On Tuesday, the supreme court, they appeared to uphold a 30 year federal statute disarming people who are subject to domestic violence protective orders. Pretty good, but should be pretty standard. The law in question requires state and federal courts to submit restraining [00:00:17] orders to the National Criminal Background Check System, which in turn blocks an attempted gun purchase. More than 77,000 gun sales have been denied under that law since 1998. Zackie Rahimi, I think Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer who was indicted for gun [00:00:32] possession in violation of a restraining order obtained by his girlfriend. He's challenging the ban as lacking historical precedent. And a federal appeals court agreed with him and said that the law should be struck down. So I've got up to the supreme court. And now justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, they appeared to show support for [00:00:51] the law. Both suggested that even if there is not a historical twin for a law banning guns for people subject to domestic violence, restraining orders, the dangerousness of a person has long been a basis for gun restrictions. Two plus two is still four. In the court's liberal justices, who have been highly critical of the history and [00:01:09] tradition test for gun restrictions. They slammed the fact that the ban on guns for domestic abusers is even in question before them. They said, I'm a little troubled. We have a history and tradition test that requires a culling of the history where only some people's history counts. It's what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said about that as well, too. [00:01:28] So that was on the side of at least it got through. And then some of those lib justices are like, why are we talking about this? The same way I was thinking. Who was against the decision that turned this down? Again, for domestic violence abusers to go back and kill their partners? [00:01:43] So Alito, Thomas and Roberts, let's go into their thoughts. We're told that there are situations in which a family court judge who has to act quickly and may not have any investigative resources faces a he she said situation. And the judge just says, well, I'm gonna issue an order like this against both the parties. [00:02:01] That's what Samuel Alito said. Clarence Thomas, he worried that the implications of upholding the law might be too broad. He says, what if someone is considered not responsible for not storing their firearms properly? What he pointed out. And then Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Thomas for some reason. [00:02:17] And he said, responsibility is a very broad concept. I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays. I mean, if it's a serious problem, it's irresponsible. Setting a bad example by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way. It seems to me that the problem with responsibility is that what seems [00:02:35] irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that's not a big deal to others. Maybe the folks who get shot with guns that are left out since Clarence Thomas brought up not storing your firearms properly. They might care about that irresponsibility. And if you get to take your garbage out on your Thursday, [00:02:51] you have to wait till next Thursday, do it again. You have a little bit of a piling up of garbage. But from last I checked, if your garbage is piled up in your bin, the biggest problem you might have is maybe some raccoons and possum maybe getting into it. Not your daughter being killed, just small differences in the irresponsibility levels [00:03:07] that they're talking about. But if they can equate guns to being, I forgot to check the mail, dad. Then I think they're trying to make sure this is minimized despite the fact that so many people die at the hands of guns. Specifically people who are out of their, I guess, safe parts of their brains when they fly off the handle and [00:03:25] are angry at their partner and wanna come back and shoot them. Just my thoughts, Trey. >> Speaker 2: Yeah, yelling at a basketball game feels a little different than beating your wife for what not, it's crazy. It's just a wild point to even try to make publicly as a Supreme Court justice. [00:03:43] You would hope this is why the whole gun debate is so frustrating, is because this is where the bar is for one side of the debate. You know what I mean? Even this, a lot of these justices, and like you said, it's wild to me. It's controversial, whether or not domestic abusers should be armed. [00:04:01] We already know they're dangerous. You don't want people to be armed and dangerous, right? We should take the armed part away if we can. At the very least, this is up for debate. But it is because of they immediately get into some version of the slippery slope argument or whatever. [00:04:16] We got to look at the implications. It's like, not really. No, you don't, because the implications for not doing this are far graver. More people will be shot. More people who are already victims will be shot to death if you strike this down. And then they say there's no historical precedent for it, and [00:04:33] that's why you can't do it. Well, yeah, domestic abuse used to be legal and encouraged for 200 years. You know what I mean? Of course, there's not a historic and traditional precedent for a law, specifically this one. It's just so ridiculous. [00:04:49] I was never a hardcore gun control guy like I used to be. Now I have kids in school, and I'm desperate for us to do something about it. But that's what I'm saying. You can't even start the conversation cuz it's nothing. They give no ground. The hardcore gun nuts. [00:05:04] It's like, it doesn't matter how reasonable it sounds to your average person. They're like, no, that's completely untenable. And that's why it's one of the more frustrating issues we have. [CROSSTALK] results in so many people dying. So the stakes are so high and they still stand their ground, for [00:05:22] lack of a better phrase. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, I like to point out sometimes when they say what? 77,000 guns were taken away from potential domestic abusers since 98 or under that law. How many people are alive today that would not have been alive from those 77,000 guns that potentially got in the hands of domestic abusers? [00:05:39] And maybe many of those domestic abusers would not have used their guns on their partners, but many would have. >> Right. >> Speaker 1: Cuz we know that's what happens. So it's not like it's sight of the normalcy of reality. It happens, and there's big numbers behind it. So it's a matter of whether or not you care enough to save those lives or [00:05:56] at least try to save those lives. Cuz the assumption is, my God, if you take the gun away from the guy who's a potential abuser, he might get hurt. Someone might run up on him, and he needs his gun. What about the person who has already been threatened? Just saying. [MUSIC]