Second Amendment Battle

" Hello and welcome a freedom watch your daily dose of raw liberty. Streaming online at foxnews.com. I'm your host judging -- Fontana. Here defending freedom. Defending your natural rights and defending your right to have a government that stays within the confines of the constitution. The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to assure that no government. Can interfere with -- individual's natural right to self defense self defense against criminals and thugs. And self defense against foreign enemies and domestic tyrants. I have defended this truism publicly for over thirty years in books lectures op -- and broadcasts. Today when I remind audiences. But the right is a natural one and it encompasses the moral authority to shoot a gun at the government. When it has been taken over by tyrants the audiences respond wildly. More so than I have ever seen in any public speech I've given or observed. The mood of the country has changed dramatically in 2009. And it is decidedly moving toward the framers view of the constitution. Here to discuss two very important Second Amendment cases. That are now before the Supreme Court. Is James -- policy adviser. To the future of Freedom Foundation James welcome back to freedom watch they don't trip beyond where you surprised that two federal appeals court's reading. The same Heller versus District of Columbia case that you and I read. And have worked at and have talked about somehow interpret that as applying. The right to self defense only is immune from federal interference. And not from state interference."

" Well it's hard the hard underestimate the idiocy below the federal judges. And maybe some these folks are -- trouble the congressman have that they don't read so good. It's it's shocking to me that the whole decision would not be -- self evidently strike down a while the local state. Our law prohibitions across the country because. There was a lot of places in Illinois and elsewhere -- have got laws against the citizens owning guns and your own homes that are so. So far over the top that they should never pass the laugh test at any level government. And yet it's it's -- bizarre we have to do another round of the Supreme Court decisions to find out. What the -- decisions meant that I actually says the bad."

" I think the Supreme Court is angry. I think it's angry that the District of Columbia is not moving fast enough to let people buy guns that direct defendant in the Heller case. I think it's angry that federal judges in Chicago and New York City and basically said all the city of Chicago gonna impose all the obstacles that wants to guns. And the state attorney general of the state of new York and do the same. Because I think the language in the Heller case. And the history of the Second Amendment makes it abundantly clear. But the right to self defense using whatever technology is available when you have to defend yourself. Is crystal clear is a natural right is as natural to us as the right to to think if you want and say what you think and publish what you said."

" Yeah I I think you're right I agree. As far as the the DC case it was so obvious -- the DC government was involved it was a sore backs were bad state that citizens of the district. It's part of blocked them from getting -- reveal parts of the god the defendants felt the bureau homes the a lot of top altars in the physical work. Plays and about other movement but all these hurdles in the way of the supreme court's ruling and this is that this is very similar to what's on the southern states did after the brown versus board of education case. And it's sad to see the same -- being used against people of all races and groups as far as her ability to -- the right of self defense but it's you know. -- his pulpit to think that they have the right to dictate. How people can live and die even their own homes and the air against suspect -- like what -- be city. Which has some of the highest crime rate and some of the worst police in the entire country is bizarre."

" It it is bizarre and unfortunately that big government attitude has invested the judiciary as well and one of the judges. On one of those two federal appeals court cases. That held that the states can interfere with your right to defend yourself is now on the Supreme Court of the United States indeed. Then judge yet. Sonia Sotomayor. Is one of the judges who said. That Second Amendment. Doesn't stop the states or about towns and cities from interfering. With your right to defend yourself I wonder if she will. Take herself off the case recused herself as we lawyers like to say when the Supreme Court hears it."

" Well I don't think I'd bet the rent money on that -- read I think she was chosen in part because of opinions like that. I -- the I think that the new that the new administration was liberal judges and at this point I'm liberals. And to be oppose the right of self defense even people don't homes."

" So I'll tell anyone think she was right about when she kidding he told an audience at Duke University years ago we all watched this played over and over and over again. On the on the news during the time of her confirmation hearings. That the federal appellate courts are where policy is made she was right. And she did know that the Supreme Court has a limited amount of time and resources to hear appeals from all federal appellate courts. And if she and her big government friends could get away with blocking something. Like the right to keep and bear arms while federal appellate judges they would do so."

" They'll -- this is this Pallet and has evolved over the last thirty or forty years there are Tony laws there's a record decisions. Almost nobody it would keep track conditions this is turned into a that the -- tyranny."

" Well where does this go. IC the Supreme Court is coming down with a new decision basically saying. We told you that this is a fundamental right so you can interfere with you and keep guns -- away from crazies but you can't put an obstacle. In the path of a law abiding adult to protect her or himself. In their home."

" and I think you're right about that and I think it's because otherwise the Supreme Court would would would have to. Rolled you know flip the flip over from last and -- basically take the second -- does it will make alcoholic unity except for. You know poked out while we go beer money. And I don't think a bid flip that far back so but it's really hard to trust the supreme court for anything because it's. It's way too close to a crapshoot for comfort."

" Just just looking at the practical outside of this. Our mutual friend and colleague John Lott has written a great a book called more guns. Equals less crime that is statistically you're given. And can even be challenged in the parts of the country where people are allowed to keep and bear arms race far less crime than in the parts of the country where people. Are not permitted by local and state laws -- to do so. When will the big government types ever recognize that."

" All of I don't vote question them having direct about it because as long as they have the power and loans they have it could dominate certain parts immediate. And have its way it was certain court decision they don't have to recognize it because it's. You know. It's very rare for a rare for those kind of -- you look at the very bad neighborhoods were ordered Asia 38 special in the life or death big for you. These are folks who live in my neighborhood did. It's very abstract of their where is the folks living -- no rough neighborhood through rough parts of the country who noted the dollar bought one wonders. You know of Texas if you -- they -- these are folks who who understand their rights a lot -- the -- On the rich folks who don't care."

" James Bob our thanks for joining us and freedom watch a trip beyond."