Judging Freedom - Biden Doesn't Understand Guns or the 2nd Amendment

Episode Date: April 12, 2022

Biden Doesn't Understand Guns or the 2nd AmendmentSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, August 12, 2022. It's about 2.25 in the afternoon. We were to have had former Congressman Ron Paul on today. Technical issues with that. He's coming on Freedom Watch a week from today. That's Tuesday, August 19 at 1245 in the afternoon Eastern time. But today I want to concentrate for the next five or six minutes on what President Biden said yesterday when he made a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House outlining his plans to address gun control. What we've done is to slice and dice that speech. We're not making him look worse than he already is, but we're taking six clips. We're going to run a clip, and then I'm going to explain the law

and explain why, most respectfully, the president doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. We'll start with the first clip. President Biden yesterday. A year ago this week, standing here with many of you, I instructed the attorney general to write a regulation that would rein in the proliferation of ghost guns because I was having trouble getting passed in the Congress. But I used what we call regulatory authority. A year later, we're here. We keep that promise.

So this is very similar to what President Obama, Joe Biden's former boss, attempted to do with immigration laws. When he couldn't get Congress to pass them, he signed 24 executive orders effectively changing the law, and the Supreme Court eventually invalidated that. So the president needs to be reminded that the president doesn't write laws.

Congress does, particularly in an area involving a fundamental liberty like the right to keep and bear arms, and especially where Congress has expressly declined to write the laws he's requested. So as soon as this is challenged, and there's many bases for the challenge, we'll get into the other bases for the challenge as we watch these clips. But just on the basis of who is crafting the law, Mr. President, we have the separation of powers in this country. Congress writes the laws. You enforce them whether you like them or not. The courts interpret them. The powers don't switch between the various branches, and you can't write a law just because Congress declined to do so. The next clip.

And if somebody sells a ghost gun to a federally licensed dealer, for example, a pawn shop, that dealer must make the firearm and mark it with a serial number before reselling it. All of a sudden, it's no longer a ghost. It has a return address. It's going to help save lives, reduce crime, and get more criminals off the streets. Well, the president makes the fundamental mistake, you'll hear me say this again, of thinking that people willing to kill strangers, people willing to commit murder,

are somehow going to be obedient to federal laws. I mean, that's ridiculous. The only thing that stops somebody who's using a gun to kill people is another gun to stop or kill the killer. That's the only thing that stops them. Just because a ghost gun, that's a gun made at home with a kit. The kit is lawful. Manufacturing it in almost every state is lawful. There's no federal ban on it. Again, he's tried to

get the federal ban, but Congress won't give it to him. So he's doing an end run around Congress, which again violates the separation of powers. But once somebody makes the gun and then sells it to a dealer, by the dealer putting a marking on it, that's not going to reduce crime. That's just going to make the gun more saleable. Next clip. We need Congress to pass universal background checks. Universal background checks. And I know it's controversial, but I got it done once. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Here we go again. Let me correct what I said. I misspoke. I said putting a serial number or a marking on a ghost gun by a dealer will make the gun more saleable. It will make it less saleable. Nobody will want to buy a ghost gun that is not a ghost. So why would a dealer buy something, adulterate it, so to speak, knowing that he can't sell it. Again, the president here in the clip that we just ran does not know what he's talking about. Congress has regularly,

consistently, and systematically rejected the idea of universal background checks. That's up to the states, and most states have them. But what the president really wants is not a universal background check, but a universal gun registry. Absolutely and profoundly unconstitutional for the feds to hold anything like that. And if you ask him what an assault rifle is, I'm sure he can't define it for you. He's complaining that weapons are too powerful. Ask him what weapons the Secret Service, who are guarding him, use. The very same weapons he doesn't want you to have. All today, lawful. Next clip.

What the hell do you need 20 bullets for? You must be a hell of a terrible shot. I'm serious. Think about it. Think about the mass shootings. As many as 100 rounds. It's a weapon of war. There's nothing to do with recreation. Spoken like a person who's never fired a weapon before.

Why do you need a lot of rounds? I'm going to use a crude analogy. It's so crude, you won't forget it. Why do you need a lot of toilet paper? Because shit happens. You need these rounds because you never know how many bad guys will be out there. Because the only thing that stops people willing to murder is a bullet in the right place at the right time. Earlier today, a guy shot up a subway car in Brooklyn, New York. Perfectly innocent people sitting there. He shot 16. None of them died.

Five are seriously injured. The others only have minor wounds. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Because he knew that none of them would be armed. Had one of them been armed, had one of them been permitted to exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear, to carry arms, and knew how to use it, I dare say not all 16 would have been shot and this guy would have been stopped in his tracks. That's why we need a lot of rounds, Mr. President, because you win by having superior firepower. Next clip. Look, this is incredibly rare because gun manufacturers have more immunity from liability than any other American industry. So they have never had to take responsibility

for the death and destruction their products cause. He's again making the argument that General Motors should be responsible for all automobile accidents caused by people driving a car that General Motors manufactured. It's absurd. Unless there's a defect in the design or a defect in the manufacturer, it is not the fault of the manufacturer when someone misuses the manufacturer's product. That is a basic rule of American law. If you want to go there, Mr. President, no one will want to manufacture products when someone intentionally misusing them can cause the manufacturer to be liable. You will totally destroy the industry in the United States of America. Next clip. And by the way, it's going to sound bizarre.

I support the Second Amendment. You have a right. But from the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn't say you can own any gun you want, as big as you want. You couldn't buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed. Well, it is bizarre to hear old Joe say he supports the Second Amendment. Does the Second Amendment give us the right to keep and bear arms? No, no, no, it doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural human right. It extends from the ancient right of self-defense. Somebody punches you in the nose, you can punch them back. Someone shoots at you with a slingshot, you can shoot back. Someone comes at you with a sidearm, with a handgun, you should be able to

shoot back. This is not me. This is the late great Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Heller versus the District of Columbia, which defined in the modern era, the cases from 2008, which defined in the modern era the right to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms, Mr. President, did you read this case? Because if you had, you'd know that the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have the right to own and possess and use the same kind and level of sophistication of arms as the bad guys have and as the government has, because you never know who's going to come after you. And as I said before, Mr. President, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that we can defend ourselves with superior firepower, just as you, the President of

the United States, is protected everywhere you go by superior firepower. Liberals have always hated the Second Amendment because they want control. They want the police and the people who command the police to be the only ones who have guns. Is that what we really want in this country? Just turn on Fox or CNN and see what's happening in Ukraine. The right of the people to keep and bear arms will keep the people free. Judge Napolitano, judging freedom.