The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW Supreme Court on Trump Bump Stock Ban

Episode Date: March 8, 2024

Toby Leary, co-owner of Cape Gun Works, in Hyannis, MA, joins guest-host Gardner Goldsmith to discuss the oral arguments on the Trump-imposed 'bump-stock ban', the Bruen Supreme Court decision, the Heller decision, and more!Find Toby and Cape Gun Works on X as @CapeGunWorks, and, of course, visit their website!"Find 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.

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. And now let's talk about another man who does great work.

He is the co-owner of Cape Gunworks in Hyannis, Massachusetts. the man who hosts Rapid Fire, and the man who fills in for Grace Curley often and is featured every Tuesday at two in the afternoon on The Grace Curley Show, heard on many radio stations all around North America. He is Toby Leary talking to us. Toby, welcome to the program, The David Knight Show, as I get to fill in. And thanks for joining me on this platform as you work on your platform to inform people about their Second Amendment, the rights that are supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment, and some of the big news that has been happening as various political forces try to attack it. Welcome, Toby. Thanks for being here, man. Hey, thanks for having me, Gard. I appreciate it. It's always great to be with you. And I appreciate the time that you give me and love talking about the Second Amendment. So easy. It's too easy for me. Well, your knowledge is incredible. And you always have to update these things.

Like I said, it blows my mind because you know about the materials, the guns, the history, the stuff in your store, the people you work with. But then you take calls on Tuesdays with Grace and people will give you these questions out of nowhere and you say, well, you know, and you almost always have a very good answer or a resource to which they can turn. And I want to use you as a resource in a way here today, Toby, because I wrote a little bit about the Supreme Court arguments on the bump stock ban, which I just, they blew me away. They were so ridiculous from Elena Kagan and even Brett Kavanaugh didn't understand as they were looking at the 1934 Firearms Act to

see whether or not the 1934 Firearms Act, which was a tax on machine guns and short-barreled shotguns and things like that, a few other things, whether that would apply to the executive order to categorize. So the debate was, well, can it be done through executive order or does it have to be done through other legislation? Can the ATF do it or does Congress have to do it? Neither of which would be constitutional. And then not even mentioning that the 1934 Firearms Act wasn't an outright ban. It was a tax. It was an excise tax, which is the only thing that's provided for by the Constitution. But then not even going deeper than that, which is if you actually take it logically, and this is my presupposition here, any requirement that the

government tells you you must abide by this in order to exercise your right is an infringement. So if they tell you you've got to pay a tax or you can't buy this thing, well, that's an infringement. I mean, it's a prima facie infringement. They're telling you you can only exercise your right based on the conditions we provide to you. What do you think of what you saw? And then feel free to comment on any of the things that I brought up, you know, about this amazingly fatuous line of argumentation from some of these Supreme Court justices. guard i think that um ironically the one right that is enumerated that says uh shall not be infringed is the one that gets infringements to a degree that we would not tolerate for any other right that is enumerated uh we don't have a license for free speech for choosing what church we want to go to i I hope I'm not giving

them any ideas here. Uh, well, they already have the FCC for broadcast licensing, so let's stop it at that. Right. Yeah, exactly. And so, uh, but for an individual to participate and, you know, it's interesting because people think that a, that some, well, I shouldn't say people, I think they're more savvy to this than those that become elected officials who become drunk with power, think that they are the grantor of rights and they are not. acknowledges is the fact that these truths are self-evident. If you're paying attention, we understand these don't come from man, you know, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. You can't take them away. You can't put conditions or leans on them. That's what inalienable means. But let's get back to the subject matter at hand. The Supreme Court, I was a little disappointed in the direction this whole thing took. Maybe it's the direction it needed to go. But really, I thought the more important question was, do bureaucracies,

unelected officials, not lawmakers, have the authority to change the rules as you go. And so if, you know, for two and a half administrations, we had bump stocks were legal. They came with an ATF letterhead that said, yep, this is not a machine gun. Right. That is the way it was under the Bush administration. That's the way it was under the bush administration that's the way it was under the obama administration and halfway through the trump administration it's an accessory it was just an accessory yes they acknowledged it doesn't change the a thing to the firearm you put this stock on it helps you hold your finger straight and uh still while the recoil of the gun bounces back and forth against your trigger finger right all it does is makes you pull the trigger faster that's it it's one trigger pull one shot and right it just the it shows i think it's a mark of their dishonesty as they continue

to try to fudge the lines for anybody who takes even a scintilla of a second to think about the way that the trigger works and the way the bump stock works that should be a red flag to anybody listening to them yeah and i i think the more dangerous part of the equation is um the fact that the bureaucracy um was, was it, sorry, I'm just having someone, someone shut the door. The shop's getting a little loud out there. Oh, no problem. You might've, you might've noticed the, uh, so you got the shots coming through. That's great. Cause you're right there in the range and I'm showing shots right now of, of, of your, uh, your site. I got it down to that range. You probably saw that. It was funny because I clicked on some stuff and everything flashed up on me. You might've seen my face like, Whoa, you got a great site.

So yeah. So the more dangerous part of the equation here that I didn't hear them discuss is whether or not these three letter agency, because this can be extrapolated, not just from the ATF. We've seen it happen with EPA. We've seen it happen with IRS. We've seen it happen with FBI. A lot of three letter enforcement agencies have changed the way that they interpret things. And ironically, maybe the reason they didn't talk about that is because there's a case before the Supreme Court called Loper Bright. And it's a it's a basically a fishing company who challenged Chevron deference, which is basically what has given the power to these bureaucracies to have broad interpretation of law that is passed by Congress. So Congress passes a law. It's kind of ambiguous.

Then they turn to these three letter agencies and say, go enforce the law. And well, it doesn't say every scenario that I have to rule on because the Congress isn't that savvy or doesn't get that granular. So they've been given wide powers to enforce the law. And the Loper Bright case is really interesting because this is how far they will take it. It was a fishing boat that the EPA said, or whatever it was, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife said,

we need to know that you're not overfishing the stocks. So we need to have an observer on board the boat. And by the way, you need to foot the bill for the observer. You know, you got to pay a salary, which means you can have one less fisherman on the boat because you're only limited to how many people you can have on the boat. And you also got to pay their per diem, you know, cost for the day and $800 or so. Yeah. Yeah. And so the, the fishing companies are like, what, you know, you gave us the regulation to follow. We're

following it. It's up to you to go investigate if you think I'm breaking the law, but don't make me pay for my own investigation. Like that's ridiculous. That's and, you know, Toby, when I first went to work at MRC TV for, you know, under contract with them, I think one of the first articles I wrote was about those Fisher fishing counters. Because when I was when I saw the piece and I proposed it, I saw it at that. Oh, the machine. And then I looked into it and this is years ago. Then I looked into it and that was just their first standard that they had imposed on the fishermen, especially around new England. They were the ones who were protesting it very

strongly, especially Massachusetts guys. And, uh, and they were saying, uh, look, you are telling us literally that we have to take a human being from the federal government and house him on our boat because sometimes these guys are out overnight doing fishing. So this is like the housing of troops, the quartering of troops, federal agents in your private property, and they've got to give them a bunk with the fishermen. And they've got to now the next standard, as you say, the next standard that came out of that is they changed it to say, well, originally the U.S. government would pay for those fish counters who literally are standing there counting the fish, right? As if the fishermen don't have an incentive not to overfish, right? If they would allow for private property claims over regions and where the fish swim, they could handle it much better. But the government is taking control, even though there's nothing in the Constitution that allows them to take that control.

They have to amend their Constitution under which they would be OK to operate based on the legislation passed by the Congress to create this bureaucracy like the EPA or the fisheries or whatever. And the ones that go a little too far. Well, then we'll stop those. So this is a question. Is it a little too far to now make the fishermen pay for their own monitors that come on there and tell them, no, you can't do this for their own oppression? They're already paying taxes. Now they got to pay more. And this is the this is what is is up in this case. know so much about these things that you've opened up a whole nother line has, you know, it's only tangentially connected to the, the ATF and its regulatory claims to power and things like that and the bump stocks, but it's the same mindset. Right. And, you know, I, I say a lot, so back up a little bit. I, I, I was a little disheartened to hear that that isn't the direction that this took. It went more into the nuance of what a machine gun is, which is important because the Supreme Court, if they

are able to like Kate, you mentioned Kagan. She she had a whole line of questioning and basically said, I am a textualist, but the big butt comes out and it says the end result is really we got to use common sense whenever you hear common sense it should set off alarm bells everywhere uh but we got to look at the common sense of you know what the intent of the shooter is and i'm like wait a minute here if you're looking at intent of the shooter you got guys like jerry mitchellick that set world records for their how fast they can pull the trigger the intent of him is to fire at a high rate of fire uh for world record reasons and for competition and for fun and everything else uh so are we going to start regulating people's fingers?

Are we going to ban rubber bands that might build up some trigger strength and make it so you can pull the trigger faster? Along those lines, Gard, there's a guy, he's passed away now. His name was Bob Munden. Look up his video sometime. It's the fastest gun in the West or whatever. He was an exhibition shooter. But he could literally shoot a single action gun where you have to cock the hammer and then pull the trigger like the old Western cowboys.

He could fire two shots that sounded like one. And if it wasn't for high speed cameras and super slow motion, you wouldn't believe it. So, you know, are we going to ban guys like Bob Munden from being able to do exhibition shooting because the intent of the shooter is to shoot really, really, really fast? It doesn't make sense. I think if if the Supreme Court is going to rule on a case based on intention instead of what the actual statute says. We have a big problem. This is a slippery slope where you could now say gun oil is a modification to a firearm that allows the shooter to shoot quicker because the bolt isn't all gummed up. You're able to lube it and get it to shoot faster.

I mean, where does that end? That's a very, very slow. You're right. I mean, it could even go into the shape of the stocks, the type of barrel that you have, so many different types of things that people get for their own comfort. They're government subjective. We will decide what is or is not too much of an improvement, you know, up to them. They could outright ban all sorts of things.

And it is amazing to me for these people to be even arguing about what type of firearm that they're told they're not supposed to touch, they're going to touch. They're already assuming what was supposed to be a negative. They're assuming it as a positive. As you said, it is the most infringed upon and it is the most explicitly forbidden thing to infringe. The Second Amendment is very clear. The First Amendment delineates Congress. Congress shall pass no law on religion or freedom of speech or of the press. There were religious codes on the books in states as much as I might not have wanted them. There were curfews in states. There were religious sponsored schools in states right up until the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. In fact, Maine has in its statutes that it can fund religious schools.

New Hampshire in its constitution says New Hampshire state can give gifts to seminaries. So there's no separation on the state level or the local level on that level. But the second amendment is very, very clear. There is, it shall not be infringed by any level of the state of the polis, because that is a threat to you. They are, they are pointing government guns at you. And, you know, I often argue anybody who says, Oh, I'm opposed. You're opposed to gun violence. Oh yes, absolutely. So then you want to disarm police officers. You don't want an armed armed government. You oppose so-called gun, uh, gun confiscation or gun control laws. Oh no, I'm in favor of gun control laws. Well, then you're in favor of threats of gun violence by the state. That's very clear. I mean, it's, it's absurd. That's the net result

of gun control is you want it tipped to one side. You want to disarm populace and a armed government, which we have a rich history of where that all leads. And, uh, don't think we want to repeat that. Um, but you know, we talked earlier about licensure and,

um, guard, there was a Supreme court case in 1943, um, called, uh, Murdoch V Pennsylvania. And if you look it up, the concurring opinion, actually not even the concurring, the majority opinion in the actual decision says that you can't tax, you can't sell a license, you can't issue a permit or charge a fee for the enjoyment of any federally protected constitutional right.

Period. So how is it that they can have that decision? Because it's interesting when I did an MRC TV video about the about the arguments and I shot I wrote it on Sunday and then I shot it on Monday. And so they, they put it out on the Supreme court. No, I shot it on Tuesday and they just put it out day before yesterday. And I went through some of these arguments, you know, the logical syllogism here is very clear that if the government is demanding from you an action on your part, otherwise you cannot exercise your right. That's an infringement. So if they're telling you,

you have to cop up 10% of the cost of this thing that you're buying to us, otherwise you're going to be breaking the law and we're going to point our government guns at you. In fact, we're already pointing our government guns at you to make you do this. Then that's an infringement. And so how does that comport?

How do they continue to put these taxes on things? How do they, why is it that they allow for taxes on things like ammunition or things like that? You know, as a guy who deals with this at Cape Gunworks, what do you, I don't understand how they can continue to do these sorts of things. And in Massachusetts, it's becoming even worse. They just keep pushing it. We'll talk about that. But on that tax level, I don't understand. How do they get away with this stuff? Well, they've got away with it for decades. That's how. And they've had lower court decisions like district court and circuit court of appeals have upheld the state laws that impose such nonsense. And it wasn't really until Heller started it all back in 2008. We just celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Heller decision.

And in that decision, they defined what an arm was, which was defined based on the Lexa Lexaographers of the 18th century. And it is any arm that is bearable and useful for offensive or defensive purposes, and that is in common and ordinary use. And so that is the definition of an arm. If you ban it, you're breaking your oath of office and you're passing unconstitutional law. So that was what started it. The problem was the court didn't give a clear mandate to the inferior or lower courts about how to rule on this. So it was still the wild, wild west. There were very few pro Second Amendment rulings that challenged state and federal law after Heller. There was a couple wins along the way that that decision was written. It was reaffirmed as good law and the basis of the Bruin decision. And basically then the Bruin decision gave clear marching orders to the inferior courts and to the lower courts to basically rule on the text of the Second Amendment. If it isn't in the text, then the burden of proof

shifts to the government to prove that there was a historical analog at the time of our ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791. And if they can't prove there was this vast history of the type of ban or the type of infringement that they are proposing or that they have passed, and it has to be contextually appropriate, it has to be the same type of law in the same type of vein of which it was originally written. And it can't be one or two or three municipalities or cities or states that have passed this. It has to be a rich history, overwhelming support for that law that you're trying to propose or uphold. And that is what the text history and tradition means. That was put out in Heller first and now reaffirmed by Bruin. And now the courts have been told by the Supreme Court, this is the way that you must look at all Second Amendment related issues is first in the text. And then you can look to the historical analogs and traditions at the time of the ratification. And if you can't find anything, guess what? It's unconstitutional.

Right. And that's where all that. So the gun grabbers right now are in full bore linear panic mode. They know that their time is short and they have to just throw everything at it and hope it sticks. And that's what they're doing. You see states like New York, you see states like Massachusetts, where I'm from, where they're all just throwing it against the wall, hoping it sticks, knowing the sands of time on their gun control schemes is running out. And they are eventually going to have to figure out how to deal with criminals and figure out how to deal with violent crime if they truly want to make our streets safer, which they don't. But if they did, that's the direction they would take instead of requiring lawful people

to give up their arms. So the point I'm trying to make in all of this is there's been a little bit of a shift. So, you know, you ask how they've got away with it because in places like Massachusetts, uh, the district court and the first circuit court of appeals is very anti-gun and most gun control challenges died at the district court level. Some got appealed to the first circuit where they died. And then when it went to the Supreme Court, it wasn't granted certiorari. So we had a case called Warman v. Healy, which was a challenge to our assault weapons ban that did make it all the way to the Supreme Court. And it wasn't granted cert.

So the problem is hundreds of thousands of dollars and years and years and years and decades of time, man hours were spent getting it there. And then it wasn't granted a hearing. So that was pre Bruin. done justices allowed it to die because they didn't think they had the votes prior to the three new justices that were, you know, appointed and affirmed or nominated. They pulled a tactic to say, oh, we'll keep it out until maybe there's a change. And then maybe on appeal or there'll be a new version of a similar and we'll have a more conservative set of justices here very yeah roberts is the swing voter right now he doesn't no one really knows where he's going even in this latest uh cargill the bump stock case we don't really know where roberts is going to come down

and thank neither do we you know i was going to say god bless bless uh. Cargill. You know, it's, I mean, what's his name? Who's the guy from Texas who runs that facility? It's not, I can't remember his name. I've seen him on radio too. And, you know, the courage of these people to spend this money. I was going to say, do you think that in some cases, legislators or, you know, even some of these regulators, Toby, and your experience, let me show you the website, everybody. It's Cape Gunworks. If you're in Massachusetts, New England, check it out. It's very, very cool. And I'm showing right now your rapid fire program. Let's mention rapid fire. As you say, go live Tuesday with Grace Curley on 2A Tuesday. But you've got Rapid Fire, your own show. Tell people about how they can find you.

Yeah, thank you, Gard. Go to rapidfireradio.us or Cape Gunworks and click on Rapid Fire. And you can find our show. We go live. If you want to hear it live, you can sign up to be notified whenever we go live. If you want to hear it live, you can sign up to be notified whenever we go live. You just got to like and subscribe on social media and hit the alert buttons and you'll be up to date on that. But we go live consistently every Wednesday from 4 to 6 p.m. It is a live show. You can call in or interact with me on the chat and ask questions. We do Q&A. We also talk about all the news of the week and

around the Second Amendment. And we archive the show. So if you go to YouTube or whatever platform you like, Rumble, we're all over Rumble, which is good. Oh, yeah. They're great. Yeah, they're awesome. And we haven't been deplatformed from Rumble yet, but we've been put in timeout by all the other typical big tech. And right now, our Facebook account is completely down. So it's amazing. You know, I used to get deplatformed for holding a gun and talking about it. And now it's just talking about it.

You talk about guns, you get put in timeout. Wow. It's unbelievable anyway um and there's there there's so many people who are interested in getting these tips it's just amazing to me and uh you know oh and it was a michael cargill uh from austin texas yeah michael cargill and um and let me ask you toby um the do you think that some of these people do it just out of spite? You know, we've got Trump. He responded with the bump stock thing because there was this fear generated and so on.

He should not have done it. It was very, very clear. You know, some people think that maybe it was part of a larger plan to introduce even more government regulations on accessories and parts and things like that. You know, whether they want to ascribe those those asinine motives of Trump or the darker motives of Trump, who knows? But either way, on the state legislative side, many of these legislators must know that when they're proposing these new new ideas and we'll go through a couple of the things that you're battling in this. The problem has been that the Antonin Scalia decision had at the bottom of it, well, of course, we know that no rights are not unattenuable. No right is absolute, as he said. And there's actually audio of him saying that. And we found out that there was some wheeling and dealing there so he could get the vote on the Heller decision to say,

OK, I will go with you, Antonin Scalia, if you add that line in that no right is absolute. But that's the that's the principle of rights. That's the point. They are supposed to be absolute against the state. The state is not supposed to touch our rights. That's the point. So that's why they're called rights. And it's amazing to see how with the Bruin standard, there is this extra bulwark. But it seems like these people are aware of this extra bulwark now. And they're just trying to take more of your time. In some cases, they're doing it, I think, just a there's a little bit of a problem here with the. The Congress that makes law, whether it's a state legislature or the federal government in that is they don't understand constitutional limitations. That is something that they've really got way off track on. Like I said, it's become drunk with power to the extent that they think everything is on the table for them to deal with. And in Madison, the architect of the constitution wrote in the Federalist Papers, number 49, that this is where the whole concept of constitutional limitations takes place. And he explains that there are limits to the power of Congress.

And in fact, the wording in this is so brilliantly written. I don't have it up on the screen, but he actually says that the Congress, the legislature comes from the blood of the people. It's the people that they live with, that they work with, that they farm with, that they do business with. Go to the state house or go to Capitol Hill and they are the gatekeeper of our rights. And now the flip, the script has flipped. The coin has been tossed to the other side where they think that they are the grantor of rights, where the original intent of Congress was to maintain and, and defend our rights. And unfortunately now they see the, the, you know,

like we can pick off little parts of it here and there. We can, we can change the law. We can. So you bring up an excellent point guard about this. And what do they think? I was able to have a meeting at my shop with two state senators and I did a big dog and pony show, told them about what gun owners go through, what hoops we have to jump through just to exercise our right to keep and bear arms in the state of Massachusetts. Then I finally said to them, I said, listen, if you could get the votes and you could pass a bill in the House on both sides, the reps and the senators and say that we want to ban Catholics. If you had the votes, you had the numbers to pass it, can you do that? They both kind of looked at each other and said, no, we can't do that. So that is the first acknowledgement of constitutional limitations.

Right. And I was trying to show them the parallel. And I said, look, you just acknowledged you don't have the constitutional authority to ban Catholics. But yet that's exactly what you're doing to guns. That's exactly what you're doing with the Second Amendment. And then they go, well, well, well, you know, and then start the whole no right is absolute and we can walk and chew gum at the same time and all this stuff that you hear them spout off. I said, no, it is the same because we have been told that every gun infringement isn't a infringement on

our constitutionally protected rights because you have other options. You just can't have that gun. You can have that gun. If you want a shotgun, if you want a bolt action rifle, if you want a non high capacity, semi-automatic rifle, you can have that. You know, you have choices. We're not restricting your right to keep in bear arms because you have other choices. Well, I want to be a Catholic or fill in the blank. And if you pass a law saying I can't, guess what? You just acknowledged you can't do that. You're infringing on my right. And now that's exactly what you're doing to the Second Amendment.

And you're saying it's not happening. You're saying you're not infringing upon my constitutionally protected rights. But oh, you are. Yeah. And isn't it interesting? We're speaking with Tobyby leary of cape gunworks folks and of course uh follow toby at cape gunworks on twitter slash x go to the cape gunworks website isn't it interesting toby as well because it's this it the i think the first

sign of trouble is that they are going to lay down their definitions of words. You know, it's like that Lewis Carroll thing from Alice Through the Looking Glass where she meets Humpty Dumpty. And he is basically a cipher for a monarch. And she says, wow, you can make words mean so many different things. In other words, you know, it's propaganda. And he says, oh, she goes, how do you do that? And he goes, well, it's, it's no, essentially he says, it's no special skill. It just depends who's in control, you know? And so even when we look at things like the

Bruin second tier standard, and you and I have discussed this a little bit before, that leaves ambiguity for the politicians to say, well, we will define what was common, right? Now, you could have enough pressure on people to say, look, you're being completely absurd and fatuous here. It's understandable what is common, but the very audacity, the usurpation of them to define for you the parameters under which they can attack you that's a problem yeah you bring up a great point because the after heller the what makes it common and ordinary is the gun that the people want right it has nothing to do with what government's definition of common and ordinary is i mean the supreme court did sort of define that in the, uh,

Caetano case, another Massachusetts case that, uh, we've talked about stun guns and they said there are 20,000 stun guns in common use in America. So therefore they are in, or they're in use or they're owned in America. So therefore they are in common and ordinary use, a number of say 20,000. So that was enough to meet the definition of common and ordinary use for the Supreme Court. And you look at something like the AR-15, which is the gun that everybody loves to hate. And there's roughly 30 to 40 million of them in, in use in, in America each and every day. And, and so I think that meets the 20,000 threshold, you know, uh, but the bottom line is it is the gun that is. It's the gun that causes tyrants to question whether they should overstep their roles and violate their oath of office. And that is the one that makes tyrants nervous. So therefore they want to take it off the table. Well, the problem is that's the whole point of

the second amendment. It is the tyrant relief valve and you can't keep tyrants in check with your single shot shotguns. Although I bet you could, uh, if enough people owned and possess them. But the point is it has to be equal to what government has. And if it isn't, then you're missing the point. So, so right. Yeah. And you know, Toby, just to wrap it up, I want to ask you real quick, but before I do that, ask you this question, I just want to mention some people might be familiar that in the 1990s, there was a new standard that was brought about in judicial tortious claim parlance called the Dauber hearing on class action suits. And it had to do with the introduction of expert witnesses for scientific background on various products or something like that. Previously, all they had was the judge would

just determine, do you have an expert witness with enough credentials that we will allow this person in to be a witness for the plaintiffs or the defense in a tortious claim hearing, a tortious liability suit? Then they changed it based on this Daubert, Judge Daubert, who came up with this new standard that the judge would not only determine whether the credentials were sufficient to allow this person into the court, which I think is already an arbitrary standard that is dependent on the judge, but also whether what the person was going to say was within, quote, the scientific consensus. And this goes to the common usage or the popular thing or common use of the time sort of thing. That leaves massive amounts of wiggle room for any person within a courtroom or any legislator to say, well, we're saying this is common. We're saying this is uncommon. So something new under the Daubert hearing. So, for example, the Dow Corning silicone breast implant lawsuits that were coming around in the 1990s, they had

information that silicone was an adjuvant that caused women problems like lupus, but it wasn't well known at the time. So it wasn't the scientific consensus. It was new science that was revealing truth, but it had not been established long enough. They would have allowed the judge to block all of that scientific information, including information that Dow Corning knew in the 60s that it was an adjuvant that caused autoimmune problems. So there's a great example of something new, which is totally viable

and people should have the opportunity to find out about it in court or in the marketplace, some new development of a firearm. Well, it's not in common use. So we can get rid of it. You know, these are, these are always these areas where you say to yourself, why did you put that in there? Why don't you just go with shall not be infringed? It's a right.

I recognize it. Prima facie. And we're done. We can go home and have lunch. You know, I don't get it. Tell us one real quick thing about what you're looking at in Massachusetts, Toby, because I know, you know, you're at you're at work right now. So thank you so much again for joining, you know, the David Knight show as I as I get to host it. Yeah, of course.

Yeah. So right now in Massachusetts, we have two bills. Well, it's really one bill. It's the House Bill H4139, which passed last November. And then the Senate passed an amendment to it called S2584. And both iterations of these have had multiple numbers. It started life out as H House Docket 4420. And there were signs everywhere, you know, stop HD 4420. And so it hasn't really morphed into the newest and latest number for signs and whatnot and for conversation purposes. But the bottom line is, it's a really comprehensive gun, omnibus gun control bill that will severely restrict the right to keep and bear arms

further than it already is in the state of Massachusetts. And interestingly enough, it is not going to do a dang thing about putting violent criminals in jail for long periods of time. All it does is level the sights of government guns at peaceful citizens if they don't comply with the new laws that are completely and utterly unconstitutional should they pass. So the two versions that have passed are vastly different versions. The House has completely rejected the Senate's version, So therefore, they are going to come together in a conference committee. And the conference committee has been seated. There are three senators and three reps that will now go behind closed doors and hash out the details of

what the final version of the bill will be. There's no public input. There's no hearings. There's not even any other members of Congress that can go into these meetings. It is completely closed door. And they will come out and emerge with a bill that'll get an up or down vote, and then it'll go to the desk of Maura Healey. So our rights are under full attack right now, and they don't acknowledge that these laws are unconstitutional. When I met with the senators that I met with, they think they're within their legal capacity or the oath of office to continue to further infringe peaceful, lawful citizens' right to keep and bear arms. And I hope I gave them some food to think about, some things to think about.

The good news is this is an election year. We have two massive issues that everybody has to campaign on. And one is them taking away our right to keep and bear arms by voting for this nonsense. And two is the illegal immigration crisis that is affecting just about every state in the union now. But it's really it's costing Massachusetts billions of dollars. And we are a right to shelter state. And I'm not trying to go down a tangent on that. But on the other hand, those are the two big issues that if people want to get activated and call their congressman and call their state senator and say, hey, I'm not going to vote for you. And I'll campaign against whoever primaries against you or I'll support whoever primaries against you.

And then I'll ultimately campaign for the person that opposes you on the general election. That would be a great place to start because they're all nervous about getting their job back in November. So I think that gives us a little bit of meat on the bone to go after. And, you know, at the end of the day, they don't care about your rights, guard. They care about getting reelected. So that's so true. Yeah, it's so true. And it's good that you, you know, you're out there in the media and you take this time. You've taken the time to talk to us.

You speak with grace and you take calls from people who are concerned about this. And if this legislation in Massachusetts does pass, then it would restrict a large number of guns that you could sell. Likely you're still waiting for the committee to come out with its final version. Do you think I know that earlier they had a portion of it that would have basically made it impossible for teenagers to train in firearms. Do you think that's going to be part of the fire, uh, final legislation as well? I don't know. Um, it's, it's really hard to say because the house is pretty much digging their heels in and sticking, you know, they're, they're saying our version is the version the Senate tried to make it a little better, if you will, or at least acknowledged that this is ridiculous. A lot of it is ridiculous and tried to get at the things that they actually want to pass, like the unfinished frame and receivers.

They want to ban those and make it legal for people who enjoy the hobby of building firearms in their home uh they want to they want to do away with that they want to uh they want to further restrict semi-automatic rifles so i i think it's just a waste of breath to to sit here and postulate on what the heck they could come out with. But whatever version of it is, it's not going to be good. And I'm really hoping that they just can't get along to the point where they run out of time. You know, July 31st is the end of the congressional session. However, they've seated the congressional committee here and it's the first week of March. So I highly doubt that they're

going to run out of time. And, you know, if I can back up on this whole thing, uh, the bill that was originally introduced in July HD 4420 by Michael day of Stoneham, uh, he introduced a bill that was the wish list of the Giffords, Everytown, Brady, Bloomberg, you know, mayors for whatever. It was a conglomerate wish list of, hey, if you make me a top 20 list of what you would like to see happen as it pertains to gun control, send me the list along with your check for my reelection. And that is what I'm going to put in. And that is exactly what happened. You know, there's a picture of Michael Day arm and arm with Gabby Giffords. You know, I'm sure she was hand delivering the reelection check and to his war chest and then hand delivered this prewritten bill.

In my opinion, I don't have empirical evidence to this, but the only thing that leads me to believe that's the case is because when I called their offices and said, do you realize what's in this? They had no clue. They didn't know what was in it. So I know they didn't write it. And I know it was the wish list of the anti-gun movement. And that's exactly what they've implemented. So if you want to see your rights eroded in an unconstitutional fashion, focus your sights on Massachusetts and what's going on. You can go to goal.org, G-O-A-L dot O-R-G.

They have done a full breakdown of it and my hat's off to them because I wouldn't have got through it the way they did. But they kind of bullet point all the major problems with this bill. So the good news is I have a sneaky suspicion we'll have a Supreme Court ruling in June that'll affect a couple of areas of this bill. So they might have to go back to the drawing board before it's even fully voted on and signed into law. I hope they would do that, have the integrity to do that, and not just pass it anyway and say, screw you guys, challenge it. But that's generally the MO. So my hopes aren't too high on that. But anyway, that's what we've been doing with shining the light of truth on the dirty dealings of our elected officials who think that

our rights are something that they can take away, which they can't. And, you know, it's remarkable because they force you and other people to have to expend so much time to try to battle these things. But in a way, you know, if we can look at the positive side of it, you are one of the best educated guys on this, on the courts, on the rulings, on the guns, the firearms, the history. And so in a way, you can find a positive in that you are educating people. You're taking that time and getting the information out to the next generations, to people who maybe they'll come across your show, maybe they'll hear you on the radio, and they'll get that knowledge that they didn't have before. So because of the friction that they cause you, you allow for the, you know, you radiate this heat of information out to people. You know, it might sound like a platitude,

but you know, I think it is, it is admirable what you do. I appreciate that. And you know, you just in closing, you bring up a great point without the infringement. We don't have the victory. So, you know, if it wasn't for District of Columbia banning handguns, we wouldn't have D.C. versus Heller. Yeah. If it wasn't for state of New York making some shall issue, I mean, may issue licensing scheme, we wouldn't have Bruin. So there's, and after the Bruin decision came down, I said, I predicted exactly what's happening in Massachusetts. I said, it's going to get worse before it gets better. And that's, I still feel that way. Well, Toby, thank you so much. It's great to see you. I want to show the website one more time and show your smile and face there in front of the golden mic, the old, almost like the old EIB

microphone. And I'm so mad at my producer for buying this microphone on that, you know, that way. I'm like, who do you think I am? I don't deserve a golden microphone. I've been at this for two years. I do a once a week podcast. I, I, but anyway, That's good. It's good. I mean, you could go with copper, copper rounds or lead,

but I don't think that would work. It'd be too insulating. The gold all the way, man, all the way. It is classic. It's great stuff. And Toby, thanks again. And I hope people check out a rapid fire again. They can, they can check out Cape gunworks.com to find out more and

then follow you on Twitter. It's at Cape gunworks, right, man. Yes, sir. Thank you very much guard. I appreciate your time. You are the man. And again, I hope I can get down there to see you very soon, man. I'm going to be uh going to be interested in maybe making a purchase but definitely going on to the onto the range and finding some advice from you okay that'd be great come on down anytime all right thanks toby great we'll talk to you soon thank you for the time appreciate it 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.