The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW NM Gov's Tyranny May Blowback for Liberty in Other Areas As Well

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

Certainly Gov Grisham has already lost big even with gun control Democrats. But the coming court challenges may strengthen essential liberty in other areas in addition to 2nd Amend. Guy Relford — lawyer, author, firearms instructor and host of "The Gun Guy" on WIBC.com, joins to talk about the coming blowback against medical martial lawFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

It's the season to shop new styles, electronics, and definitely a holiday trip. And what if each time you made a purchase, you got a little something back? With Rakuten, you can earn cash back on just about anything you buy from over 750 stores. So if you're looking to buy a new phone, clothes, skin care, or a getaway, well, you can get cash back. So treat yourself, family, and friends, and book that holiday trip now. Start getting cash back today by joining Rakuten. It's free and easy to use, and you get cash back deposited into your PayPal account or sent to you as a check. It's the smartest way to shop, plain and simple. Start your shopping at Rakuten.ca and get the Rakuten app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N.ca.

Roll Up to Win is back at Tim Hortons, and you've got a shot at millions of prizes, That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N dot C-A. Roll Up to Win is back at Tim Hortons. And you've got a shot at millions of prizes, like a $1,000 Rakuten cash prize or a free Tim's coffee or donut. Play on the Tim's app until March 23rd. Rules apply, Canada only. No purchase necessary. Visit the Tim's app for details. Joining us now is Guy Relford. He is a founder of the law offices of Guy Relford in Carmel, Indiana.

He practices both civil and criminal litigation. He's focused exclusively on defense of the U.S. and Indiana constitutions and especially on the protection of Second Amendment rights. He is the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC. He is also the author of Gun Safety and Cleaning for Dummies. He is also the host of The Gun Guy with Guy Relford on WIBC Radio in Indiana. And you can find that at wibc.com. It airs on Saturdays from 5 to 7.

And it's on 93.1 FM if you're in Indiana, but of course you can also find it on the internet. So glad to have Guy return. We've talked to him before, but thanks for joining us, Guy. I know. It's always a pleasure and an honor to be here, David. Well, thank you. Let's begin by the big story that everybody's talking about,

and I've talked about it some this week as well. What is happening in New Mexico with the so-called public health emergency, and what I've been talking about, the danger of medical martial law and how this is metastasizing to everything, what has been done by Governor Grisham in New Mexico, your comments about that. Yeah, this is interesting from a number of different perspectives. First of all, as we've seen mayors, governors, even the president talk about in the past what they can't get done in the legislature, there's a move really, I think, with the lessons of COVID behind us. A lot of folks have said, hey, I know, we'll just declare so-called gun violence or violence generally or crime a public health emergency.

And then we can use executive agencies, whether it's an order like this from a governor or even we've seen it discussed with local health departments, will declare emergency orders responding to a public health crisis and, and use that really as a pretense for curtailing second amendment rights. And that's exactly what we're seeing in New Mexico where this governor, governor Grisham has come out and said, well, there's been a lot of crime in and around Albuquerque. So she is governor under a, you know, again, the guise of a public health emergency is saying all open and concealed public carry of firearms is hereby forbidden. It's now illegal

in Albuquerque. And, you know, that's now punishable with a very large fine, ostensibly. And again, it's just a complete backdoor move to get around what people can't get done legislatively. They're, they'll think they can get done through the so-called public health emergency. Yeah. And of course the AMA has been angling for this for quite some time and saying, you know, this is a real health emergency and we need to address it as such. And so they've been laying that foundation quietly. But what I think is interesting about this guy is the fact that she's been opposed by democrats there uh in albuquerque the mayor the

police chief you got the sheriff even uh is is saying it and the sheriff was uh somebody that if i understand correctly was uh supported by every town you know, big Bloomberg gun control thing. So you've got, you know, the police chief, the mayor, the sheriff, and you've also got the district attorney that's there. They're all saying, we're not doing any of this stuff. And then you've got the people who showed up and said, showed up with guns on their hips or slung over their shoulder and said, we're not going to comply with this.

And of course they did not get the $5,000 fine that Grisham wants them to get. Well, that's exactly right. Because all the law enforcement personnel out there, exactly as you just mentioned, they all know this is unconstitutional. And, and, and listen, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Just last June, June of 2022, Supreme Court in the Bruin decision. And you and I have talked about that, David, I know you're well versed in it, but in the Bruin decision, the Supreme

Court of the United States said that New York's licensing scheme, which simply prohibited some law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in public, was unconstitutional because carrying a gun in public is a core freedom protected by the Second Amendment and a discretionary or what we call a may issue licensing scheme where officials get to scratch their chin and say you have the right to carry a handgun and you don't based on your level of need to protect yourself in public that that was unconstitutional. So I want to know what lawyer on this governor's staff, with the Bruin decision, said, well, let's see, the Supreme Court just said that prohibiting some law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun in public is unconstitutional. We can surely get away with

prohibiting all law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun in public. And I actually, in response to her announcement when she first came out with this, announced it uh among other places on twitter uh or x whatever we're calling it these days and i and i responded to her announcement and i and i said we really need to read new york state rifle and pistol association versus bruin and then a parenthetical i put were the lawyers on your staff absent the day they taught law in law school? And I think it's a legitimate question because nobody can read the Bruin decision and think that this order from a governor, at least they were responding to a law enacted by duly elected representatives in a state legislature in New York here. It's the season to shop new styles, electronics, and definitely a holiday trip.

And what if each time you made a purchase, you got a little something back? With Rakuten, you can earn cash back on just about anything you buy from over 750 stores. So if you're looking to buy a new phone, clothes, skincare, or a getaway, well, you can get cash back. So treat yourself, family, and friends and book that holiday trip now. Start getting cash back today by joining Rakuten. It's free and easy to use, and you get cash back deposited into your PayPal account or sent to you as a check. It's the smartest way to shop, plain and simple. Start your shopping at Rakuten.ca and get the Rakuten app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N.ca.

Have you received a red light or speed camera violation in the mail? Vehicle owners can pay or dispute online. Learn more at toronto.ca slash APS. It's just an executive fiat from a governor and, uh, who can read this and think it passes muster, especially with a Bruin decision just came down barely over a year ago. Um, it, it, it, it, it would boggle my mind if I hadn't seen, uh, this bad or worse coming from a liberal politician. That's right. And yet, of course, you know, we've seen the same type of thing you mentioned. It'd be bad enough if it was a law that was created by a state legislature, but then they would have at least gone through it.

And yet, that's what we're seeing. We're seeing that type, this increasing move to authoritarianism, to absolutism. She famously said that none of our rights are absolute. And I replied to that and I said, well, if none of our rights are absolute, that means that our government is absolutist, that it gets to do whatever it wishes. And we've started to see this. I mean, you go back and you look at the bump stock precedent that Trump put in, where he said, well, I'm going to do executive gun control.

I'm not even going to wait for the Congress to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. And immediately after he did that, Lala Harris came out and said, choose campaigning for president. She said, well, if I'm president, I'm going to give Congress 100 days to enact my gun control legislation, and then I'll do it by executive order. And I said, see, that's what happens when you set up these precedents. And, you know, they're really, they just completely ignore the infringement aspect of it because everything pretty much that the ATF does is an infringement of our Second Amendment rights.

But then they don't even bother to go through a legislative process. We have gun control without representation even is what's going on. No, you're precisely right. And I'm glad you bring up the bump stock situation because when that happened, you know, obviously it was right after the Las Vegas shooting and people were really worried about the ramifications of that and what legislatures, including Congress, were going to do in reaction to that horrific shooting in Las Vegas. going to do in reaction to that horrific shooting in las vegas but when president trump came out and announced that through atf rulemaking he was going to make bump stocks illegal and i remember

the announcement he said that's it bump stocks are gone i've told the atf you know that bump stocks are gone as soon as that happened a lot of reaction from people you know even on our side of the second amendment debate came out and said, well, we don't really care about bump stocks. And I couldn't agree more with that. Bump stocks are stupid. If somebody has a bump stock on their rifle and they would come to my range, I would make fun of them. And so he said, well, we don't care about bump stocks, so we don't mind this. And I said, listen, this is not about bump stocks. This is about the precedent of a United States president stamping his fingers and telling an executive agency, in this case, the ATF, to institute gun control, again, by executive fiat. That is a dangerous

precedent. We do not want this set. This is going to have ramifications that go way beyond bump stocks that nobody really cares about. And that has certainly played out to be true. It's played out to be true with so-called pistol braces. ATF now has banned with their so-called ghost gun regulations. That is exactly the same thing. And it will happen over and over again. That's why that precedent was so scary and so dangerous. And I enthusiastically voted for President Trump in two general elections. I would do so again, given the alternatives. But that was horrible for Second Amendment rights, and it's had really negative ramifications since then. And it's being picked up exactly to your point, David, by governors now who think, well, that's it. All I have to do is say there's a compelling enough need, and I can ignore legislative process

and ignore the Constitution. And this notion of, you know, well, constitutional rights are not absolute, so I can do what I want to do, is deeply offensive to me. And I respond to that publicly all the time. And a lot of this comes out of, it comes out of Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case, you know, in 2008, when for the first time, the Supreme Court announced that, yes, the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms that's not dependent on participation in a government-sponsored military unit, quote-unquote militia, and it does in fact protect an individual right to bear arms. That was the great thing about that decision. But in language that a lot of us call dicta, in other words, not an essential part of the decision.

He says, Listen, this ruling should not be read to do away with certain longstanding limitations on Second Amendment rights, because we're not saying that the right to bear arms, although it's an individual right, is unrestricted. And people have said, Aha, there you go. It's not unrestricted, so we said aha there you go it's it it it's not unrestricted so we can restrict it in any way we want but listen that's where the bruin case also gave us great clarity just last june because in that decision it says how do we decide what

restrictions are constitutional and what are not and it says that's based on the text of the particular constitutional right in the as written in the Bill of Rights, and then the history and tradition of regulation of that right since the founding of this country, and on that score. And by the way, I am like the Supreme Court, I believe constitutional rights are absolute. Yes. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court simply disagrees with me on that point. But there's still a test, even according to the Supreme Court precedent, and that's text, history, and tradition. And that's very clear now.

And again, in the Bruin decision, they said, based on the Second Amendment text, what it means, what it protects, and Heller gave us clarity on that. And then the history and tradition of the regulation of carrying firearms in public, a restriction on even some law-abiding citizens not being able to carry in public violates our Second Amendment rights. So yes, okay, the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment is not completely unrestricted, but that doesn't mean the governor can make up whatever restriction she wants. And the particular registration, excuse me, the particular limitation that she's put in place unquestionably is unconstitutional, according to Supreme Court standards. It's very clearly set out very recently. Yeah, I agree with you.

And you go back and look at Scalia. What he came up with in that decision where he says it's an individual right. He finally came to terms with the phrase right of the people. Yes. It's like, oh, is that what that means? It means the right of people? Is that what it really means? But he would not come to terms with the word infringement. But as you point out, if you go back and you look at the text, and if you look at the history and all

the rest of this stuff, we understand what militia meant. And if you look at the text and you look at the context of the Bill of Rights, you see that except for the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, which are clarifying the relationship of the people of Rights, you see that except for the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, which are clarifying, you know, the relationship of the people and the states to the federal government and the restrictions on the federal government, but the first eight are all about the individual. It's not talking about the free speech of some group. It's not talking about, you know, the right of due process of some group. It's all about individuals. And so, you know, it truly was an amazing prevarication for them to maintain it that long that it wasn't an individual right of the people, I think. But that's one of the key things. It's

the precedent that's there. Let's talk a little bit about what do you think is going to happen at this point since everybody has turned against her, even David Hogg. Even David Hogg said, you don't get to suspend the Constitution by declaring medical emergency. I was like, wow, he finally said something I agree with. And he said it very succinctly. So everybody has turned against her, including him. And as Jonathan Turley has said, so what is the issue here with her saying, I'm only going to do this for 30 days?

To me, it looks like this two weeks to flatten the curve thing that they're going to extend forever. What do you think is going to happen with this? We've got two lawsuits that have been filed. Yes. The National Association of Gun Rights and Dudley Brown. flatten the curve thing that they're going to extend forever. What do you think is going to happen with this? We've got two lawsuits that have been filed, um, a national association gun rights and Dudley Brown. And then you've got, uh, gun owners of America, Eric Pratt, have filed these lawsuits. Um, what do you think is going to happen with that since nobody's going to enforce it, it's going to just wait, sit there and wait until there's a challenge,

right? Yeah. I think that first of all, it's going to be completely ignored because when law enforcement is already, as you already mentioned, has come out and said, we're Yeah, I think, first of all, it's going to be completely ignored because when law enforcement has already, as you already mentioned, has come out and said, we're not enforcing this, then what's the inducement for anybody to comply with it if the police aren't going to enforce it? I don't think that the mayor and her chief of staff are going to be running around issuing $5,000 tickets to gun owners. Who are carrying carrying a gun at the time by the way yeah right exactly so so um so i don't uh i don't think it's going to be enforced but in the meantime i think the

the litigation is going to be successful i'm not a huge fan of dudley brown for other reasons i won't go into but i i think uh i think the gun owners of america suit certainly and probably the nagr suit are going to be successful and i think that she'll get beat up pretty good in the courts and this idea of well it doesn't really matter because it's temporary I mean that's like as I'm saying the police without a warrant can kick down my door with no justification whatsoever and no warrant and they can say well it's not really a violation of your fourth amendment rights. Cause we're not going to stay long, uh, you know, after your door in, I mean, does it, does that make sense to anybody? Um, and you, you, you know, you can't say, oh, well, you know, we're going to torture people to death, but that's not a

violation of, uh, the eighth amendment because we'll get it done really quickly. It'll be over soon. Don't worry. And that's part of what we've seen from Scalia in the past. You know, when he got to the fourth amendment on things like, you know, TSA searches and stuff like that, you know, he was, uh, again, he was kind of, where is he coming from? He just kind of shoved it to the side. I mean, it was, um, you know, I don't really care what the language is there that, and that's the problem. You know, as I've said many times, you know, we have a Republican presidents and it's like oh it's going to be good they're going to appoint good people

uh the democrats will always appoint statists uh to that that's reliable but as far as republicans go their appointments are kind of like a box of chocolates as for scump would say you never know what you're going to get that's right that's the perfect. But, you know, I hope that we get a ruling. And listen, if this just is handled in the trial courts and doesn't go any further, then we won't necessarily get an appellate decision that does us a lot of good. But in a perfect world, I'd like to see a judicial decision that says very clearly the constitutional rights don't disappear in an emergency, quote unquote. We got some of those rulings, and I cheered these on in the context of COVID. Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that?

Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. Drive safe and obey the rules of the road. Vehicle owners who receive a red light or speed camera violation can pay or dispute online at toronto.ca.aps. When really under First Amendment free exercise of religion arguments, you know, some people who were denied their ability to go to the church or the synagogue or the temple of their choice and worship the way they wanted during COVID.

And we had a church here in Indianapolis that defied local orders, defied the local health department, and they said, listen, we're going to get together and we're going to worship as we choose to worship. And the police were in the parking lot turning people away from the door who were simply going to worship in the church of their choice. And by the way, that is now my church. And I'll be directly involved if anything like that ever unfolds again. But at any rate, good. You know, but we got decisions across the country. It didn't go that far here. But we got decisions across the country that said, listen, there's no built-in exceptions in the Bill of Rights to accept during an emergency or accept during a public health crisis.

Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. And when it says they shall not be infringed, that means shall not be infringed. And that includes during an emergency, quote unquote. And I'd love to see a judicial decision that says that very strongly that can be applied more broadly than just a second amendment would apply to the free exercise of religion or would apply to the right to peaceably assemble or other rights that we have that are not suspended and again the speech that this governor in New Mexico gave that you've already alluded to was just so deeply offensive to me where she said well all rights are you know constitutional rights are not absolute. And in an emergency, I can do what I need to do. And even my oath is not absolute, her oath to support and defend the Constitution. My goodness. That just means my oath is my oath until I decide

it's not. Yeah. I'm assuming that the Democrats have the majority in New Mexico, so they're not going to be able to impeach her, which is really what needs to be happening. They need to remove her. But as you're pointing out, and I think this is the good thing that could really come out of this, and I think some of the reasons why the Democrats are so upset about this is that, as you point out, this could be much broader than the Second Amendment. Because we've already had the Supreme Court be very wishy-washy about, as you pointed out, church situations, and good for you for finding a church that's going to stand up to this stuff. That's one of the things that we've seen. The churches that did everything that the government wanted to do, they're seeing people abandoning them, like sinking ship, and they're going to the places where the people really have

convictions. And so that's an important thing there. But I think it's also important, as you point out, this could be used to strengthen where the court, even with these current justices, was really, really very shaky. I remember when they went back and they said, all right, the casinos can open up, but you can't have a church service. And so some of these people, to illustrate the absurdity of that, they went to a casino and had a church service and they still got hammered with us and the Supreme Court wouldn't help them with that. The Supreme Court likes to, in a lot of cases, likes to defer to the regulatory state and kind of keep back off of

that. So with the second amendment, depending on how they write this stuff, if it gets to them, it could put some language in there that could then be used to strengthen this to stop this kind of medical martial law. That's what I've called it since it happened in March of 2020. I call it medical martial law. Absolutely. I think that's a great way of putting it and right in that same context. And I said on the radio the other day, and a lot of other people have picked up on this and I've heard it repeated. But what I said on the radio the other day is, look, make no mistake. If the government can curtail your rights in an emergency, the government will create an emergency in order to curtail your rights.

And that's why it's so dangerous. It's a medical martial law. I love that, by the way. I'm going to adopt that as well yeah get the word out but uh you don't have to give me credit just use it yeah you know yeah full attribution um but uh but but that i think is what's so dangerous about this and has such uh such horrible possible permutations down the road because you know other other other potential tyrants are watching this and they and they they want to be tyrants. They want to impose their will on the citizenry. Uh, and they're just watching what the outcome here is in New Mexico. Um, and they will, they will take their lead to some degree from that. That's why I really hope that in a, in a

purely figurative sense, I hope this New Mexico governor gets slapped around pretty good. Yes. That's one of the things that's bothered me about all this in the aftermath of the pandemic and the lockdowns and all the rest of the stuff and the masks you know gradually people just decided that they were going to quietly not comply and they kind of nullified it you know on one by one you know people just walking away from this thing and that's good and it's good that we exercise our ability to peacefully disobey these color of law actions that are taken. But I think it's also necessary for us to have some political leaders who are going to stand up and say, we're not going to allow this to become a precedent and a way of doing business. And unfortunately, we don't really have that.

And so if this is going to happen kind of in the back doorway, in a side way or something like that, that could be a really positive thing that comes out of this. Because they've really been pretty cowardly in terms of opposing this. And I think it is because it has been broadly accepted when it happened by both Republicans and Democrats. And it was like, you know, President Trump was doing it, so let's not oppose President Trump. And so these things get put into place, and nobody wants to take on the leadership or the popular politician or whatever. And so they allow us to essentially be sold out, sold into slavery. So, you know, it really has bothered me to watch this stuff unfolding. Again, when you look at the Second Amendment, people there will be proactive in terms of pushing this stuff back, and that is very important. We just don't have that happening a great deal outside of the Second

Amendment. Yeah, it is. But I'll tell you another angle to this that I'd also love to see unfold, and that is that, and I'm not a New Mexico attorney, and so I'm not completely well-versed in the specifics here, but one thing that New Mexico did do just a couple of years ago is they repealed qualified immunity for government officials. And they got caught up in the, you know, defund the police type movement. And so they said, well, police, police have too much protection against civil liability.

So we're going to repeal qualified immunity for government officials. Well, what's fascinating about that— They're going to get hoisted by their own petard, right? You can see where this is going. Yeah. Where if now—and again, that typically is in the context of a police officer denying someone's constitutional rights and being sued for that, and they have typically had qualified immunity.

Again, it's qualified, but it protects them to a very large degree. Well, New Mexico, having repealed that, one thing I would love to see is for someone to say, oh, you mean the governor now has direct civil liability potentially for violating the constitutional rights of New Mexico citizens? And I'd love to see, you know, a group of citizens file that lawsuit and be successful in that lawsuit. That's if anyone ever out there has the willingness to enforce this ridiculous thing. But if this is enforced against someone, or even someone who just says, hey, I'm under a threat of a $5,000 fine, so I'm going to leave my gun at home and be regulated in that manner

well haven't they been injured as a direct result of that and haven't their rights been violated and if so i'd love to see a court say well now that we've repealed qualified immunity for government officials in new mexico the governor has direct civil liability and guess what you know a group of citizens now own her mansion somewhere where she lives. And I would absolutely love to see that. That would be a proper outcome in my mind for this kind of brazen violation of constitutional freedom. Oh, I agree.

I agree. That would really be interesting to see that the defund the police thing eventually comes around to bite them in that way. You know, you said earlier, and it is very true, if they're going to be able to do anything that they want with an emergency they can create the emergency and i've played a clip going back to october 2019 as a milken institute of fauci and they had a guy saying you know how do we get around this whole thing of you know having to go for a decade to test these vaccines and all this other kind of stuff if fauci's reply was we do it from the inside we do it with was, we do it from the inside, we do it with disruption, and we do it iteratively.

I mean, is that not exactly what they have been doing from all of this stuff? Creating the emergency and then doing it step by step, you know, boiling the frogs, and he set it out just a couple of months before they pulled this stuff off on us. But that's the thing that people need to understand. You know, they need to understand that they are creating the emergencies and then they say well you know we can do whatever we want to know we've got an emergency um they've got a bit of an emergency in chicago which they don't really talk about do they you know it's interesting i said the other day why doesn't the mayor of chicago do the same thing because they got 27 people who were shot last weekend and of course i think the answer guy what do you think it is i think the

answer is that they they've already done all these things and it's not working i i think that's right but i also think that they'd love to do it they probably have a little bit of legal advice um where there's where they're being told uh by someone who actually knows how to read supreme court precedent that they can't do it and it'd be illegal, and it'd be summarily enjoined by a court as soon as they tried to do it. But that's part of why I say that it's so important, I think, that not only that the right outcome ensues in New Mexico, but does quickly and does so, you know, in a very dramatic fashion with negative ramification for this governor because other potential tyrants, and believe me, they would love to do this in Chicago if they think there's a remote chance that they can get away with it. Yeah, that's very true. Yeah, if anything,

they've probably got the lawyers in Chicago trying to figure out what law could we possibly do that we haven't already done. Can you think of anything that we haven't already done that's still not working there? It is interesting to see how this is going to shake out. And, of course, these types of things have implications everywhere as we see them moving, for example, to ban cars. We know that's coming to the United States. California is doing that by legislation. We've seen it already put into place, the banning of all types of cars

and eventually, essentially banning EVs as well because they say, we just don't want people having private cars. This is the type of thing they have used. There is no specific amendment for cars. And so they're even more vulnerable than the second amendment. And if these people are going to pull

this same emergency stuff with us saying that's a climate emergency, that is one of the things that's going to be up for grabs. But essentially everything is going to be up for grabs if we allow them to claim that it somehow affects our health or safety. And we need to understand that safety is not the paramount concern of government. It's a paramount concern, isn't it, to protect our liberties, I think, our God-given liberties. At least I would hope that that was the case of the government, but I think that's the way the founders saw it, but I don't think that's the way people today see it. Yeah, I think that's right. You know, even with respect to the things like automobiles or gas-powered automobiles, something that's worth taking a look at, for instance,

is, yeah, the right to own a car is certainly not set out as a right in the Constitution, but there is a takings clause in the Fifth Amendment. There's a due process component to both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. And where I've invested money in my vehicle, and you suddenly now tell me that I'm not able to drive it, then haven't you deprived me of my property? And if you've done so without due process of law and without justification with due process of law, then now I still have a constitutional argument. Preston Pyshko, And I expect to see some of those. California is probably going to

lead that charge since there's already a date out there, isn't it? Like 2035 or something? Yes. When they're supposed to have all gas-powered vehicles. And you know that's going to happen. We know that's not going to happen. We know their power grid can't sustain an all-electric vehicle population in California. We know that.

Oh, they got that figured out, Guy. They just introduced a bill, and it hasn't gone through the House yet, but it's already passed in the Senate, where they say, well, we can suck the power out of your evs so all the people thought that they were going to get around by having an electric vehicle you're going to be the battery for them uh they don't want to have anybody have any private uh transportation because that takes control away from them well no that's exactly right in this same state where it's absolutely impossible to build a new power plant can't can't to have enough charging stations and they don't have the power grid to sustain all electric vehicles at the same time they're going

to tell you you have to have an electric vehicle uh the whole thing no nobody can can foresee what 12 years into the future and understand that this isn't tenable it's not feasible but they don't care because it sounds good in the short terms they're pandering to their base and they're fully planning on being out of office by the time, no pun intended, the rubber hits the road on this thing. That's right. Yeah, well, that's a key thing. I'm sorry. That's a key thing.

As we wrap up here, we've got just about out of time. But I think that's the key thing, is that people need to understand that these principles that we see happening around the Second Amendment you know, the, the second amendment, uh, these have broad implications for all of our different liberties. So we're either going to, uh, you know, the way I look at it as the bill of rights is either going to hang together or it's going to disappear separately. And so that's the key thing. You know, we have to reestablish that mindset that the founders had when they put it there of individual liberties and that the

government's purpose is not to infringe on them death by a thousand cuts, but they need to focus on that. So I absolutely agree with you. And it's a very important issue. And it's one issue that people will organize around and will fight for. And I think when you look at gun issue, the fact that you've got all these special groups that are out there to defend the Second Amendment, I think we need to do that on a wide variety of issues. I think that's far more effective than having politicians even. But thank you so much for joining us again, Guy Relford. And you can find him, the gun guy, at wibc.com.

Thank you so much, Guy. My pleasure, David. Always ancom. Thank you so much, Guy. My pleasure, David. Always an honor. Thank you. And let me just say we had a listener who wanted to know the name of the song

that we played that's got the pictures of the Smokies. It is Heart of the Heartland and the guy who did it was Peter Estruca. That's the closest I can come to his last name

but that was my version of what he did as close as I could come to it. Thank you for listening. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.

Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to Spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to

crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. My car needed repairs, but I could only pay for half of them. An easy loan through lamina.ca made the difference between stressed out driving and a smooth ride to work. Mark went the extra mile on his repairs with a loan from Brokers Lamina at 1-800-NEW-CREDIT. It's easy to apply over the phone or online at lamina.ca. Load up to $1,500 and get funds in an hour with no documents or credit checks and pay back over

three to seven months. Prop up your purchase and apply for a loan now at lamina.ca.