0:03

the number congress, i making to to have

0:05

a a lot of of really interesting people in the office experts

0:08

on whether talking about insights

0:10

into the issues china, bioterrorism

0:13

medicare-for-all in-depth

0:15

discussions breaking it it down simple

0:17

terms, we hold these

0:19

these people with dan

0:21

crenshaw welcome

0:24

back to to your favorite podcast we've got

0:27

a a a the controversial vote

0:29

today it it is the bipartisan safer

0:31

communities act the

0:34

controversial yes also largely

0:37

popular but the major

0:39

concerns this is gonna a hot

0:41

topic debate and so why

0:43

i want to do for your is actually breakdowns

0:45

the nature of the bill that the pros

0:47

and cons tell you i vote against

0:50

it in tell you why those

0:52

you vote for it vote for it ah

0:54

i am i'm not going to exaggerate the claims

0:56

that is unfortunate been done in exceptional degree

0:59

in the media's i want to treat my

1:01

listeners as you're used to like adults

1:03

who can think and be objective

1:05

and think without emotion and

1:07

, will not treat you like

1:10

i guess like unthinking miscreants

1:12

the just want to watch their politics become their jerry springer

1:15

show because springer know you're better than that the

1:18

were going ago he's by piece on this

1:20

thing the first let's

1:23

let's explain what's generally

1:25

and the and

1:27

how it's different from the how spell that got

1:29

passed in a very partisan manner

1:32

odds last week though

1:35

i am not gonna go over all the healthcare provisions

1:37

that there's a there's lot of provisions in this that are utterly

1:39

uncontroversial and and and

1:42

truly have nothing to do with any kind of gun control

1:44

so a we won't even bother going into that

1:47

but , are six main

1:49

provisions that that people have concerns with

1:51

so only briefly say what they are at

1:53

i'm going to go into more detail as as we move on

1:56

the first one is new system

1:58

a background checks for those who are eighteen twenty

2:00

one years old basically what

2:02

this does is consider the juvenile

2:04

criminal and mental health records

2:06

of those who are eighteen to twenty one

2:09

the were to revise of the definition of

2:12

what it means to be engaged in the business

2:14

firearms manufacturing make it making

2:16

it the who

2:19

defining it as earning a profit

2:21

rather than a a livelihood and

2:23

profit said that so that that will have some ramifications

2:27

by then talk about as are

2:29

number three the eligibility

2:31

for federal grants for state

2:33

red flag was this is by far the most

2:36

controversial ah we're going go on a i'll

2:38

start with that one here a minutes

2:40

or number for an aunt another a

2:43

as a straw purchase prohibition on slain

2:45

what that means were five closes

2:47

the so called boyfriend the loophole

2:49

which adds dating relationship to

2:51

the wattenberg amendment prohibition

2:53

against firearms possession for domestic violence

2:56

of escapes if beat your spouse you're already

2:58

prohibited from owning firearm the says

3:00

if beats girlfriend same same

3:03

and last as ours is federal clearinghouse

3:06

for school safety best practices and recommendations

3:08

in a mechanic on lot detail on that because

3:11

the guthrie controversial either worth

3:15

noting that the senate bill that

3:19

centers are being lambasted for a very

3:21

very different from the house bill so

3:23

in the house bills that was prior passive

3:25

maybe passive couple republicans voted for like

3:28

to five five juice the

3:32

the way it mostly part a sense

3:34

of but that had that legitimate

3:37

right federal red flag or in it is

3:39

worth noting that noting that senate bill is

3:41

not ass or as live i admit it decides

3:43

to bribe states to impose them for

3:45

the most parts ah what while adding

3:47

quite few restrictions and one

3:49

end and and adding pretty sick due process

3:52

of will talk about but the house bill as was

3:54

a straight up federal red flag lapel it's

3:58

obviously not something where for the

4:00

hostel also prohibited or

4:03

any semiautomatic rifles being sold

4:05

to anyone under twenty one and

4:08

also the storage requirements are drive someone

4:10

like me absolutely madam and help first what

4:12

are you know enforce that's ah i do

4:14

not keep my no am could tell

4:16

you how i keep it under your damn business that's that's

4:18

the whole points the whole point

4:20

it's nobody's business and also

4:22

with since i use guns primarily as

4:24

method of self defence ah

4:27

i you know hi i'm not gonna

4:29

on do big safe when some sign

4:31

up break into my house it's it's easy to be

4:33

easily accessible and and again this

4:35

that the right to privacy issues are just and sand

4:37

of the sarge requirements was was a real crazy

4:39

once the magazine limitations is also

4:41

in the house bill arms

4:44

against it when it one more my arguments

4:46

here to his know

4:48

it's it's it doesn't

4:50

really change the nature how dangerous

4:52

gun as buzz but if is my wife's

4:54

home alone i am not limiting

4:56

her her bullet capacity to

4:59

five rounds and is not the i just think

5:01

that's that's absolutely crazy criminals

5:04

still going to get these things a they they

5:06

these are widely available you can't

5:08

snap your fingers and make all thirty round magazines

5:10

disappear a never gonna happen see

5:12

better let us defend ourselves the way we see

5:15

sets of the house fellas crazy

5:17

the again

5:20

not going to the hard topics here first person

5:22

wanna explain guys why i voted against

5:24

us the the

5:26

primary reason i voted against

5:28

the bell there's because

5:30

of the red five opposition the

5:34

fundamentally and a lot maven

5:36

may not know their spent well over year

5:38

ago i introduced a bill it's called hr fifty

5:40

four seventeen it's actually

5:42

prohibits federal funding for red flag was and

5:47

what because i've been unfairly accused for years now

5:49

supporting reply was it's one as one people's

5:51

favorite stupid means on the internet

5:53

ah i'm quite sick of it are

5:56

just because i dared to have when i think pretty

5:58

nuanced conversation about some year go

6:00

after after trump came out supported federal

6:02

as red flag laws and that we should know

6:04

that you take the guns then due due process that

6:06

that that's what happens and and after

6:08

that i tried to explain to people what

6:11

the what issues were what pros and cons

6:13

were and and i got lambasted for the

6:16

so i've since introduce legislation

6:18

that would reduce read that would affect any federal funding

6:21

for a red flag was a cancel for

6:23

something that literally does the opposite that's

6:26

problem now

6:29

let's talk about what white

6:31

with someone who does who does well for it would

6:33

say is i agree think we should present

6:35

these arguments fairly well

6:39

let me while can with services that concept

6:42

is my argument fundamentally guns red flag

6:44

was as a little different than most people's as

6:46

he will say something about due process there's thing you

6:48

can sex due process and this belts

6:51

this bill actually puts very strict

6:53

due process and it says if you're gonna

6:55

get federal funding for this eat that there's a very

6:57

strict set of due process here to it is not like

6:59

the usual liberal red flag

7:01

loss i get thrown out there though

7:03

if it so my problem really

7:06

with the concept of red flag was

7:08

is fundamentally that you're trying to punish

7:10

somebody it's before they've broken

7:12

a law another

7:14

really hard thing centered eyes and and so

7:16

reason that these that these these

7:18

ideas take off and eight and gain

7:20

traction often times as because what's

7:22

very tempting i mean nobody wants

7:24

crazy people the have guns that's

7:26

obvious raid nobody wants people who

7:28

threaten others who have all the signs

7:30

are going to do something bad know he wants them to have guns

7:33

and i hear people from to a community every time

7:35

they see big shooting they're like why didn't cop stop this

7:37

there's all there's signs that the person was was gonna

7:39

do this and i'm like what on assigned to me like red flags

7:42

the the question is is like how do you what do you

7:44

do their what you how do you process

7:46

that it sounds good in

7:48

theory to say well if we just had a of

7:51

of a red flag law to stop them

7:53

sounds good in theory and practice

7:55

it's very difficult because again

7:57

how do you standardized that and had a standardized

8:00

and you had you create that threshold objectively

8:03

without bias across a very

8:06

diverse the very dynamic

8:08

population it's really

8:10

difficult and really difficult to implement

8:13

in practice it's not clear that these because

8:15

it's so difficult employment it's not even clear that the really

8:18

implemented thoroughly

8:20

and well so

8:22

a in any and in

8:25

the and it's it's it's it's

8:27

it's difficult for practical nature now

8:29

again if you're if you're on the

8:32

if you're on yes side of the spell what

8:35

they might say is well first

8:37

of all they negotiated away from a

8:39

federal flag law to just funding for

8:42

the would also say that lifted whether

8:44

a state your your bribing states but read

8:46

fly balls and but but but but let's be honest

8:48

the decision on whether states imposes

8:50

red flag law is purely political it's

8:52

is purely preferential has nothing to do

8:54

with whether they can get funding for it not they

8:56

, further argue that this

8:59

f c may bribe a lot these liberals

9:01

states and and states like florida by the

9:03

way for to has some of strictest red flag lost

9:05

in the and nascent never hear about that

9:08

that the way that legislature zoe spew and red

9:10

meat out of itself out

9:12

of it and that america doesn't

9:14

come up maybe it should

9:17

but it would actually bride those kind

9:19

of states to

9:21

the to actually impose these additional

9:24

due process restrictions

9:26

on it which would guess

9:28

in net be a good thing of

9:31

course a again the

9:33

way most most of us great on

9:36

the right that red flag last the

9:38

enemy party the equation to begin was but

9:41

but again that's the argument as the argument in favor

9:43

of it you know s and

9:45

if and if you're for says you're from estate like texas

9:49

nothing this bill will change anything

9:52

about your guns the nothing

9:54

will have red flag laws in texas there's no

9:57

reason believe that we're

9:59

also going to pass the i was just because might

10:01

get few million extra dollars in federal government

10:04

the again as that the argument for

10:06

it so

10:08

, going little bit more details on

10:10

the eighteen to twenty one the

10:14

issue though here's

10:17

what this really does and includes their inserts

10:19

quote including as a juvenile to prohibition

10:22

against transferring and firearms and

10:24

or ammunition someone and eligible to possess

10:26

a firearm in quote

10:28

adjudicated as mental defective or as been committed

10:31

any mental institution amended

10:33

to explicitly add at 16

10:35

years of age age or older it's to a separate under-21

10:38

check with three days to to identify need for further in

10:41

the a men's nick's requirements for for 21 year

10:43

olds are acquiring next to juvenile

10:46

justice information systems sink

10:48

stony mental health education records

10:50

local law enforcement for possibly disqualifying

10:52

juvenile record was not all juvenile records

10:55

right it's dislikes like look just like

10:57

when you

10:58

you don't get disbarred from purchasing

11:00

a firearm for breaking just any was right

11:02

it's certain kinds of laws on the same thing

11:04

applies here the

11:06

login in what's the basic logic behind this

11:09

is you know that

11:11

there's question as to whether when you turn eighteen

11:13

that your your your record just gets wiped clean

11:16

ago of sudden you're adult now and so

11:18

all of all of the gang violence that you engage

11:20

in as juvenile just now doesn't matter you

11:23

know a thing as you can argue it's we may that it

11:25

may matter so no agree disagree

11:28

with that

11:30

on next section revises

11:33

definition what means to be and engaged

11:36

and am in business this

11:39

one's trying this

11:42

one's trying get up his sleeves

11:44

why people cannot on the side

11:46

and make some extra money although bivens

11:48

parts and know put together guns and some

11:50

on the internet's ah this

11:52

this this basically prevents

11:55

that by redefining it says lucky if your

11:57

dealer you need to be dealer in either

11:59

have an ssl and stuff like all of the other

12:02

licensed dealers out there and

12:05

again you agree disagree with that ah

12:08

in one respect can argue this argue

12:10

this just protecting law abiding gun

12:12

dealers that do have to go through

12:14

all these government regulations to do what they do

12:17

and and sell what they sell it makes an actor

12:19

profits and why should they have to compete with

12:21

people that don't have to do any of

12:23

the the in perhaps

12:25

that's not fair just purchased from basic economic

12:27

standpoint i would be the argument

12:30

for it i think people are you against this

12:32

to said are usually are going against it because

12:34

it's like we we

12:36

don't want one more saying i it it's a slippery

12:38

slope you're just gonna keep us going to keep coming at

12:40

us met again a note feel free to agree

12:42

disagree with it the this

12:44

isn't this isn't really wanted more

12:46

controversial aspects of this fact none

12:48

these early i've that

12:50

i've heard to be very controversial except the red

12:52

flag as as as ganis is my main opposition

12:55

to that

12:57

are section about straw purchases

13:00

to this run this one tries to get it straw purchases

13:03

straw little bit more severely says as new prohibition

13:05

for straw purchasing of purchasing of as purchases

13:09

somebody who's legally able to buy gun

13:11

goes and buys gun with the intent

13:13

of selling it to a gang

13:15

member

13:18

the decided new probation for shrub

13:20

purchasing a firearms to explicitly cover

13:22

purchases for those who intend to use

13:25

carry possess or sell or otherwise dispose

13:27

of firearms in furtherance of

13:29

a felony several cream of terrorism

13:31

or a drug trafficking crimes again

13:33

get you going to get people

13:35

who purposely buy a gun legally

13:37

but for the intent of sewing and someone

13:40

who can't buy illegally because their ballot

13:42

or they want use of for crime

13:45

the continuing the geographically time

13:47

or someone otherwise ineligible for transfer

13:50

like i just said i'm poses forfeiture

13:52

property forfeiture proceeds derived from

13:54

straw purchases and property used commit

13:57

saute straw purchases and establishes find

14:00

the twice the gross profits of the proceeds

14:03

the preferred i'm again

14:05

i agree with that or disagree with it just it

14:07

that that was already against law just by

14:09

the way i think this just as

14:12

additional prohibitions for prohibitions makes it makes

14:14

the punishment for that more time the

14:17

boyfriend who for that this one did get a disgusted

14:19

gives get some controversy behind it so

14:22

again that this means

14:24

fundamentally is year

14:27

previously and and current law

14:31

i

14:31

you beat your spouse can earn gun at

14:33

that it's that simple a

14:36

some people say well what have presence or

14:38

girlfriend how they make it any

14:40

better the pretty good argument there

14:43

is , the counter argument of the with isn't

14:45

might have some controversy is

14:48

our how do you started of it it's

14:50

very definable what a marriage is

14:52

at this a marriage license it happened on certain

14:54

date the little less definable

14:57

what what a girlfriend

14:59

as and any know why is that not just

15:01

considered assault the

15:04

and seven so parsing through that in the courts

15:06

i think is is important but again

15:08

i agree or disagree with that one is

15:11

at the most controversial out of all

15:13

of this really isn't and it's

15:15

in it was i'll admit it's as a little hard

15:18

definitely hard to defend wife beaters wife

15:20

it's that it's also hard to

15:22

defend girlfriend beaters celts and

15:24

that's and again as the argument for it had

15:27

sent this yesterday or

15:29

give little bit more background on like what kind

15:31

of due process for protections are

15:33

required mess the

15:36

for the red flag wow part again so it's a

15:39

comeback the red flags it is this is what

15:41

comes out people have real concerns about

15:43

due process as they said is lot of these

15:46

why was it states pass a

15:48

man the it can be

15:50

it's you know it

15:52

yet your guns taken away land than you've gotta figure

15:55

out what to do after that and that's

15:57

really not right so the what this

15:59

does the says

16:01

if you're going to receive funding through

16:04

to this program procedurally the

16:06

government must hold a pre and

16:08

even posts deprivation hearing

16:10

and order not to infringe a person's rights guaranteed

16:12

under the fifth and fourteenth amendments first

16:14

the government must provide noticed to the accused

16:17

and and in person hearing with an unbiased

16:19

adjudicator must occur when the accused

16:21

has the right to know the evidence against

16:24

him or her has the

16:26

right to present evidence furthermore

16:28

the accused even has the right to confront an

16:30

adverse witness the slant government

16:33

will provide seven hundred and fifty million dollars

16:35

funding for crisis intervention centers which

16:37

include and so health course drug

16:39

courts and veterans courses from there like

16:41

the ball and that they could be used for the implementation

16:44

of red flag was okay so that

16:46

it it put those restrictions on there this

16:49

is little actually why don't use the do press

16:51

are due process argument because lucky conflicts

16:54

the text my problem is

16:56

okay so you make good arguments and court

16:58

but what you even arguing about

17:00

what's the law that got broken a

17:02

what the standards is that this is where it becomes

17:04

very difficult in practice it and in my

17:06

opinion which , ultimately why

17:09

i'm i'm against them because because

17:12

going be and then and

17:15

define what a punishment is for breaking that

17:17

particular law that this this this

17:19

goes beyond that becomes very subjective

17:21

becomes very pre emptive

17:24

and get sounds good and very

17:26

very difficult to implement in practice

17:29

and and went without seriously infringing

17:31

on people's rights and and potentially

17:34

being abused some

17:36

that's m but that's all the facts

17:38

i'm highly

17:40

controversial like i said i

17:42

like to give guys objective analysis i'm

17:45

it's

17:45

it's super easy to scream

17:48

at people and scream slogans well

17:51

that but you know that's not what i'm

17:53

about which is a white listen this podcast

17:55

you give five stars if you haven't then i dunno what you're

17:57

doing with your life well thanks for

17:59

listening every one