Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 07-01-26_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

07-01-26_WEDNESDAY_7AM

This hour of the Bill Myers Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausor drilling.com. We're talking with Kevin Starrant about some good firearms news here with the Supreme Court coming up here in just a bit. Lauren is an Eagle Point. Lauren, you are the way in a bit on the Jackson County budgeting. We were talking about the closure of the basement in the jail, 62 beds going away. and, you know, just talking about the pot of money all comes from, but what were you thinking?

Well, I'm thinking since I'm involved in Eagle Point City Government Budget Committee, is that if the jail closes down, it affects us out of here because we can't take our prisoners into there. That's right. And so, you know, and that means they're running around. I mean, the chief told us at the last board meeting. Well, remember, though, they're not closing down the jail. They're closing 20% of it in the basement. Now, the basement was closed during, gosh, what was the sheriff Corey?

I just forgot his last name, but... I did, too. Yeah, but you remember Corey, Sheriff Corey. We'll just call him Sheriff Corey a few years ago. And that was shut down during then, and then when Nate Sickler became sheriff, he ended up finding the money and opened it up again. But cost you're rising faster than the revenue that is coming in. Yeah, but the situation is that we've been told we cannot take our petty criminals

into there and lock them up even for overnight. Yeah, it'll essentially be a just ticket them and cite them and release them, right? Yeah, right. And they're back in the community causing their havoc again and robbing it, stealing as much as they can at Walmart. That's the biggest deal. Well, you know, you get the level of law enforcement that a community is willing to financially support.

It's kind of a tough, I don't know what else you do. You know, what do you think? Well, that's what I'm thinking is, yeah, we pay city, we pay, we put, extra 10 bucks on our on our taxes out here for month to to take care of more police. But that, but what I was trying to say was, yeah, we pay the county X number of dollars to have the jail. But if they don't have the jail, then we, we need it both. We need both.

We need both ways. But I don't want my taxes raise either. Yeah, and nobody does. And because you remember when the jail levy came out there, the law enforcement district, I think it was a law enforcement district. It got crushed, remember? It just got. Yeah.

Yeah. And, yeah, our taxes in a lot of ways are too high, but then again, we want coverage, but we don't. Yeah, so anyway, that's my opinion, because I've been involved with the city out here. Yeah, well, thanks for sharing your opinion on that. We'll certainly keep it up. 713. After the head of the update, Kevin Sterrett, like I said, with the good news and other things, too, on the Bill Myers show. This hour of the Bill Myers show is sponsored by Glacier Heating and Air, making sense of the heating and air business.

is the... Now more with Bill Meyer. Okay. Kevin Sterrett rejoins the program. Chief Cook bottle washer and a barrel cleaner over at Oregon Firearms Federation. Oregon Firearms.org. We'll actually have some potentially pleasant Supreme Court news

that we'll share here in just a minute. But first things first, though, you and I were both looking at this article and you sent it to me from KGW. And I never realized that the reason that blacks and indigenous people and people of color

die more is because of racism. And racism is a public health crisis in Oregon. A brand new report that KGW has brought out from the state outlines what the state should do about it. The Oregon Advocacy Commission's Office, four-year report,

100 recommendations to address racism as a public health crisis. Which fascinates me, Kevin, because this is a state that practically worships diversity at the altar of diversity. In fact, I don't think you're allowed to have white actors in Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland. I don't think they're permitted. There may have been like a law.

I'm just kidding. I don't know if it's that much or not. But, you know, it's that sort of thing. And, you know, everybody, we have to do this. We've got to do this. And every time I open up my Chase, my Chase mobile app or something like that, and, you know, and I'm greedy. with, you know, I'm a black guy, you know, planning my finances, you know, everywhere I look. And yet, everyone's dying because of the overt racism that's killing black people in the state

of Oregon. It astounds me. So it's not the weed. It's not the drug addiction or the lack of family structure or anything like that. It's just racism. It's killing everybody. Well, it seems to me that if it's a public health crisis that, you know, white people should be dying of it at high rates as well. But what's really ironic about it is, as is always the case with these issues, is who do they quote, Travis Nelson?

Who is Travis Nelson? Travis Nelson is a gay black guy in the legislature who got the job, as most of them do, because he was originally appointed. who is now, I mean, you may have a couple of years ago when he first got in office, he was in the news a lot because he was constantly complaining that the state police were pulling him over, that had nothing to do with his crappy driving, right? Yeah, he had nothing to do with speeding and all the rest of it. It's just because he was, because, you know, as a black man, as a black man, they pulled me over because I was a black man.

Okay, here we go. The guy cannot get up on the floor and open his mouth without saying, I'm a gay black man. Like, okay, it's pretty obvious, Travis, we don't need you to remind us. I had a conversation with a friend of mine as a retired state trooper who told me he had a reporter in his car one time, and they were doing a story about whether or not the state police or racist. And he told a reporter, because every time I pull somebody over, I want you to write down what the race of the person is. The reporter could never tell, never tell until the stop was done and the trooper approached the car. So it's all a bunch of crap. But if you

look at the makeup of the Oregon legislature, underrepresented communities are really overrepresented. You know, they really are. I mean, just look at who is running the Oregon Democrat caucus, Senate caucus now, a communist camel jockey, right? Casey Jama, all right? This is a guy who is one generation away from goat herding. And that's, you know, people can say that's racist, but look at his bio. He literally is one generation away from goat herders in Somalia. And he is now running the caucus and saying, by God, we don't care what the Supreme Court said, we are going to keep put boys and girls.

And we're going to keep cutting the genitals off of kids who claim that they're the opposite sex. So I think that might be more of a health hazard than not enough, you know, gay neurosurgeons. Yeah, because that's really the case that they're making, that somehow if you're a Native American individual and you're going into the health system, you just can't get good. treatment unless you have a Native American doctor that's helping you. That's really what they're pushing here. That's exactly what they're saying. And so let's look at that potential, all right? If you are Native American and you graduate from a medical school and you do well, God bless you, you know, I want you to be my doctor. Sure. But if your only qualifications are that you practice Native American

medicine, whatever that happens to be, you know, whether it be, you know, something shaman like or magical or whatever, well, I might prefer to see somebody else, and I don't think that you're necessarily going to be more qualified to take care of me. And the idea that a black person should only see a black doctor, I mean, to see that at the same time we're complaining about racism, when that is the very definition of racism. God bless Oregon. It reminds me a bit of what happens on the street and what they call racism. versus what the Oregon State Legislature and the jamas of the world, you know, we'll call, we'll call racism.

I remember I was reading a story. It was an attorney. It was a black attorney. And I had interviewed him a number of years ago. And he talked about how he had difficulty getting traction with blacks in jail who were actually facing criminal charges. And this is it. And I had to laugh. And we had to laugh about it.

I talked with him about it. And he said, the thing is, though, They'd all say, okay, I'm in trouble. I want the smartest Jewish lawyer that you can find. Get him in here. You know, that sort of thing. You know, because I'm up on capital charges, he would say, you know, that kind of thing. When I lived in New York, my next door neighbor was a chief of police of New York.

Now, in New York, chief is not, it's not like there's the chief. Chief is a rank, and there are many of them, okay? So he wasn't the police commissioner, but he was a chief, which is a very high rank. And one of the jobs he had was he basically worked in personnel. So he hired, you know, he placed people in different locations. And he told me he said the black cops don't want to work in black neighborhoods. Really? So really, they just don't want to be there.

Oh, okay. I guess nobody else did either. But anyway, remember, it's not the homelessness coming from drug addiction and all the rest of it. It's just there are, well, the medical system is too racist. It's not the disease that spread through the homeless camps like at some third world hellhole. It's not the kids who are suffering from the ramifications of having their testicles removed and be pumped full of drugs. It's not the high suicide rate because transgender are already mentally ill. No, it's because we don't have enough gay black doctors.

Okay, so, well, duly noted. Thank you, KGW. Gosh, I couldn't have gotten through the morning without that one. All right, Kevin, some actual good news, though. And this has to do the case you brought up in what the Supreme Court has to do. And what the Supreme Court has decided to take for next year's season. And I don't think that you can can overestimate the potential importance of this case that the Supreme Court is taking up next time around. And which one is that?

This is Ramatis, and it's consolidated with a case. This is a case out of Cook County, Illinois, which was consolidated with a case out of Chicago, I'm sorry, Connecticut, where the localities had banned modern firearms. And this is a case that's been very, very, I don't know why it's taken them so long to deal with this, because this has completely split the country. For example, if you live in Oregon, for the moment, you can still own a semi-automatic rifle. If you drive from Oregon through Washington into Idaho, you violated Washington's law until you get to Idaho. And all around the country, we have different rules. And the whole thing is very strange because how the courts have repeatedly.

said that what are protected are firearms in common use. The AR-15 rifle is the most commonly owned rifle in America. So how can someone say that a semi-automatic rifle or handgun is not in common use and then ban it? I don't understand this. I don't either. At the same time, the people who are banning firearms are falling back on this notion that we are allowed to ban firearms that are, quote, dangerous and unusual. And they have used this rationale over and over again and successfully in many, many cases. The problem is that if you research that term, dangerous and unusual, what exactly does that mean? And while I think it's impossible to say with certainty what it means, apparently goes back to old English law. And at

the time, according to what research I've done, they weren't even talking about specific kinds of weapons. They were talking about how they were used. So, In ancient law, and old English law, in early American law, things that were illegal were not that you owned a gun or carried it. It was how you carried it. Like if you drove into town and threatened people, if you carried it into an affray or you did it in a way that made people nervous. That would be considered then dangerous and unusual then, the behavior. Now, how can you, when you start talking about firearms and say this one's dangerous and this, one's not dangerous. The reality is that their basic function is to be dangerous, period.

And to suggest that one gun is more dangerous than another, I don't see how you can possibly create that definition. Now, as far as unusual is concerned, obviously the ancient history of this is a little perplexing, but it seems to me that what is unused, if something's in common use, it can't be unusual. But what makes it unusual? And I don't believe it's ever been defined. I would, I mean, I think common sense would say that something that's dangerous and unusual would be something that like a mole trap gun or something where a person could be injured or killed totally accidentally, you know, or somebody sets up a trap against criminals where... Yeah, they wire the door to a shotgun, right? That kind of thing. There's no human controlling it.

But these definitions have never really been clarified. And while the, you know, and certainly in Illinois's case, the people who were pushing that law, Cook County, said there has never been a documented case where an AR-15 was used in self-defense, plainly absurd, laughably ridiculous, easily verified to be untrue. But if something is in common use, it really can't be unusual. And nothing is in more common use than AR-15 raffles. But there's other issues here that, you know, I'm hoping are going to finally be resolved. And what the case that's been made over and over again by the people who want to ban modern firearms is that you have no right to own a firearm that is a, that is a military-style firearm. And yet, if you look back at the history of gun law in the Supreme Court,

it was a very different kettle of fish. In fact, they would ban, didn't they ban firearms that weren't in use by the military? In the 339 in Miller versus U.S., what they said was you have no right to own a sought-off shotgun. And the reason for that was because their position was it was not a military weapon. Therefore, the only thing that is protected are weapons that can be used by the military. And that's been turned on its head in recent cases with case after case saying, well, you can't own it because it's a military-style weapon. And this gun is more lethal than that gun. And, you know, that doesn't even make sense because, given that the Second Amendment, you know, was essentially the citizen militia was what they were talking about.

And on top of that, I mean, you can only be so dead. So something can't be more lethal than something else. If it's lethal, it's lethal. And to suggest that if I shoot people with a revolver, they're less dead than if I shoot them with a 22 caliber rifle, which is what the AR is typically, makes zero sense. And I certainly hope that this is going to be resolved. But I also know that if it is resolved and it is resolved in a common sense way, which says that, yes, the Second Amendment says the people are the militia. The militia is a military organization.

Our own Constitution specifically says you have the right to bear arms of defense for yourself and the state. If you're going to defend the state and you're denied the option of using a military-style weapon, that clearly makes zero sense. Now, courts always come up with these strange, nuanced responses to things that don't answer questions. And in many cases, I don't believe we have, you know, we certainly not answer the question what is dangerous and unusual. And what many courts have done is they've decided to say, well, we're not even going to use that entire term. We're just going to say, oh, they're dangerous. And they can be banned. Oh, they're unusual.

Yeah, but every firearm ever made is meant to be dangerous, like we have said. that by definition. It's meant to be dangerous. And every firearm ever created in its initial stages, when a firearm, an innovation is created, before it can be widely adopted, it's unusual. So we can ban it. So when, say, SIG, for example, comes up with a firearm that has unusual interchangeable parts, a system that hasn't really been used in the past. Well, when you create that system, before you can sell many of them, they are unusual, and therefore, in the eyes of some of these people, they can simply be banned. So I'm hoping to get a resolution. I'm shocked and pleased that apparently we're going to get one before I die, which I was not expecting. But I also know that the lower courts have been

extremely good at bypassing and ignoring Supreme Court rulings, which they have done in Bruin. You know, we saw that in our own case. You know, a Trump appointed judge in Oregon who turned the Supreme court mandate on its head. Supreme Court said, look, if it's a case that involves the Second Amendment, the state has to justify it. It's not up to us to justify firearms ownership. It's up to the state to justify firearms restrictions. We go into court and the judge said, nope, we're going to make you justify everything. You're going to have to show us that these exact same kind of weapons existed in 1700. It was patently absurd and they get away with it. And why, we so rarely see the Miller case, which is the one that said only military weapons are

protected, used in defense of gun rights, is perplexing to me. But of course, a lot of what goes on in course is perplexing to me. But at least, though, with Viramontes v. Cook County, we may actually have the potential of getting a positive outcome and getting some clarity on such matters moving forward, right? We finally put this to bed. I certainly hope so. I mean, it's hard for me to imagine what kind of mental gymnastics they could come up with, say, yes, you can ban the most commonly owned rifle in America, one which clearly has utility if you were defending yourself in the state. I mean, it is, it is an excellent choice for self-defense in many, many circumstances. It's not the most commonly used gun in self-defense circumstances for

obvious reasons, handguns are. But in many, many cases, it is an extremely good choice. And now that we've said in case after case, well, we're only going to defend firearms that are good for self-defense, which the Supreme Court never said that. It never said we're only protecting guns that are used for self-defense. That's what the judge in our case said. Well, you've got to prove, you know, you can't, you can't defend a magazine over 10 rounds because self-defense shootings are only two point five rounds, which is patently an honest face absurd. But this is the position that they've been taking. And once again, I hope they finally get slapped down in some way that they are actually held accountable for when they ignore these dictates from the Supreme Court.

Kevin Sterrett from the Oregon Firearms Federation. His latest alert, Supreme Court to take up semi-auto bans. And this is good news. We've been waiting for this for a long, long time. Kevin, always appreciate the update and keep us in the room with stuff like this happens. it's great to be able to share some good news for a change on this on this matter. Okay. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Kevin Sterrett.

It is 734 at KMED. A lot of conversation this morning about court action and the law because, well, you know, the Supreme Court decisions coming out. We're going to continue that afternoon here in just a bit. Joe Lepino Esposito from Pacific Legal Foundation, everything from, you know, posting the American flag versus, you know, endangering the, you know, the wildlife. And then there's another one about, you know, a tax sale. A tax sale needs to be fair. You know, just compensation if they seize your house and sell it for taxes. We'll talk about that and more all coming up.

This is amazing. Butler Ford has Ford's employee pricing on commercial super duty and everything. Typically has the largest impact on your summer electric bill, especially if you have an older unit. Glacier heating and air. Your local independent train dealer reminds you the best way to reduce your summer energy bill is to have a new high-efficiency air conditioning system installed that will help keep you cool. temperature-wise and with rising utility bills. Call Glacier Heating-In-Air 6-6-4-0-942 for a complimentary quote on a new train AC system.

It's hard to stop a train. Glacier, making sense of the heating and air business. Hi, I'm Deb with Father and Son Jewry, and I'm on KMED. Before 2024, the state of Oregon was pretty bad on tax sales. We essentially just stole people's money if we had to take their property, if the government took for your property and you owed them property tax money. And so the government would seize your property and then sell it and then keep all the money in excess of what the taxes were owed. In other words, if your house was worth more than that or your business, whatever it was seized.

And now the laws have changed somewhat. The Supreme Court is starting to look at these issues even more. We're not nearly as bad as we once were. But there are other states that we're talking at that are still dealing with these issues. and Joe Lopino Esposito is with a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney there, PacificLegal.org, property rights people, these are all over these kind of cases. And Joe, welcome to the show. Great having you on.

Yeah, thanks for having me. Now, Joe, this case, the Supreme Court ruling recently, this is the Pacific Legal Foundation's Michigan Home Equity case. And could you tell us what happened? And at first I was thinking, oh, they sent it back to the state. Maybe that means they lost her something. I guess I misinterpreted this. Tell us what's happening with this home equity theft issue going on.

Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, this all kind of started back in our decision with the Supreme Court in 2023 called the Tyler decision. That was out of Minnesota. And basically what it said there was that in the event, you know, you lose your house to a tax sale, which that's a whole other issue in itself we could talk about for hours, I'm sure. But notwithstanding concerns about property taxes, you know, if you lose in a tax, They take the home, and then they will usually auction it off or sell the home with some other form. And what the Tyler decision said was you can't take all of the equity in the home.

So in that example, someone owed $15,000. They sold the home for $60,000, and the county kept all of the proceeds, not just what they were owed. Yeah, that's just out and out, you know, profiting from someone's misfortune, being unable to pay taxes. Yeah, and that's not what you would think of for a tax sale, right? But this is a little different. Right? This is different with this Michigan case, though. I guess it had to do with what, you know, was the county really good at selling it, I guess,

or evaluating it? Give us the nuts and bolts of this one, please. It's interesting. Yeah, absolutely. So in this case, again, this is something to kind of put a pin in that, one, the family actually doesn't even owe the tax that they were subject to and why there was a tax sale. That's a separate issue. But for the time being, we'll just pretend that they did owe the tax.

And they would about $2,000. And in Michigan, they had this auction process that it goes to an auction sale after 30 days. And the auction is cash only has to be paid two hours after the auction complete. So our argument there was, you know, there are some forms of auction sales that may be inherently unfair inso much is that you cannot get the fair market value then for taking of the property. and therefore, you know, is the person who's subject to the tax sale entitled to the fair market value? So the question really was, are auctions either categorically always fair or not always fair? And that's kind of where the decision really turned. I think that's interesting, and I wonder if that would even affect Oregon at some point,

because like I mentioned coming in here, Oregon was one of the worst states up until very recently. I know there have been some state laws that have been passed, and they're reacting to that Tyler decision here, too. But, you know, when you end up doing something like this where you may have a limited number of buyers, it's not really a broad market when you're going to a tax sale. Someone's got to have a whole ton of cash. You've got to be able to pay it for it right now. There's no getting of financing, et cetera, et cetera.

That would seem to almost guarantee that the property is going to be worth a lot less at auction than it would be worth in a conventional sale of some sort. sort. Isn't that right? Is that kind of what you're getting at here? Yeah, that's exactly right. And then, you know, furthermore, and really kind of where the issue went back when they remanded it, they want to look at the process kind of leading up to it as well. Is there due process in the way the sale was conducted in the first place, you know, to move so quickly to really not give them a chance to, you know, do their own bids? That type of thing can be a bigger question as well. So really, the issue here, we kind of won on some pieces and lost on others. You know, on the question presented, we said, hey, we can't say that all auction sales are inherently fair. Unfortunately, the court said, hey, look, we have to

assume that a fair market value sale, it is a fair market value based on what the sale is. When you go to an auction, even if that process is really a brief. Yeah, yeah, but what if they do an auction? Like, I'm engaging in a little bit of what aboutism here. You know, what if the only people who show up are friends of the tax assessor, good old boy networks, look like a killing. And, you know, that sort of thing. Exactly. And that's what it'll get to sort of like the, and where they're kind of going to debate it now

at the lower court is, well, what is the process to get there? You know, is there enough notice given to the general public, that type of thing? So if there isn't due process, both for the family and just good process of the auction, that's where it could be questioned. Because I think you're exactly right, whether it's not the best friend of the auctioneers and the tax sales folks. It is going to be a smaller pool of people that even know these sales are happening

when they're happening and really have the wearer's all to know, gee, I'm not going to buy some sort of dump because that was another piece. You weren't allowed to inspect the home prior to it either, right? So how would you know what you did? Oh, you weren't allowed to inspect it either? Right.

Oh, all right. Take a look at the place and see what you think. So it's going to be automatically lowballed then when it goes to the county sale, right? That's what's going to happen because nobody knows. Exactly. Yeah. Right.

It says it as a sale, essentially. Yeah, and then all the county would care about or all the government would care about and said, hey, hey, all we care about is that we get our $2,000. What happens to the other $200,000 of equity? Yeah, too bad. So sad, right? Exactly. All right.

So this did not actually get decided by the Supreme Court. They kicked it back down. And is there an instruction that they have to, you know, re-litigate this somehow? Or, you know, what will happen next on this one, Joe? Yeah, so the next question, it comes out to that due process. process question. So the lower court was told to take a look at it again, considering the due process questions that were left remaining. So not necessarily again on the fair market value question, but on the due process question. So that's what we're going to be taking a look at

and working with the client to see kind of where we're going to pursue things next. All right. Very good. The other case that PLF has been working on and pushing back, it has to do with Plum Island in Newbury, Massachusetts. And this one's kind of fun. But it's not really funny, especially when I'm thinking of 250th anniversary of the United States, you know, of the independence, declaration of independence, we're supposedly independent. And they're told, hey, you fly that American flag and you're in trouble because environmental problems. This is fascinating to me. How do they go?

Yeah, this is a very oddball one. This is definitely sort of a first of its kind. Yeah, the town sent out a notice to all the residents reminding them that, that decorations on their home, such as flags or bunting, could be a violation of the Endangered Species Act, because it may discourage certain birds from nesting in or around their homes. So this is by far one of the broadest interpretations of how it might be considered a taking for a bird that would be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Realistically, I mean, even I think you sort of your worst environmental folks during the last administration, would not have made this argument. I mean, this is above and beyond anything we've ever seen.

So we sent a letter to the town basically just asking, what is your justification here? What are you relying on? Because this makes absolutely no sense. Have they answered you at this time? No, as of this morning, at least, I have not heard that we've gotten an answer. So we're waiting to see what they do. But, you know, like you said, this is clearly targeted around the activities of the force as well. Like, I guess they just assume people don't fly the flags otherwise. want to make sure they don't throw up any distracting flags. But, I mean, the premise is just outrageous.

I mean, this is like a beachfront area. And, you know, every beach umbrella would be distracting that. Sure. Every lawn chair. What about pride flags? Did they push back against pride flags and say no flying the pride flag because of the birds? I mean, it wasn't just the American flags. I guess it should have been issued on June 1st.

You're right. That probably might have been more prevalent depending on what the neighborhood's like. Yeah. Yeah, it's very bizarre that they took the time to zero in on this issue of flying the American flag or even bunting as being an issue for birds. I'm a big fan of people supporting you so that you can, it says that Pacific Legal can continue to fight these. Some of these things are just nonsense, but there's always a real core property rights issue in there. And are we getting some wins out of this, you think? Oh, yeah, absolutely.

I mean, you know, we have a really good record at the Supreme Court. we're doing work at the state level and federal level. And then some of the work I do and the rest of our team does is actually getting laws passed, like you mentioned, getting laws passed in Oregon and elsewhere, and at the federal level as well to say, hey, look, whether we can win or not in court, and even if you do it in court, you need to enforce those laws later on down the line. You know, we have that now with home equity theft in Washington, D.C. They're essentially refusing to follow the law under the Tyler decision.

So we're pushing back and trying to get the counsel to make a move there. So we can appreciate all the support your listeners can give us because we represent these clients all for free. It's all pro bono work. I certainly appreciate what you do there. Joe, you know, back to the Supreme Court, and you were talking about one of the battles is that the Supreme Court will issue the order. And we have states, and Oregon, frankly, I'll take firearms rights, second amendment rights here, are treated as a second class right in the state of Oregon, you know, very much so this way. and you'll have that Bruin decision, for example. And it's as if the Bruin decision didn't happen and the way they tend to move forward on stuff.

You want to ban all sorts of things and cause all sorts of havoc in here. And it sounds like you're having these struggles with those property rights, too. Same sort of thing. Supreme Court says this is what happens. And then no. I mean, what is the enforcement mechanism of the Supreme Court order? You know, that's really the hardest part, you know, with all these decisions, like you said, with Bruin or even like with Tyler, a lot of states either, you know, respond by saying, oh, well, you know, our law is different. We're all special snowflakes. You know, and yes, of course, it's not word for word by the law that was struck down by the court.

But the spirit of the law and the constitutional issues are still going to apply. So you have states like Oregon and elsewhere, you know, I'm in Virginia. We have them doing the same thing right now when it comes to the gun rights. So basically trying to see what is the outer limit of what they can. get to with Bruin and what restrictions they can put on it. So there's really no other way of handling it besides just bringing yet another case. And, you know, hopefully if it's really blatantly on its face of the problem, the lower courts can knock it out.

But if they kind of think they found a loophole and the lower courts aren't comfortable ruling against them, then you're going to find your way to the Supreme Court yet again on these issues. And really figure out what the limits are. Yeah, and then the Supreme Court has to issue another order said, no, he really, really minute? I don't know. Because it's almost like an open judicial rebellion in some forms. And that's what is kind of concerning to me, the lack of respect going on within the judiciary. Is that something that I'm right about or should be concerned about? Yeah, I mean, it definitely comes up a lot.

And I mean, I think we see that in so many instances of just testing the law and seeing how far it goes. you know, in Tyler, sure, Michigan couldn't turn around, or excuse me, Minnesota couldn't turn around, and just simply say, we're still going to enforce our law. That would just sort of be outrageous on its face, and any court would knock it down. But, yeah, in a neighboring state where they had a similar law, they might say, well, we think ours is different enough because we're selling the equity first, and then we're auctioning it off. Okay, well, it's still not getting to the core issue. And, yeah, they want to get creative. They don't want to change things. And that's the one thing from folks on the policy side always say is that it's sort of a misnomer that the Supreme Court ever strikes down a law.

The law is often still on the book. It's just a matter of, is it going to be enforced or not? And that really comes down to a question of what the judges locally will say, whether state or federal court, depending on the issue. And then, you know, if it really requires the Supreme Court to step in again and review the issue because it is particularly unique. But, you know, in some cases, it's very obviously not. and states are just going to test the limits regardless. Joe Lepino Esposito from the Pacific Legal Foundation. Read up more on this at Pacificlegal.org.

Please support the group. It is pro bono, and nobody pays for the amazing legal help that they provide. And without property rights, ain't no other rights that are going to be backed up on this, too. Joe, thanks for explaining these cases. Very interesting. Good having you on. Absolutely. Yeah, thanks for having me.

Take care. Joel Lopino Esposito. It is 754 at KMED, 993KBXG. Hey, Diner 62 Real American Quiz. Let's have a little fun, a little bit of a pallet cleanser here. At 7705-633-770 KMED, I'm going to start with Caller 12. If you have not won this in the last 60 days, you could win it next. $20 gift certificate.

And we have a great question. This is about a Wild West gunfighter back in 1887. All right. So we're going back to Gunfight. and all the rest of it. Pretty interesting stuff. 770KAMED, and we'll have fun with it next. Bigfoot here for Bigfoot guns and ammo.

Hold on. Sorry, one of my friends is trying to figure out where I'm at. Okay, so real quick, if you're tired of chasing down game or waiting in a tree for an ambush that might never... Celebrate your Independence Day and save on hundreds of summer favorites now through the 7th at your local coastal. Coastal farming.

Just what the country needs. The 4th of July sale ends soon, so shop up to half off today. You're here in the Bill Myers Show on 1063, KMED. Diner 62, your lunch destination. Amazing, juicy. I mean, I don't think they know how to make a dry burger over at Diner 62. You need about 12 napkins, all right? Juicy third pound burgers and satisfying sandwiches serve with choices of fries,

and potato salad salad rather, coleslaw, house salad, cup, soup. You can also upgrade to the onion rings or the sweet potato fries. I love it. All sorts of specials there and great people. Diner 62 just south of White City. All right. So let us go to the, I don't know who the first person is. We'll just get to it. Hi, good morning. Who's this? This is Eric. Eric. We're talking about gunfighter Clay Ellison. He was killed Friday in history, July 3rd of 1887. So he was born around 1840 in Waynesboro, Tennessee. Allison was a pretty colorful guy. When the Civil War broke out, he joined the Confederate Army, but he got a rare medical discharge for a condition they called partially epileptic and partially maniacal.

But anyway, he spent some time as a cow hand for the famous Texas ranchers, Oliver Loving and Charles Goodnight. Allison started his own ranch near New Mexico, and for a time he got along well. but in October of 1870, he led an angry mob that seized an accused murderer named Charles Kennedy from the local jail and hanged him. Now, vigilante justice, as you know back then, not unusual, but many townspeople were shocked when a wild-eyed Allison decapitated Kennedy and displayed his head on a pole in a local saloon. Now, I've wanted to do that in the past, haven't you? You know, at one point, we've all wanted to do things like this. But he did it. his dangerous reputation grew he beat a famed gunfighter to the draw,

shooting his opponent squarely above his eye. A year later, Allison joined another lynch mob, helped hang suspected murder Cruz Vega from a telegraph pole. Again, merely killing him, not enough. He shot Vegas corpse in the back and then dragged it over rocks and bushes. So the question, after all this, how did Clay Allison die? A, he was killed by a ricochet bullet,

B, hung by a violent mob, C, beaten to death in a bar fight, D, botulism from food poisoning, or E, run over by a wagon? What do you say? Hmm. I had no idea about this, but, Dave. I guess the bar fight. You know, that's what I would have thought, too, a bar fight, but no, because he got in trouble in a lot of bars, I guess. Thanks for trying, though. Hi, KM.D., who's this?

Hi, this is Wally. Hello, Wally. Good morning. So beaten to death in a bar fight's not there. So hung by a violent mob, killed by a ricochet bullet, botulism, or run over by a wagon? I would say run over by a wagon. Run over by a wagon. Yeah.

He died while driving a freight wagon to his ranch north of Paco's, Texas. He was thrown from the wagon, reeled. The wheel rolled over his sick, twisted head. And so that was about it. And very interesting. There was one time, Wally, let me tell you. this guy was so violent and so twisted that there was a time he visited a dentist in Cheyenne, and the dentist started drilling on the wrong tooth, right?

So he was the wrong guy to do this, too. After having his bad tooth repaired by a different doctor, Allison went back to the offending dentist, pinned him down, and extracted one of his teeth with a pair of pliers. And, yeah, you didn't want to mess with him. All right. Allison, so anyway, hang on, Wally. Allison's remains removed to a grave in downtown Picos

where a granite headstone made the questionable assertion that he was a gentleman and a gunfighter who never killed a man that did not need killing. Some may have disagreed a bit with that. Wally, hang on, you're going to Diner 62. Good stuff, all right? Now then, we have a bonus prize right now because I said we have all sorts of stuff to give away this morning.

I'm going to be giving away to caller 9 and caller 10, after I talk with Wally, I have free tickets to the Medford Roads, a pair of tickets for this, and a $25 gift certificate from discount fireworks superstore, redeemable of all the Southern Oregon locations. 25 bucks free fireworks, okay? Caller 9, caller 10, have that it.

We're going to make sure that you have, while you got your baseball fund, you got your fireworks fun there too. 7705-633. This is KMED and KMEDD H. H.D. H.1. Eagle Point Medford, KPXG. grants pass.