UNBIASED - October 10, 2024: Justices Lean In Favor of Upholding Firearm Regulation, Afghan Charged in Election Day Terror Plot, Clearing Up Rumors: Are Hurricane Victims Receiving $750 from FEMA? and More.

Episode Date: October 10, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Supreme Court Seems to Lean in Favor of Upholding ATF's 2022 Firearm Regulation; Oral Argument Recap (1:02) Afghan National Living in U.S. Arrested for Election Day Terror Plan (11:29) Quick Hitters: P. Diddy Accuses Government of Misconduct, FOX News Invites Trump and Harris to Debate, Hurricane Milton Leaves Florida (14:25) Rumor Has It: Are Hurricane Helene Victims Receiving $750 from FEMA? Is Congress Not Returning from Recess to Vote on Supplemental Aid? (15:47) Daily Critical Thinking Exercise (23:54) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features, BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, October 10th, and this is your final news rundown of the week. Today is the last episode until Monday, October 21st. I will be taking this next week off to enjoy the last week of my vacation. But the good news is that starting Monday the 21st, the podcast will be going back to four days a week. I'm just as excited as you are because this whole two-day-a-week schedule is just,

it's not really working with the news. You know, there's a lot of news to keep up with. So to think I was even doing two days a week until April of this year is pretty crazy. But anyway, no episodes next week, so enjoy this final episode until the 21st. As far as the format of today's episode, I first have an update to Tuesday's episode. We'll then touch on the election day terror plot before moving on to some quick hitters, and then of course that weekly rumor has it segment, and we'll finish with the daily critical thinking exercise. So with those things out of the way, let's get into today's stories. Starting

with an update to Tuesday's episode, where I spoke about the Supreme Court hearing the first firearm case of its newest term. As a refresher, the case is called Garland v. Vanderstoke, and it deals with the definition of firearm under federal law and whether certain weapons, parts, kits, and disassembled frames and receivers fall under that federal definition and can therefore be federally regulated. If you want to know more about the background of the case, check out Tuesday's episode. I'll touch on the background a little bit in this story, but today's episode is more so going to focus on the main arguments from both sides, which we heard

at oral arguments on Tuesday, and then the justices' general impressions and concerns and where the justices seem to be leaning. Remember, there were two questions before the court here. Number one, whether a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive is a firearm as defined by law, and two, whether a partially complete disassembled or non-functional frame or receiver that is designed to or may readily be converted to function as a fully functioning frame or receiver is considered a frame or receiver as defined by law. In other words, are these weapons, parts, kits, and frames and or receivers that are not fully assembled still considered firearms under federal law?

If the justices answer this question in the affirmative, then these weapons parts kits and frames and or receivers can be regulated by federal law and manufacturers must adhere to federal regulations. So this includes adding serial numbers for tracking purposes, conducting background checks on purchasers, and obtaining a license to sell these things. However, if the justices answer this question or these questions in the negative, then these items won't be regulated by the Gun Control Act and can therefore be sold without conducting background checks on

purchasers, without adding serial numbers, and without having to obtain a license to sell. So let me start by giving you a little bit of an idea as to what a weapons parts part kit is and what a frame and or receiver is. A weapons parts kit is exactly what it sounds like. It is a kit of firearm parts that can be assembled into a firearm. So essentially, instead of buying the firearm fully assembled, you are buying the parts and you're putting it together yourself. The thing is though, is that these kits don't come with the, or with a receiver. The firearm cannot function without the receiver. So the receiver and or frame has to be bought separately. The receiver and or frame is what actually makes the firearm a firearm

under federal law. It is the part of the gun that houses the firing mechanism. Now when you build a gun yourself, by buying these parts and putting it together yourself, it's effectively untraceable. Until recently, the ATF did not consider a frame or receiver that was less than 80% assembled or complete to be a firearm. And until recently, the ATF didn't consider a weapon, a parts kit, to be a firearm. But in 2022, that changed when the ATF updated the rule, and that is why we're here. The rule clarified that even partially complete or disassembled frames or receivers and weapons parts kits are firearms and therefore must comply with federal regulations. Keep in mind here, the definition of a firearm under federal law is any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an

explosive, including the frame or receiver. So again, do these weapons parts kits fall under the federal definition of firearm and can a partially complete frame or receiver also be included in the definition of firearm? Defending the ATF's new rule and arguing on behalf of the government was U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Preligar. This is who always argues on behalf of the Biden administration. The Solicitor General changes with each administration so currently it is elizabeth prelugar keep in mind in this case prelugar is focused on arguing that one the atf was within its authority when it issued this new 2022 regulation and two that these weapons parts

kits and disassembled frames and or receivers fall within that definition of firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and can therefore be regulated. The government was the petitioner in this case or the one asking the Supreme Court to review this case. So what that means is that the government argued first. Prelogar mainly argued that one, the new 2022 rule is consistent with the ATF's past practice and in no way fundamentally changed the 1968 law.

Two, that the main reasons people buy these kits is either because they're barred by law from having a properly registered gun or because they want to use it for a crime. And then three, she focused on how easily these kits can be turned into functioning guns and should therefore be considered firearms. Peter Patterson represented the challengers in this case, and he focused on the argument that the ATF exceeded its authority in issuing this rule by operating outside the bounds established by Congress when they enacted this 1968 law. His arguments focused on the differences in the original 1968 law versus how the law is written today because of the ATF's new rules. More specifically, that the 1968 law defines firearm as a weapon that will or may readily be converted to expel a projectile, but does not contain the same language for frames or receivers.

So according to him, it would not be right for the rule to apply to frames and receivers that may be readily converted when Congress didn't use that language in 1968, and therefore it wasn't their intent, and the law can only apply to complete frames or receivers, not those that are only partially complete. And therefore, the ATF went outside its authority in applying the law to those frames and or receivers that are only partially complete. In Prelogar's argument, she interpreted this differently and claimed that the appropriate way to interpret the 1968 law is to extend it to all frames and receivers, those fully complete and those partially complete. She argued that Congress was trying to cover both frames and receivers that can be readily converted to function with minimal steps.

And the only difference between whole frames and receivers and the parts in the kits or partially completed frames and receivers is that the latter is missing a single hole. She also noted that partially complete frames or receivers should be covered, even if not fully functional, because gun manufacturers could avoid regulations by leaving one little part of the weapon or the frame or receiver unfinished. Another major question that took up a significant portion of the oral arguments was the functionality of the weapons parts kits. As you can imagine, Prelogar was focused on the fact that weapons parts kits serve no other purpose than to result in the final product of a firearm, and therefore they should be

considered firearms under federal law, whereas Patterson highlighted the fact that a kit is not the same as a finished firearm. So to sort this out, the justices asked questions concerning how to draw that line between a collection of parts and a finished firearm. The justices compared scenarios where a set of parts represents the final product. As an example, Justice Alito asked Prelogar, quote, if I show you if I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped up ham, some chopped up pepper and onions, is that a Western omelet? End quote. Prelogar responded that the ingredients could be used to make other dishes, but serve no other conceivable purpose than to make a Western omelet.

Justice Barrett, in sort of working off of Alito's hypothetical, asked, quote, would your answer change if you ordered it from HelloFresh and you got a kit and it was like turkey chili, but all of the ingredients are in the kit? End quote. Prelogar noted that that analogy was more applicable since it's more like how the weapons kits are sold. In other words, the weapons are sold for the purpose of making one specific thing. Patterson, on the other hand, argued that the purpose of the kits is for hobbyists, making the comparison to people who

enjoy working on cars. He noted some enjoy constructing firearms. Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical here. He said, quote, well, I mean, drilling a hole or two, I would think doesn't give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends, end quote. as if they were more skeptical about the challenger's arguments and are leaning in favor of the government. In other words, keeping that 2022 rule regulation in place and letting it stand. Keep in mind, there are a couple of ways that this can go. The justices could say that the rule went outside the ATF's authority and it would end there. The regulation would just simply be blocked because it wasn't within the ATF's authority in the would end there. The regulation would just simply be blocked because it wasn't within the ATF's authority in the first place. I don't think that's how this is going to go, but that's one option. The other option is the justices say that this rule was within the ATF's authority and that the items at issue in this case, so the weapons parts kits and the frames

and or receivers, either do or don't qualify as firearms under federal law. And again, it's looking like they'll say that the rule was within the ATF's authority and that the weapons, parts, kits, and frames and or receivers are firearms under the federal definition of firearm. But of course, we won't know for sure until the Supreme Court releases their decision, which could be anywhere from three to eight months from now. But you know that I will keep you posted once we have that decision. What do Ontario dairy farmers bring to the table? A million little things, but most of all, the passion and care that goes into producing the local high quality milk we all love and enjoy every day. With 3,200 dairy farming families across Ontario sharing our

love for milk, there's love in every glass. Dairy Farmers of Ontario, from our families to your table, everybody milk. Visit milk.org to learn more. Moving on, on Tuesday, the DOJ announced charges against an Afghan citizen residing in the United States for conspiring to conduct an election day terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS. According to the now unsealed criminal complaint, 27-year-old Nasir Ahmad Tawhidi entered the United States on September 9th, 2021 on a special immigrant visa and is currently on parole living in Oklahoma pending adjudication of his immigration proceedings. Tahiti lives with his wife and one-year-old child, and actually his wife's brother is listed as a co-conspirator in the complaint. In a nutshell, Tahiti and his

brother-in-law were planning to liquidate their family's assets, including selling the family home, which was set to close on the 15th of this month, selling personal items like TVs, iPhones, computers, furniture, etc, etc. for the purpose of raising money to buy two AK-47s, some magazines and ammunition, and move their family to Kabul, and then donating the rest to ISIS's treasury. Once they received the funds from their sales and purchased the guns, magazines, and ammunition and got their family to Kabul, they were allegedly planning on carrying out an attack on election day. Now, the complaint doesn't really detail the attack. First, the complaint lists a text exchange between the two co-conspirators, which basically details their plan to, again, sell their assets, buy the guns,

donate what's left, and then how they're going to send their family members to Kabul to live. The only thing the text exchange really says about the attack is that once they receive the money from the sale of the house, they would, quote, begin their duty, God willing, with the help of God, we will get ready for election day, end quote. It wasn't until the two were arrested and interrogated that Tahiti explicitly stated that he sought the AK-47 rifles for the purpose of not only conducting firearms training, but also committing an attack on election day, targeting large gatherings of people during which he and his co-conspirator expected to be killed.

But when it comes to details of the attack, again, we don't really know much. That is pretty much all we know at this point from that unsealed complaint. Tahiti has been charged with providing, attempting to provide, and conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, as well as knowingly receiving, conspiring to receive, and attempting to receive firearms and ammunition to be used to commit a felony of federal crime of terrorism. As for the co-conspirator, because he is a minor, we don't have access to the complaint against him, but if you're interested in reading the complaint against Tahiti, if you're interested in reading the

complaint against Tahiti, I of course do have that linked for you in the sources section, which you can always find in each episode description, as well as on jordanismylawyer.com. And just a couple of quick hitters for you. P. Diddy is asking the Southern District of New York to look into alleged government misconduct after the government allegedly released old footage of him beating his ex-girlfriend, as well as details surrounding the search of his home earlier this year. Diddy said this quote-unquote leak was done by the DHS and was meant to tarnish his reputation ahead of trial. Diddy is also invoking his right to a speedy trial and asking that his federal trial take place in the spring

of 2025. And on Wednesday, so yesterday, Fox News invited Harris and Trump to participate in a second presidential debate on either October 24th or 27th. Harris has not responded to the request, but Trump has declined the invitation via Truth Social. And I should note that Harris, as of the time I'm recording, has not responded to that request, but very well could at a later date. And Hurricane Milton is now officially off the coast of Florida. Thankfully, the hurricane did not bring the quote-unquote catastrophic flooding in Tampa, Florida, as some weather experts suggested.

And as of now, the death toll is at four. Those four people lived in St. Lucie County, which is on the east coast of Florida. So while the west coast of Florida did receive Milton's direct hit, it was actually the east coast that was hit with a ton of damage from tornadoes. As of this morning, more than 3 million in Florida were without power. And now we can move on to rumor has it, but before we get into the rumors for today, I do want to quickly answer a question that many of you asked after last week's rumor has it segment. So last week, I addressed the rumor that FEMA had run out of money for hurricane relief because it had spent $640 million on

illegal immigrants. And in addressing that claim, I mentioned that this grant program that FEMA spent money on, SSP, is a pre-existing program. Many of you wanted to know how long that program has been in existence. So the SSP grant program has been in existence for two years. So it's a program that was created by the Biden administration to provide money for non-federal agencies that provide humanitarian support and services for illegal immigrants. The $640 million was actually transferred to FEMA from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the direction of the DHS. So the $640 million is not a part of FEMA's

appropriated annual budget. But if you are interested in learning more about that $640 million FEMA claim, go ahead and listen to this past Thursday's episode and all of this will make a bit more sense. Actually, for today's rumors too, we're staying on the same track. That is the FEMA government funding Hurricane Helene track. Rumor has it that FEMA is only offering $750 to Hurricane Helene victims. Some on social media are even saying that the $750 is a loan that has to be paid back. The loan portion of this claim is false, but let's add context to the first part of the claim. So in the wake of Hurricane Helene, Vice President Harris said,

quote, FEMA is providing $750 for folks who need immediate needs being met, such as food, baby formula, and the like, end quote. She went on to say that those who needed it could apply now. So to be clear, the $750 that Harris was referring to is for immediate assistance, otherwise known as serious needs assistance. Serious needs assistance is a one-time $750 per household payment to disaster victims who apply in the first 30 days of the disaster. Obviously, there are a ton of people that are in need of immediate assistance, well over $750, but that is what the $750 allotment is for. Serious needs assistance is actually a new type

of assistance from FEMA, which took effect in March of this year, so it applies for disasters declared on or after March 22, 2024. As FEMA defines it, serious needs assistance is money to pay for emergency supplies like water, food, first aid, breastfeeding supplies, infant formula, diapers, personal hygiene items, or fuel for transportation. The 2024 award amount for serious needs assistance is $750, but it will change annually going forward. So that is serious needs assistance specifically. That's what Harris was referring to in her remarks about $750. Now, on top of serious needs assistance, victims can also apply for other types of assistance

through FEMA, such as displacement assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, repair and replacement assistance, rental assistance, and personal property assistance. Obviously, all of these assistance programs have different criteria that has to be met in order to be eligible, so not everyone's going to be eligible. But all of this to say there are other forms of assistance outside of that $750 for serious needs assistance specifically. So that is the context there. Next one. Rumor has it that Congress won't return from recess to pass additional funding for hurricane

relief. This is true as of now, but again, let's add context. Speaker Johnson was interviewed on Fox News Sunday when he was asked about the letter President Biden had sent to congressional leaders on Friday requesting that lawmakers provide more money for federal disaster recovery efforts. Specifically, Biden asked Congress to restore funding to the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan Program, which is designed to help small business owners as well as homeowners recoup property and equipment in the wake of a disaster. Biden had previously requested that this be included in that recent stopgap measure that

Congress had passed to keep the government open or to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September, but it did not make it into the bill. To give you a number, the administration is saying that SBA's disaster loan program needs about $1.6 billion in additional funding to meet the Helene-related applications that it's receiving. So when Johnson was asked whether he would call Congress back into session before the election, because currently they are on a six-week recess, he said, quote, we'll be back in session immediately after the election. That's 30 days from now. The thing about these hurricanes and disasters of this magnitude is it takes a while to calculate the actual damages, and the states are going to need some time to do that. You don't just send estimates to the federal government, you send specific needs

and requests based upon the actual damages and that takes some time, especially when it comes to storms of this magnitude, end quote. He then went on to say that Congress would work in a bipartisan fashion to provide additional support when the time comes. So here's the thing. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, one way to do things is Congress can wait until they get a request for funds. That is what Johnson was implying that they were going to do. However, they don't have to. Now, if we look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana on the morning of August 29th as a Category 4 hurricane.

By September 2nd, four days after Katrina did the majority of its damage, President Bush asked and Congress passed $10.5 billion in aid. Less than a week later, on September 7th, President Bush requested another $51.8 billion, which included $2,000 debit cards for families to use on immediate needs. This bill passed the House the very next day on September 8th in a 4-10-11 vote and passed the Senate in a 97-0 vote. So does Congress have to wait for all of these states to submit their final tallies, as Johnson said that the states were going to do?

No. Could Congress act without that? Yes. Could President Biden request a number like President Bush did after Katrina? Yes. But does he after Katrina? Yes. But does he have to? No. So Congress says it's waiting on a funding request from the president before they act.

The reason they're likely doing this is because, one, perhaps the government has enough funding to get them through the next four to five weeks until Congress returns. And two, a funding request would likely make it easier to pass a bill quickly so that they don't have to, or because they wouldn't have to negotiate an aid package themselves. In the president's Friday letter, he said that FEMA has the resources needed for the immediate emergency response phase. So he did not include a funding request in that letter, but he did say that an updated request is on its way to Congress. So perhaps once that funding request is submitted, Congress will return from its recess early, but who knows? Maybe not. We

don't know when that request is going to be submitted to Congress. And like I said, it's possible the government has enough funding right now and Congress doesn't feel it's necessary to come back right away. Now, as a final note, there are some obvious differences between now and 2005 when Katrina hit. For one, Congress was not on recess when Katrina happened, as they are now. So it's a little bit different. Two, it wasn't an election year.

More games are played in an election year. That's just a fact. So to round this out, it's true that Congress is not planning to return from recess early, as of now at least, right? But what Speaker Johnson said needs context. Congress can come back now. They don't have to wait, but they can wait until they get a funding request from President Biden. So that is the context you needed there. And finally, for today's critical thinking segment, this is my daily segment where I just get you thinking about issues on a deeper level. So you don't just hear what's going on, hear the news and turn it off,

but rather actually come to your own well thought out, educated, informed opinions. So I want you to think about what we just talked about, what you just heard about Congress not returning from recess early to pass supplemental aid. Now, regardless of how you feel about that, I want you to kind of implore the different ways that both the president and Congress can handle this situation better. Get as creative as you'd like. In situations like this, we're so quick to blame one or the other when really maybe the blame isn't entirely on one side, right? So instead of thinking about how much you dislike one side's approach, I want you to think about what you dislike about the approach from both

sides. You can also think about what you like about the approach from both sides. I don't mean to be so negative. It's just a way to, you know, get thinking. Also, if you had heard this rumor before I gave the context, did the context I gave change your mind in any way? It's just a way to, you know, get thinking. Also, if you had heard this rumor before I gave the context, did the context I gave change your mind in any way? It's okay if it didn't, but whether it did or didn't, why did it or didn't it? That is what I have for you today. Remember, no episodes next week, so try to enjoy the break. In the meantime, I will miss you just as much as you miss me, hopefully, and I will talk to you again on the 21st.