Judging Freedom - Senate Gun Bill Nightmare

Episode Date: June 17, 2022

#gunrights #Dems #secondamendmentSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Good morning, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 16, 2022. It's about 9.20 in the morning here on the East Coast of the United States. I am having a very busy day. I've already been on Newsmax at 7.40 this morning from my home in New Jersey, and I'll be on with Eric Bolling tonight, a little after 8 o'clock. We're taping it a little earlier. But Eric's new, my friend from Fox News, now a great anchor at Newsmax. His show has been moved to 8 o'clock, and I believe I'm his first or his second guest. Not sure of the topic, but probably something similar

as what I'm about to talk about, which is the efforts by the Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate to reach a compromise on guns. My dear friends, there is no such thing as a compromise on guns. The right to defend yourself using the same means as bad guys use, murderers and thugs, and as the government uses is an absolute right. It is not subject to the whims of politicians. A right is a claim that comes from your humanity, and it's a claim against the whole world. It doesn't need the permission of a government bureaucrat. A privilege is something the government grants, and it does need the permission of a government bureaucrat, like driving your car on a government roadway. You have too many crashes. You go too fast.

You run out of gas and cause a traffic jam. They're going to take away that privilege or at least limit or condition it. But a right, your right to live, your right to think as you wish and say what you think and publish what you say, your right to associate or not to associate, your right to worship or not to worship, your right to travel, your right to be left alone, your right to defend yourself. These are absolute rights that are not subject to government conditions. So what are the Republicans agreeing to give up now? Well, they want to give money to the states for red flag laws. You've heard me on red flag laws. These would make every dictator happy. They permit on the basis of an unchallenged, untested, uncross-examined, unnoticed complaint. Unchallenged, you don't know that it's been filed. Uncross-examined, you don't have a lawyer there. Unnoticed, you don't even know that the complaint has been filed

against you by anybody. I saw so-and-so angry the other day, you better take his guns away. Police bring that allegation to a judge, and if the judge doesn't believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, then they'll take the gun judge doesn't believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, then they'll take the gun away. Notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment, which says the government shall not interfere with life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process of law means notice of the charges against you and a fair hearing and the right to appeal. It also means that there are charges against you that the government's going to prove, not allegations of what you might do in the future.

That's Hollywood stuff, punishing people for what you might do in the future. So this is what the Senate is hung up on. Many senators agreeing with what I'm saying won't vote for anything having to do with red flag laws. Some won't vote for them because only 19 states have red flag laws and the money that the feds are willing to spend will not go to the other 31 states. But some will vote for this because it makes them, gives them the opportunity to boast that we're doing something about guns. In fact, what they're doing is destroying due process, stealing property, and emasculating people. What are they debating this morning?

You're not going to believe this. This isn't enough to make James Madison and the other folks who wrote the Constitution flip in their graves. They're debating the boyfriend loophole. Okay, Judge Napolitano, what the hell is the boyfriend loophole? Well, the boyfriend loophole goes like this. You're in a dating relationship. You're convicted of domestic abuse you you struck your girlfriend you struck your uh boyfriend and you're separated as a result of that domestic abuse they've taken your guns away you then go back into an amicable happy loving relationship with that person can you get your guns back oh Oh my God. Is this really something that Congress should be debating? Congress, which is limited to 16 discrete, unique, delegated

powers in the Constitution? Congress, which exists to address federal issues of nationhood, is deciding whether or not the boyfriend loophole should exist in red flag laws. What has become of our nation? I'll tell you what's become of our nation. The government has emasculated us to the point where it's nearly impossible to defend yourself even in a state like Texas. And the government is destroying us because it's taking our money and it's taking our freedom. And every time we turn around in the name of safety, the government wants to take more freedom. Red flag laws are absolutely unconstitutional. Any compromise on guns is absolutely unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia wrote in the famous Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States, 2008,

the right to defend yourself is an extension of the ancient right to self-defense, translated a natural right. And the right to defend yourself using the same means as the bad guys and as the government does belongs to you by virtue of your personhood. It is not a gift from the government, and therefore the government can't take it away. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.