesn't it? Certainly. Well, it's better. I mean, the people who are in control guns are being accused of something even more severe. And that is they want to confiscate guns. Right. Isn't that per thought? Can I just get guns from the citizens? Right. What does that mean? Going into their houses, searching their houses, finding those guns and taking them away? Yeah. And it's going to be so naive to think that that's right. It's not resolved. I'm kind of confident. I think it's part of that. What you're talking about. No. That's become part of this. What type of guns are you talking about? What type of guns are you talking about? Banging the production of the guns? Notes. Notes. Okay. I'm down. I'm cool. I don't even soul know why I'm turning like that. But I'm just kind of curious. A lot of talk is centered around being here on the team. I mean, look at it. Look at it. I do not believe in war, for instance. At all. I don't believe in the government using their weapons to attack people on other continents and kill civilians. Why don't we discuss gun control from the military? Why don't we get drone control? I mean it. If we're serious about killing people, if we're serious about killing civilians, why doesn't the argument they, why is there no argument that the government should not be armed to either to do that kind of stuff? Why? I mean, I mean, because it's all the argument about second amendment is constantly focused on making citizens drive their rights to be around. So that's the whole argument. Right. I don't get it. Do you? Well, I think, I think it's, I mean, I don't know what it was like in 1791. I don't, I don't, I don't. I don't know if it was considered a partisan issue that it was considered a necessary right to defend against tyranny and laws. What I'm saying is now the reason we have the same conversations. I think this is my over and over again and never seem to get anywhere is because everybody sort of back into their own corners and, and, and, and, you know, the left refuses to acknowledge that there's validity to have meeting firearms in order to defend ourselves with tyrannical government and from protect. Well, I think, I think, I think generally they fall and they fall back and say, no, that's, that's BS. That's fantasy. Okay. And then on the right, they say, well, all you really want to take all our guns away and, you know, it's, it's, it's a, it's a pressure. And I think neither are right, but both back into those corners and can never acknowledge each other, the any validity to each other's arguments. And so as a result, we have these same conversations of society year after year and nothing, nothing changes. Maybe people in general want to have the right to defend themselves. Of course. Change. That's why it doesn't change. Yeah. It's too sweet. There's a lot of, you're right. You're a polar. Yeah. But well, bring camps in my opinion. But as far as I'm concerned, being on the right, I know many governors, you know, everything about, you know, and I know what kind of conversation. That they're very controlled. They don't know. And they make it known that there's so many, you know, nothing what they're talking about. So they're all emotional. And both camps are feeding from emotional points. Right. It's very easy and logical because they understand every controlment of that firing. I don't know. First of all, I do not. I'm just going to be able to communicate. Because once I refuse to understand it, the lab wants to really engage us. They need to do their homework and understand what firearms they're talking about. You sound really foolish when you're talking about an AR-15. Look, I don't think that's the discussion on either the left or the right. I do not believe that's the cause of polarization. I'll tell you what, I think it's the cause of polarization. People do not understand the history of this country. They do not understand the nature of our revolution, which was fought with our arms against the strongest empire on Earth and we won. And those Americans, the founders knew that we had to have the right to put our arms against tyranny. And in the second amendment, that's why I had Jared here tonight, what needs to be put in the historical perspective of the United States of America. And that's why people are so strongly in favor of the second amendment. And once I think that people understand our history, the unique history of this republic, they change their lives. They might still allow a regulation of certain gods, but that regulation should pertain to both the government and citizens. It appears to me, you cannot let the state have all the gods and the people have none. That will never happen in the United States of America. Never. That is, I don't think so. They have all the power. They have, and they want it. All governments, not just our government, all governments, all states want all the power and all the gods. And I want to ask that question again. What other constitution, what in the world allows the right to bear arms in the heart of citizens? That's the first thing a police state does is to take away citizens' guns. The very first thing it does, why? Why? Because then if you commit atrocities, then you can force your people to do whatever you want. Exactly. And it's the attitude. I'm not right or left, by the way. Neither. I'm very pro-left in some regards and very pro-right. But I tell you one thing, I'm for the history of the Republic and I'm for keeping it a free republic. And I think every citizen of this country should be equally committed to that. Because we've lost the best part of all of our traditions. Excuse me. But anyway, so that's ironed out. I don't know if anybody on the pier wants to try it. I guess not. Anyway, what? Okay. Anyway, I don't know. It's always fun. Over or not? What do you think? Over or over? I don't know. I don't have the time. I'm fixed up. 638. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So anybody else having thoughts? Go ahead, Teri. Yeah. I mean, I think the, it's interesting that the Supreme Court didn't end up providing the New York case. Because it wasn't. Well, so the. Basic gist of it is New York had a permanent process for concealed care. That made it. That made it. Yes, but it was very, very, apparently it was very, very difficult. Are we going to conceal carry permit? I believe. And there was concerns. And in fact, I think that was the point you made a little while ago about Black Panthers. There was an organization, an African American organization. I forget which one, but it. File and it was brief. Against the state of New York on the grounds that this law could be applied in discriminatory fashion so that yeah, Black people wouldn't be able to get guns and white people would be able to get guns or this side would be able to leave guns at that side. We'll be able to get guns, but we'll be able to leave guns at that side. And so, which truthfully to me was a very problematic part of the law because anytime you start doling out any right based on someone's ethnicity, how would you do that exactly? Well, I mean, for example, if, you know, they base it on some sort of underlying criminal history. You know, the same way that, you know, people get pulled over for the broken tail light. People talk about driving while black, right? And so the right way is to discriminate against the particular set of people if it wants to. And so there are real concerns about would this be applied mutually, we don't know the answer to that because the law is no longer on the books, but I think that's a real concern. And I think that goes to your point as to why organizations like the Black Panthers supported the second amendment because of the history of oppression against black people in the United States. There's no disputes from me on that point. And I think that would be concerned with the U.S. River, and I hope it would be concerned with the U.S. Supreme Court as well. We don't know who the court didn't decide the case. But I think we'll likely see challenges to similar laws because clearly there's an appetite in certain states to see how far they can push the regulation of firearms. And where we're left is primarily the case law that comes out of the Heller decision, which doesn't answer those questions. But they don't understand you could have stated that. It's an individual right. And that longstanding history tradition is really, really important to the analysis. And they look at that history of government oppression and purity of the revolution, as well as the grammatical workings of the statute or the amendment itself to reach that conclusion that it isn't about being part of a militia, but have to be part of a militia, that you, I, we have this as an individual right. That is very important. And I don't see that changing under this order in the future. What I think would be interesting to see in the future is what do they do with the regulation of guns in certain sensitive places? What do they do with limits on the type of firearms, the type of magazines? Are those fall within this tradition and history of regulation of firearms or not? If they don't, under Heller, the laws can't stand. Right? There isn't some history and tradition of this sort of regulation. The law can't stand. That's what the court will be looking at when, when and if we sift and when we see other challenges. Okay, Chris, do you have anything? Well, I mean, you can kind of bring up a point that I was just looking at, but I'm sure it's bringing in the new speaker a lot in Vermont on behalf of the reform laws and across the nation, talking about a magazine. So this seems to be a front-of-the-back work that we're going to be seeing approaching when you've got the court, what are both your opinions on magazine capacity limitations and what do you think the court's going to require? What have you to be able to take into account this issue? Yeah, I mean, I think the court's going to look at, you know, and it's hard to say exactly, you know, what are we talking about a certain, you know, number of rounds, you know, what, what, what, what is the context of the regulation and what's the purpose of the law. The court is going to do, because of what it said in Howard, is going to say, is there a history and tradition of this sort of regulation? And if there's not, the law is going to stand up to constitutional moisture. That's sort of the analysis that we're going to do. My critique of the history and tradition test and why I would take a much more sort of objective, sort of first amendment approach, to the categories of firearms that are protected versus the history and tradition tests is because it's really easy to say, well, history and tradition tests is objective. Like everybody agrees it's what the history was. I don't think it's quite as simple as that. You know, and I have a point that there's actually a great clip from the best movies ever, where Sam Elliott, no, there might have been a clinician version, but there's a clip of Sam Elliott on the bad guys roll into tombstone and then you point to a sign that said, check your firearms at city limits. Those were real laws that really existed. So if I point to that history and tradition, then you end up with one version of gun regulation, versus if I point to the history and tradition of defending ourselves against England and you end up with a difference. So I guess I'm just pointing out, there's a great critique of a history and tradition analysis for deciding whether something's constitutional or not, because it's really easy to pick whatever history and tradition you want to get to the outcome. I'm talking about tombstone. I'm talking about town, island. Okay, that's like local democracy. That's not like the federal government issuing orders to confiscate your weapons. No, fair enough, but that's totally fair. What the court has done, it hasn't looked at the context of just what the federal government's done. It talked about, here's what New York has done historically, here's what different states have done historically. So of course, maybe that's not a perfect example, but I think it's a valid example, maybe not a perfect example, but I think that's the risk of always saying, well, the objective way is history and tradition. You start with the text, and yes, you think about things like history and tradition, but that can't be the talisman. I'm not saying you, I'm saying, that's the problem with the history and tradition test in Mike. But those have to be equals. The federal government takes away your guns, or regulates your guns. It's different than the local city, which is not particularly armed itself. But if a head of tombstone didn't have any organized government that was full of weapons. Why in here kind of freaks with that? When he was on the chair. Right. Yeah. So, yeah. So you were mixing, I'd say, between the third level of all weapons versus the city, or a town of tombstone, without any organized government possession of weapons, along that also. Yeah. No, I think that's fair. I wasn't thinking of the Congress, but the government had, didn't have to really look at that. Yes, I was just pointing out that like, the problem with a history and tradition test, which is like, basically what the court has for deciding whether regulations, okay or not, is that you can sort of pick and choose the history. Like, as opposed to just reading what it says on paper, works the text. You know, in sort of doing it from a more objective standpoint. Yeah. In the end, there's no such thing as a court to pretend something's objective decision rights. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Okay. So why? Interesting question. I'm just saying, what I'm saying is why has this issue become so partisan? I mean, I really believe this. I am not partisan. I don't recall it. Why don't we party? Yeah. Why has this become such a polarized, partisan issue where the Republicans. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So why? That's an interesting question. I'm just saying, what I'm saying is why has this issue become so much more targeted? Yeah. I mean, the Republicans, the Republicans who are arguing for the right to their arms and the Democrats by themselves, does that mean that the Democratic population trusts the government more than the Republicans? That was the deal. You're talking, why has this become, rather than a citizen's issue, a partisan's issue? Because we both raise money. Oh. We raise money so that goes, and they will, So you are also speaking as a representative. I'm speaking from parties. And you are a recall. I am a recall. Which is very rare. We both raised money on it. We both raised money on it. We start talking about it. We all know there are five subjects that we start talking about. The money starts coming in. The follow-up of money. So there you go. We get money out of politics. I know. We get money out of politics and then we avoid that problem. So you capitalized on certain communities. Why do you take it? Because it doesn't. I'm saying that the whole relation. It's profitable. Has been becoming trashed. It's very profitable. And on both sides. You have many people that have that great money on fighting for. And. Yeah. Let's not forget. It's not just the candidates and the politicians. Big money behind this. There are jobs. There are trips. There are junkies. There's. Yeah. It's big money. So the Republicans then are libertarian because libertarians give money to the Republican Party. To the libertarians. Well, some do. But. They've got it to give us a false, right? Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I just think. They've got it to give us a false, right? I think. I think you're. I think you're right. If you follow the money and you'll find out a lot of time why there's provisions in the country. And I think there's real, real truth to that. The other thing I would just add is. You know. The polarization of it. Might actually be entirely tribal. And in other words people. I think. My critique of parties. And this is I'm getting to talk about the first amendment now, which I would set up the opposite, that's my thing. I think one of the problem with parties is they're a shortcut and they allow us to sort of other people. Say, well, you're not on my team, so I've got to disagree with you, even if maybe there's certain things that you're saying that makes sense. And that's what I'm going to keep going back to and maybe you guys are buying it, maybe you are, I don't know. But I keep going back to this idea of like, people just back into their corners and don't need any knowledge, you know what? You know, there's actually some sense to what you're saying when it comes to, you know, self-defense, or you know what, there's actually some sense to what you're saying, that like maybe there are too many thoughts on the street. Having those sorts of conversations, and I think parties and partisanship make that worse because we just, we do it as a shortcut and say, you're a Republican, I'm a Democrat, or I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat, you must disagree. So you're, I think you all have something here. Parties elevate personalities. And some personalities are or have been viewed as Republicans. Yeah. Like what? I think we'll not say their names on the corner, but some names are very common. And when that's why people want to act without that, they won't believe it and say, we know ex-writers, he actually has a few good points here. Maybe you know, it's the Republican and I experience personally, you can have people, some people are like him, I'm doing the opposite. Why? Because you're a Republican, because I'm a Democrat, because I'm a Democrat. Yeah, I get it. I mean, it doesn't mean that people, I mean, people I think would naturally disagree, but I think it's a lot harder to say, well, I'm just not gonna listen to that person if you think about them as another human being, as a part, as opposed to like a party, yeah. You're right, I know that I'm not going to listen to her here because they're mean, right? Like that, to find that nature is very hot, right? I see it in men, I've seen young children and in our politics, we actually see it happening in a lot of adults too. I wanna talk one last topic. The Democrats, I won't say that, people on the left have routinely argued against, quote, gun violence. That is a piece of propaganda. Yeah, yeah. Because I always ask the question, guns do not cause violence, people cause violence. Now, why aren't the Republicans more hip today? You can have a gun and you're not violent. I've got sex. Well, we don't know about you though. They're under lock and key and I don't know where the key is. They're under lock and key and I don't know where the key is. I'm not talking about it, I'm thinking so. I mean, I know it's not, I should have said that. No, not on the air. I do know where A key is. Oh, what? I do know where A key is. Well, I can finish your sentence. So there is a perception, including what you said tonight, among Americans that guns cause violence. But they don't. That's because there's a perception in modern America that people can't be back. It has to be there. Yeah, why are you kidding? You see a pullback on consequences for people who, and people's coordinator in their correction. We're going to see a constant pattern of trying to excuse it and blame the drug. No, no. I think that, I think politics are often, wars are often decided on the perception that certain leaders are back rather than what the causes of the war are. We define the world, Americans in terms of good and bad. I think that's a real bad mistake. I mean, I think people who use guns, people who use guns are the violent people. It's not done violence. It's people like that. And I don't understand why the citizens aren't hip to that. Why aren't they- I hear that argument. Well, I don't hear it very well. It is something at least we said. The possession of a gun has not caused violence. It's a person that does that. And they have committed a crime for which they should go to jail, maybe for a while. But it's not the possession of guns that are making violence. And that's what the, even your argument is about. That people- I think you're right. That is because we have all these guns that crimes so high. No, it's not because we have guns because we have violent people amongst us. And what are we going to do about that? Exactly. I'm asking a serious question. Well, I think, I don't want to represent that. I disagree with the fact that, of course, right? Bad people kill people. Yes, exactly. A hundred percent. And they kill them overseas, too. A hundred percent. A hundred percent. That's not bad. I mean, we would never say how soldiers are bad. People got ordered to do it by their government. But I don't want to spam this idea that it's a thing that causes violence rather than it's penal. So what is your answer to that? Why has FNC such a comfortable argument? I mean, I think we have a violent culture. I mean, too. And, you know, when you have a violent culture, you're going to have a violent thing, Sam. And I think you stand out more about the need. Well, it is getting more violent at times, but there tends to be an added flow of these things. But I mean, it's increasing, increasing and increasing in intensity and frequency, which is alarming. I think that it's alarming. It's destroying our civilization. It's not the possession of a gun. It's the people. Why are we producing so many violent people? Well, that is a big one. And I hate to say this, mainly. And I hate to say this. I also do. I'm mainly young now. Why? Why have the enemy, and I think if you would look at the gun shootings, there would be no one there. Well, you know what? No women. Is that correct or not? Is that correct or not? I don't know the statistics that don't know. But I do know the school shootings. School shootings. Yeah, yeah. I think that there is a classical conditioning element in this. We are inundated and awash in digital media and outside. They don't need social media. The media that we consume for entertainment, TV and movies, they'll marge us in a hot snake on us a few weeks ago. All these movies are about the adventurers, the re-adventurers. So I think you've gotten to take and revenge. It is all you get from Hollywood. That's what I always say. It's absorbing, right? And now sort of laugh, but always no. Because we haven't had movies, especially for super graphic movies like this for much more than 46 years. I don't need to sound like two or four years here. But I'm just going to say that I have to go on to do it. Well, because she was all about censorship and I thought it would be fire and not a perpetuating violence. But I'm getting at this. If we're constantly being covered with negativity, then we're going to have to go on to the next level. And I think that's fair. And I don't know if I know we're talking second amendment. And I keep coming back to the first. But I think one of the problems is that we're going to have to talk about the media, right? No, definitely not. I want you to be able to talk about the media. No, one of the problems is that we're going to have to talk about the media, right? And we're going to have to talk about the media. No, one of the problems is we all have this perspective that we have the First Amendment freedom of speech. And we're darn right. That's why we can sit here and debate this. And the government can't come in with the sun's blazing. We're not allowed to talk about that. And that's terrific. But I think one of the problems that we're facing right now is everybody wants to scream on the left or the right in the middle. I got this freedom of speech. I'm screaming at you about something. And I know what I think here's the thing. I think we forget that with the constitutional right also comes a responsibility. And I think with the First Amendment, the right is to speak. The responsibility is you want to listen to each other. And I think you listen. Yeah, so I think so absolutely. So thank you for that. So my point is I think if we don't recognize that with this freedom of speech that says yell and scream comes a responsibility to listen and practice a little bit of empathy with each other, this keeps coming back to my team that like all the second amendment, we should be. We can argue, we can debate, and we can disagree. We should. That's what makes it interesting, but we shouldn't hate each other. A lot of people, I'm not thinking at a person. I think we, the Royal Week, the writ large we, the inter-party warfare, the hate for the other side. You don't think that exists in American politics? I don't. I'm not too griffly concerned. I am, I am. I'm concerned it's an over-armed government. And I'll tell you something that I really feel. If young men were not trained for war, you might have a lot less violence. If you think about any of you as a young boy, were you trained to go to war and kill other people? Were you or not? I know the ground was I'm going to hate to put you on the spot. But we grew up going to be a young boy. I was challenging. I was trying to get a boy. Right, the glorification of it. None of you are out of time. The glorification, the training that you are going to, you are going to go into war and kill other people. How much are you required to take for granted? Yeah. And what does that mean to you? OK. Can I say one last thing, and Sandy's going to close out? I think this has been a really fun and interesting conversation. I think we had some. And you don't make it. No, of course not. You started out with a little bit on the Second Amendment and the law and the cases. I think we had a really interesting back and forth conversation. This is what's terrific about what Vicky does, honestly. And so I'm excited to be part of the first one. I look forward to seeing the other and doing more. So we've got to be able to do this. And afterward, still smiling and I'll enjoy each other's company. And I'll leave it at that. Never give up having a good time today. OK, thank you all for being here. And this is, again, going to be recorded on CCTV and played again. Thank you. See you next week.