'The Five' debate returning citizenship question to census

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," March 27, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Jesse Watters along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

The battle between the Trump administration and California escalating again over the heated subject of immigration, now the state is suing the administration over its controversial decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. California's attorney general fired up earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

XAVIER BECERRA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Given the way that this administration had attacked immigrants, you can understand why immigrant families would be afraid to fill out the census questionnaire. This latest move by the Trump administration to threaten California is not just a bad idea. It's against the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Population counts from the census affect everything, from federal funding, to how many House seats are allocated to each state. Critics fear the change will result in a substantial undercount. Here was the White House on the move today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is a question that's been included in every census since 1965, with the exception of 2010, when it was removed. This is -- we've contained this question as provided data that's necessary for the Department of Justice to protect voters. And specifically, to help us better comply with the voting rights act, which is something that is important and a part of this process. And again, this is something that has been part of the census for decades, and something that the Department of Commerce felt strongly needed to be included again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Michelle Malkin had a great line about this, Kimberly. She said only in America can you get sued for asking who's an American.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Well, this is the problem. I think in trouble in court. I thought it was the most unbelievable thing. You almost have to ask for an apology to the court, to the judge, just to ask someone's true name, identity, because they said no, we don't want to give it. What do you mean? We're trying to be here in court. We're trying to identify who you are, if you have a record, exactly what we're dealing with. Do you have any priors, etcetera, if you're a threat to public safety? Whether or not we can appropriately determine what your bail status should be and the schedule. Nope. And then you have 16 different names. No one knows who anybody is. And then, God forbid, if you ask to fingerprint someone and run them through the system. This is similar. Like, why would -- this is a legal right you're trying to get in terms of whether you're citizenship status is valid or not. What is your -- are you a green card, are you someone who is here as a legal resident, are you here illegally in the country? There's certain benefit to you depending on that status. And there are rules and laws in place for people to be able to attain citizenship, so why not. So is it fair to those people? Everybody who comes here and follow the rules and then have those that don't? And now you have to do an apology if you ask for it.

WATTERS: So, Juan, to Kimberly's point, are they just doing this because they want to protect the redistricting, and also the federal funding that they get from the federal government?

JUAN WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: No, I think they do want to do those things but it's not the reason.

WATTERS: What's the real reason?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think the real reason comes down to, do you want people to participate. The reason that we have a census, the reason that Federalist paper James Mattis established a census was that it was important to have an accurate count of the entire American population, in order then to make sure that we were properly representative in the house. Also, that we had statistics about where there was a need for federal funding projects and the likes. That it was properly distributed. So they wanted to avoid there being a revolution of people who felt that they weren't being represented by the federal government.

But I'll say this, let me just quickly add, this is about a situation where you had, I think here, it says on my notes, you had about, you know, 63 percent participation in the census in 2010. In the 1970's, 75 percent of the people in the country participated. Right now, the estimate is that it's going to go down to around 50, 55 percent of the American population will participate. But the objectionable part, Jesse, just to pick up on the point, it's that the Trump reelection campaign has sent out a notice to its fund-raisers saying, hey, let's get behind this. We want this. We want this. And you've got to stop and think then, so this is about politics? This is not about getting an accurate count.

WATTERS: OK. I'll ask this to Greg, then. Greg, if there were a bunch of Russians hiding out in California and, you know, don't you think the Democrats would want to know if there some illegal alien Russians, you know.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Democrats only favor one kind of election interference. They're picking a fight because it's part of a larger agenda to undermine, kind of, the Trump law and order ideology that actually works. And so, this is just another way of doing it. How dare the census bureau actually take a census? I mean, God forbid. The other questions -- by the way, the other that really bugs me, this is an example again of California spending taxpayer money to assist noncitizens rather than the citizens themselves. And they wonder why people are leaving it's because they're not getting the services. I mean, they ask about your date of birth which is ageist. How dare they do that? Ethnic origin, racist, occupation, that's work-ist. And of course -- we know gender is so offensive.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: What about marital history? I mean, that's single-ist.

GUILFOYLE: Take it easy.

GUTFELD: It's not a census. It's nonsense-cus. But you need this data so that you can help people.

WATTERS: Right.

GUTFELD: And the problem is, if you undermine the system because of some kind of symbolic ideology, you're going to end up with economic chaos, because you need to know what people are there and what they need.

WATTERS: If you were an illegal immigrant and you're taking the census, Dana, would you be scared to check the box, I am here illegally.

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: Right, because you're scared of, like, mass deportation.

WATTERS: Yeah. He's going to check the thing and roll it against the ICE.

PERINO: Well, in the 1950's, there was a mass deportation in the Eisenhower administration, which I think, probably, why this question was taken off later on in the years. But I'm not against this question being asked. The census is to allocate seats in congress, and resources from the federal government then are dibbed up. If you're not here legally, you do not have representation in congress. But I think one of the things the states have a problem with is that -- imagine you're Californian, you know that you have a high illegal immigrant problem in your state, or maybe you don't think it's a problem. But there is an undercount. OK. So now, you are without -- not just congressional seats but resources.

WATTERS: The money.

PERINO: So, that becomes a problem. And then it gets back to what Greg was saying that then you are basically using federal taxpayer dollars to try to pay for people who are here illegally. And that is the rub. I do think that they probably could have held off on the political notifications, because I think they're on solid ground legally.

WATTERS: Right.

PERINO: . and on the policy point. And they're saying we want to be able to enforce the voting rights act appropriately. Fine. Leave it at that. You can do the fund-raising later. You don't have to do it on the same day.

WATTERS: And this does ducktail with the sanctuary push that we're seeing out there in California, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah.

WATTERS: Now, I think a bunch of little cities in Orange County are saying enough is enough. And we had the mayor of Los Alamitos, I believe, who came out and is suing the state or trying to sue the state to make sure he doesn't have to go along with their sanctuary sets. There seems to be a growing movement, especially in Orange County to fight the California's sanctuary status.

GUILFOYLE: Right, because they're saying you do not represent the rest of our citizens here. So you have like different counties and municipalities standing up to assert their rights which they should. I love this part of government where you then have people saying, listen to me, you're not representing my interest. And in fact, you're doing us a disservice both financially and politically and ideologically. This is not where we stand. We actually want to abide by the rules and the laws on the books. We would like to continue to have federal government support and not act in disregard -- blatant disregard of the laws -- hundred percent. And you saw this kind of evolving over time. It was percolating in California. It's going to be very interesting how this plays out in the election coming up as well, because there're certain disparate parts that really have no bid for the rest of California and the way that they're behaving. It's like a very like vocal minority speaking out up and against people who, in fact, want to go, OK, let's just -- let's for our role and make sure we are going to get all of our benefits and not getting tossed out aside, and the cast out California, secede from the union, the whole deal.

WATTERS: The sheriff in Orange County said that -- I think from the beginning of this year to March 19th, they released 172 criminal illegal aliens out onto the streets of their county. Some are convicted of domestic violence, theft, DUI, and other threats. And they're saying enough. Like, why are we protecting the people that are in our county? My job, as the sheriff, I have to protect these people. They were forced to release these criminals out into the streets.

WILLIAMS: I don't think they were forced.

WATTERS: They had to comply with California sanctuary city policy.

WILLIAMS: No. Because if the federal government had a detainer or a warrant.

WATTERS: They're not allowed to communicate.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yes -- no, no, no.

WATTERS: They cannot cooperate.

WILLIAMS: There's no communication essay. The federal government will issue a warrant. We want this person.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: When they know who is in the system. They don't know who's in the system, how are they going to issue detainer?

GUILFOYLE: That's the problem.

WILLIAMS: If they know and they issue a detainer or a warrant, then.

WATTERS: They don't know because they're not getting the information because there's no cooperation.

WILLIAMS: Well, my point would be that Kimberly -- to continue that conversation, I think people have a right, and the sheriffs and the folks in Orange County have a right to say we disagree with the state. I am all for it. But I don't agree.

GUILFOYLE: I can tell you liked that.

WILLIAMS: What?

GUILFOYLE: I can tell you liked it.

WILLIAMS: I did. But I also think that it's the case, just as we're talking about the census a minute ago. When you have Republicans and Democrats who are former directors of the U.S. Census say to Wilbur Ross, the current head of commerce there for census, don't do it, we don't know if this is going to undermine the quality of our census. Six former directors, Republican and Democratic. I think it's a worthy point.

WATTERS: Greg, what do you think about that and the sanctuary chaos?

GUTFELD: We are a nation of laws. We're not a nation of sanctuaries. And it's the law that actually creates real sanctuary, not symbolic sanctuaries. This metaphor explains everything.

GUILFOYLE: Great point.

GUTFELD: Sanctuaries exist on the backs of others who do the right thing. It's like when somebody steals your wifi, right? Somebody can only steal your wifi if you actually are paying for the wifi, and the theft actually hurts your service. So sanctuary cities, which taken illegals, actually hurt the cities themselves because they are using more government assistance, more services and more benefits. So basing what sanctuary cities are, our people that are ripping you off of your wifi. And the problem with liberals is they can't see the logic. Let's just bring everybody in. Let everybody use your wifi because somebody else is paying for it. But over time, your wifi can't handle it. And it drives me nuts that we allow leftists to be immune to their lawlessness.

WILLIAMS: But I've got to say, Greg, I am going to tell my children what you said tonight, because they'll use my passcodes for various things.

WATTERS: I have a feeling someone is ripping off your wifi.

(CROSSTALK)

PERINO: That's why you need to name your wifi something like CIA surveillance.

GUTFELD: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: Any last word?

PERINO: Well, I would say that the attorney general of California is putting a lot of resources behind suing the Trump administration for lots of different things. Just like the Texas attorney general did the same thing during the Obama administration. But because they've passed this law in California in regards to the state and the sanctuary state issue, then, I think that they would be -- it would be good if the taxpayers of California could ask the attorney general for legal advice. So which laws should I obey? If the federal government calls me and they want to know something about something that's happening in my business, should I respond to them or should I call you? Like, who's going to protect me and which law should I obey? I mean, that is a problem. I'm a little disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided not to expedite review.

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

PERINO: . of this and let the court system play out, because I feel like the country really does need some clarity, legal clarity, and we're not going to get it for a while.

WATTERS: I know we aren't going to find out who's stealing Greg's wifi. But there's a lot of suspicious people. Ahead, the Stormy sideshow over at another cable news network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Your friend is a thug.

(CROSSTALK)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Thug, thug, thug.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATTERS: Don't miss Greg's monologue and our analysis after that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUTFELD: There's nothing better than a good old intellectual debate:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL AVENATTI, ATTORNEY FOR STORMY DANIELS: There's a reason why God gave you two ears and one mouth. You're supposed to listen.

DAVID SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: What about your fake lie detector test?

(CROSSTALK)

AVENATTI: You're supposed to listen.

SCHWARTZ: What about your phony lie detector test?

(CROSSTALK)

AVENATTI: He's a thug. Your friend is a thug.

SCHWARTZ: Well, thank you.

AVENATTI: He's a thug.

SCHWARTZ: That's a million dollars.

AVENATTI: No that's three million. He's a thug.

SCHWARTZ: A million dollars.

AVENATTI: Thug, thug.

AVENATTI: That's not the last picture.

SCHWARTZ: Oh, yeah, where is it?

AVENATTI: Buckle up.

SCHWARTZ: Where is it?

SCHWARTZ: To talk about some fantasy criminal indictment, you don't know what you're talking about...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHWARTZ: Look at you laughing.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Can I interrupt --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHWARTZ: Did you speak to Mueller? Do you know exactly what they're doing?

TOOBIN: Let me just, sort of, cut through the testosterone that's like cascading around me here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: Please.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, please, yeah.

GUTFELD: From him?

GUILFOYLE: Yeah, exactly.

GUTFELD: I know. All that brings back memories.

(BEGIN 'JERRY SPRINGER SHOW' VIDEO CLIPS)

UNINDENTIFIED FEMALE: You ain't nothing but a lying (BLEEP)

(APPLAUSE)

UNINDENTIFIED MALE: (BLEEP) (BLEEP)

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

GUTFELD: Yes, CNN, you've finally gone Springer. All that's missing is the hair pulling and the 300-lb bouncer. Maybe Brian Stelter can don a referee shirt.

(LAUGHTER)

GUTFELD: I wonder, could this be what Anderson Cooper's saw as a career arc: to go from high class to crass? And for what? To prove Trump had consensual sex not with his wife before he became president. I think America has filed that under: so what?

As for us, you won't hear a bad word about Stormy. Unlike Hillary and her friends, we won't besmirch the women. We're going to wait until Trump has at least nine Oval Office encounters with one of his interns fresh out of college and until he's accused of sexual assault by a woman who came to him for help. In the meantime, all we have is a story about a romp a decade ago at a golf tournament.

But with Trump, everyone knew his flaws before they voted. Decades as a tabloid staple didn't hurt, as well as all those prize-winning reporters now on the Trump gossip beat. And that "Access Hollywood" tape helped. Funny, that tape existed for years, tucked away in some creepy network dude's closet until it was leaked just before an election. What are the odds of that?

And so, CNN sacrifices what's left of its reputation trying to undo an election. To think, if only people had another chance to vote for Hillary, they'd forget about the woman who ridiculed her husband's accusers.

Congrats, CNN, you've redefined hard news.

So, K.G., I think what you're seeing in this anti-Trump media golf bag, the Hitler club didn't work, right? The mental instability iron, that didn't work.

GUILFOYLE: Yep.

GUTFELD: The chaos iron didn't work. The collusion putter failed. So bring the sex scandal wedge.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. But you've forgot the medical examination.

GUTFELD: Oh, that's right.

GUILFOYLE: It's unbelievable. Yes, and now we have this. It's like Ultimate Fighting Championship back and forth. It's like crazy juvie in the middle, very unsettling. You know, but this is back and forth -- and when you look at the poll numbers and what you're asking people and women they're like, what are you doing talking about this right now? And they say that they have evidence to proffer. It better be something really outrageous because now it's like they're overpromising and at risk of under delivering. Everyone got the big hype about the CNN fantastic interview with Anderson. And there was nothing much there, whatsoever. So, I don't know what is their point with all this? They're trying to undermine the American presidency with this and say, OK, this is something that's consensual prior to him being President of the United States, etcetera. One situation -- OK, now what? Where do you go with this? What are they trying to do? Impeach the president with this? Or they're just trying to, again, like, dirty the situation and muddied the waters.

GUTFELD: You know my favorite part.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: Can we just roll a little bit of tape of Mr. Toobin?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: Meanwhile.

(CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: You know, Jesse, it seems like Anderson Cooper is preparing for his next role as the Maury Povich. The next Maury Povich, because Maury is getting up there.

WATTERS: I feel like Toobin sometimes when you and Juan go at each other. I'm just like, oh, man, here we go again.

WILLIAMS: Here we go.

WATTERS: But they brought in Toobin because Avenatti, Stormy's lawyer, got his clock cleaned, and he couldn't take Cohen's lawyer on, Mano-o-Mano. And he was drinking water and he wouldn't look him in the eye. And he was asking Cooper for help half the time. It was a really not a fair fight, and you can see why. I mean, you don't think Donald Trump can hammer out an ironclad NDA? I mean, come on. It's Donald Trump. This thing is airtight. It's locked down. Every time he breaks it, it's a million- dollar judgment. That's a lot of money. And it's not like when you go on CNN, that's one time you break it. Everything you -- every time you say something about it, you break it and that's a million dollars. So, he's a terrible lawyer. He's probably going to get sued by Stormy for malpractice, so he better have a lot of insurance.

And this whole thing where they're teasing that they have a DVD? That's revenge porn. It's illegal to do that in California. And then, they also have this doctored lie detector test video. Everybody knows that's doctored. So, CNN, you say -- Juan's laughing. I don't know if you want to throw in with these guys, but that's a joke. And you have CNN whose brand is hard news and real news, and they've chased a Russian collusion hoax for an entire year. And now that hasn't worked, so they're pivoting to a porn star. If you poll people and say in the midterms what are your big issues? Russia and Stormy are not issues. They've lost the pulse of the American people, and not even Sanjay Gupta can find that pulse.

GUTFELD: Oh.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, no.

GUTFELD: Nice ending there, Juan. Can you follow that up?

WILLIAMS: You know, I remember when everybody here at Fox was so upset about John Edwards. Oh, John -- and, of course, it led to a trial. I think.

GUILFOYLE: It led to a bathroom stall where he was hiding.

WILLIAMS: So -- oh, yes. But I think it's also the case that he was -- there was a mistrial and even an acquittal on one count or something like that. But it was a trial. And what we have here, really, away from all the scandal is a question as to whether or not this was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign just before the election, a $130,000 payment. So I don't think CNN paid the $130,000. I think that was done by Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump's personal lawyer. So I think there's a real issue here.

And don't forget, when you're talking about, oh, gosh, Bill Clinton, pornography, CNN. I just think -- talk about irons that the right-wing uses to try to distract from the outrageous behavior at stake here. I think, boy, both sides, it seems to me, are reaching. But you don't have to reach to say, as an evangelical Christian right now, you see that, especially the evangelical Christian white women are starting to have some questions.

GUTFELD: Yeah. I put rape above everything else, but that's just me. Dana, we always worry about that Trump being blackmailed, but it seems like the media is doing most of the extorting.

PERINO: Well, I think she -- she, Stormy, would be better served if her lawyer was quieter and classier. She comported herself well in the 60 Minutes interview. And I would prefer my lawyer to just do the lawyering and not do the punditry because I don't think it's necessary, it doesn't help her. I also pulled up today just a statistic when I was on Capitol Hill way back when, and my former chief of staff is here in audience. We - - you know, we watched that whole entire impeachment hearings and all the things that went on in the late 1990's. And in 1997, Bill Clinton, when this all started, had a 59 percent approval rating, which is actually pretty good. A year later, after it all went down, all of the media coverage, all the hearings, everything, he -- in January of 1998, had a 69 percent approval rating. So, I understand why Democrats would want to try to do this because they think it might work. I just know that this -- from Republicans, learned a big lesson.

GUTFELD: Well, I think the lesson is that some of this hasn't rebound sympathetic affect.

PERINO: Maybe. But they can also harden viewpoints. And -- I'll stop there.

GUTFELD: Yes, I think so. All right, a former Supreme Court justice resurfaces from retirement to call for a repeal of the second amendment. Right back with that one, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUILFOYLE: Welcome back. A former Supreme Court justice is now stepping in to the national debate over gun control. John Paul Stevens retired from the high court in 2010. He's just written an op-ed in "The New York Times" about the protests sweeping the country.

He suggests, "The demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform." He said, "They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment. That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday's modules closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States."

Back in 2014, Stevens said legislative bodies should rule on gun regulations, not the courts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN PAUL STEVENS, RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The effect of the Second Amendment as it's now construed is to make federal judges the final arbiters of gum policy, which is quite, quite wrong, I think, and quite contrary to what the framers intended when they drafted the Second Amendment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: All right, Greg. So powerful statement, because this is someone who was actually making determinations, Constitutional assessments, whether laws were valid, upheld, what was comporting with the law. And he's saying, "Listen, they should actually go to repeal this."

GUTFELD: Clearly, he's delusional. But this is a really good example. And when you combine them with some of the more strident extremists from Saturday -- there were a few speakers there -- this is the kind of commentary, say, by judges, celebrities, or activists that validates the other side, the fear of American law-abiding gun owners.

So let's say you say, like, you're a common sense person and you go, "Those bump stocks, we don't need them. Those should be banned." And the gun control people say, "Yes, you're right. No, just bump stocks."

And then you go and you ban bump stocks, and then they say, "That's not enough, actually. We want all your guns."

And you -- and we're the law-abiding gun owner. We're going, like, "We're being told we're paranoid? That we're somehow seeing things or hearing things? We just saw things and we just heard things. They are validating exactly the fears.

These are things that the more you say that, the more you guarantee guns will never go away. In fact, the amount of them will multiply every day.

GUILFOYLE: All right. Dana.

PERINO: Well, it wasn't like it was on some crank website.

GUTFELD: No.

PERINO: This was in the paper of record.

GUTFELD: Right.

PERINO: It was in The New York Times. And no time like the present for Republican candidates facing a tough challenge or in the midterms to be able to say, "Well, do you, Mr. Democrat or Ms. Democrat, agree with John Paul Stevens that we should repeal the Second Amendment?" And then it puts the Democrats in a position of having to say, "Well, no, I don't." And it will -- it will be a problem for them.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, it's almost like making a bright-line rule and determination. But it's very sketchy territory. Because it's Constitutional rights, in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment. And now you have a former Supreme Court justice saying to call for the repeal of it. Pretty strident.

WATTERS: Well, there will be a civil war if you take away the Second Amendment. Could you imagine the armed people coming to gun owners' homes knocking on the door and say, "Surrender your weapons now or else"? I mean, it would be an absolute bloodbath.

And then what are you going to do? You're going to give all of your weapons away and then only the good guy -- only the bad guys are going to have guns?

GUILFOYLE: Well, that's --

WATTERS: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There's going to be a crime spree across the country.

Or you give up all your weapons and then the police, the military and President Donald Trump has all the power.

GUTFELD: Exactly.

WATTERS: Is that what liberals really want?

So to echo Greg's point which was really well said, this is why people get nervous. And it's refreshing to hear Democrats tell the truth.

GUTFELD: Truth, yes.

WATTERS: But this is a slippery slope argument. And it makes people join the NRA. Because you want to protect and expand your freedoms. You don't want to restrict them.

I would say it's the hardest thing to do in this country. You have to have, what, two-thirds majorities of the House and Senate, and then you have to have three-fourths of the states, which I think is 38 states or something like that. It will never, ever happen.

And to your point, red-state Democrat senators, they don't want to read this in The New York Times.

PERINO: They're already disavowing it.

GUILFOYLE: Juanito.

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm interested in hearing. You guys somehow connected what this Republican, John Paul Stevens, a Republican, who was put on the court by a Republican president, you're now connecting that to Democrats --

WATTERS: Thanks, Ford.

WILLIAMS: -- and also, "Oh, this is connected to those terrible young people who are trying to act rationally"? No.

GUILFOYLE: What?

WILLIAMS: The young people had an agenda, and it was not this. The agenda they had was fund gun control -- gun violence research; strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; universal background checks; limit on high-capacity -- sale of high-capacity magazines; and a ban on assault weapons. So what you have there is what the young people did.

But now I see that the right is so delighted by their Republican --

GUILFOYLE: No, no.

WILLIAMS: -- former member of the Supreme Court's writings that they're trying to then somehow damage the young people by throwing them -- I get this, like --

WATTERS: No one is trying to damage the young people, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. You remember when they had that young woman?

WATTERS: You didn't listen to Greg's point. If you're going to say let's ban AR-15 rifles, that is a slippery slope when you know what the true intention of the gun-grabbing liberal agenda.

WILLIAMS: That's what I'm saying -- that is not -- let me just tell you. I don't think this is the act -- we have written right in front of me the actual agenda of the people who marched on Saturday. This is not part of that agenda.

WATTERS: Yes, they're hiding their true agenda.

WILLIAMS: Oh, there you go. Yes, yes.

WATTERS: I bet if you went out and polled those marchers, and you'd say, "Repeal Second Amendment?"

WILLIAMS: You know what? Stop.

WATTERS: I'd say a majority would want to repeal it.

WILLIAMS: Let me just tell you something. I am someone who thinks it would be -- it was a mistake, a total mistake by Justice Scalia to say, "Oh, yes, what the founders intended was for everybody to have a gun."

What you're hearing from Justice Stevens, again a Republican, appointed and put on the court by a Republican, is this is -- this is a matter of an archaic law that was intended by the founders for a militia. That's exactly what it says.

WATTERS: That's not what the Supreme Court says, Juan.

WILLIAMS: No, that's not what Scalia -- yes, because --

WATTERS: In Chicago. We abide by what the Supreme Court says. It's the law of the land.

WILLIAMS: I'm all for it but I'm telling you, it was the wrong decision.

GUTFELD: A response to what I said, which was misinterpreted. I did not say all of the students, and I wasn't impugning their motives. I was talking about a select group of extremists that were there who actually did say they wanted to get rid of guns. That was there. And if you saw the signs, you would know that.

Plus, the idea that you cannot challenge someone over their beliefs because they're a teenager is precisely the opposite of what education is about.

WILLIAMS: No, but when you have --

GUILFOYLE: Point reiterated.

WILLIAMS: -- a picture about young lady and you doctor the picture, have her tearing up the Constitution, you understand what the right wing is up to.

GUTFELD: I didn't doctor any picture. I didn't doctor any picture.

WILLIAMS: But that's what the right wing did.

GUTFELD: You're conflating me with somebody else. Great job, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Oh, stop.

GUILFOYLE: You know. A lot of controversy surrounding a new parenting law about to take effect in one state. We have the details ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: A new law legalizing so-called free-range parenting will take soon -- take effect soon. It will give parents the freedom to let their children do unsupervised activities like walking to school, playing outside, or stay at home alone, without being penalized for child neglect. An age limit was not defined. It was purposely left open-ended so police and prosecutors can work on it on a case-by-case basis.

So Greg, I was -- first of all, free-range. I don't know. It reminds me of free-range chickens. But anyway, free-range parenting.

GUILFOYLE: Oh, my gosh. Delicious. Right?

WATTERS: Now you're making me hungry, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Oh, stop. Stop. Stop.

Free-range parenting. Governor Gary Herbert of Utah says he wants to do this. It's not illegal to let your kid play or walk the dog or take a walk, but it's going to be harder to penalize parents by people who call the police and say, "I saw a kid walking by himself down the street." What do you think?

GUTFELD: It's kind of depressing that you have to put this stuff into law. That's how bad this -- our society has become.

The worst kids that you can create are the ones entirely dependent on parents. And they do this -- they're the kind of children that other children want to avoid. If your kid is having problems with friends, it's because you're being overprotective, because they give off -- they give off the wrong signs in public. Because they don't know what it's like to be around other kids.

So they'll cry in public. You're not supposed to cry in public. You can cry at home. But if you cry in public, you're going to bring up -- you send up signs of vulnerability that allow for bullying. So you have to, like -- if a parent keeps the kid close, that kid will never know how to act with other kids. And that just destroys them.

PERINO: And they grow up to be the adults you don't want to hire or work with.

GUTFELD: Yes, exactly.

GUILFOYLE: That was a very good point.

GUTFELD: Yes. and I don't even have kids.

GUILFOYLE: I mean, and you have no clue -- no clue --

PERINO: You and I have no business commenting.

GUILFOYLE: -- what you are talking about.

PERINO: I yield the balance of my time to the actual parents.

GUILFOYLE: No clue, buddy.

WATTERS: -- Greg Gutfeld.

GUTFELD: But I am right, though, right? You're a parent.

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

PERINO: Apparently.

GUTFELD: Or so you claim.

WILLIAMS: Wow, OK.

GUILFOYLE: I gave birth and the whole thing. It's real.

WILLIAMS: But I want to say, you know, I am -- I am in sympathy with Governor Herbert. Because when I see a little kid on the street, I think, they've got to cross the street. What's going on here? I want somebody around.

GUILFOYLE: I agree.

WILLIAMS: On the other hand, I think to myself, I know that there's more abused in the home, you know, in terms of children being hurt or something then there is out on the street.

GUILFOYLE: Well, that depends.

WILLIAMS: But then I think, but do you really want to leave a kid unattended? So I'm kind of conflicted on this, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, listen, so am I. As a former prosecutor, I see danger and I fear about everything. So because -- yes, reality. Reality. When you see it in police reports, you know what's going on. So yes, bottom line is I don't let Ro the Dog wander around. Just not happening.

WILLIAMS: What do you think?

WATTERS: Well, I mean, I was a free-range kid and look how I turned out, Juan. A great specimen. So I was allowed to walk to school by myself and play in the neighborhood by myself.

GUILFOYLE: Maybe back in the day, Jesse.

WILLIAMS: Now you're a young man.

WATTERS: That was before the child molester scare of the -- the early 2000s.

GUTFELD: It's safer now. I mean, it is safer now.

PERINO: Everyone has a phone now.

WATTERS: And this is also for Utah. This is not for Manhattan. So you're not letting your kid go out --

GUILFOYLE: No. In Manhattan, you get hit by a cab.

WATTERS: --- and go get chicken down Fifth Avenue and then come back in an hour. I mean, there's really not a lot going on in Utah.

GUILFOYLE: But what age? What age?

WATTERS: You can let them play in the fields. They're out in the hills.

WILLIAMS: Stop, stop. There's Salt Lake City. They've got --

WATTERS: I understand, Juan. I'm saying just it's not like midtown where, you know, lots of traffic and lights.

GUILFOYLE: What age?

WATTERS: What age would I let who do what? Walk to school?

GUILFOYLE: A mini J-Dub.

WATTERS: I mean, there was -- a mini Jay -- like, you know, 11. Ten, 11, 5th grade.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Checking.

WATTERS: Fifth grade. But I mean, there was a person, I think, two years ago. It was a mother or father, who let their son or daughter walk a mile to school. And they got arrested, I think.

WILLIAMS: Yes, yes, from the park in Maryland.

WATTERS: They got arrested, which is totally government overreach. But that's fine. I mean, kids these days, let them do what they need to do. The last generation totally warped them, and that's how we got millennials.

GUTFELD: You just said "kids these days." You're officially 70.

WATTERS: Get off my lawn.

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: Now you're a Boomer.

WATTERS: Yes, I'm going to kick the free-range kids off the lawn.

WILLIAMS: I want to thank Mrs. Watters for letting you walk -- wander by yourself and turn into this Trump conservative.

WATTERS: Aw. Mom text coming up.

GUILFOYLE: Mom text.

WILLIAMS: Ever wish your boss wouldn't bother you on email when you're off the clock?

GUILFOYLE: Indeed.

WILLIAMS: There's a proposed law that will make it illegal. That's next.

GUILFOYLE: Wouldn't that be funny?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PERINO: Here's the question. What should Greg eat tonight, and is Crispy Beef on the Atkins Diet? If you can please e-mail us and then we're going to -- or tweet us, and we'll find out.

GUTFELD: I might get Chicken with -- Chicken with Cashews.

GUILFOYLE: Well, Jesse says no. And I want to know if you can order me something.

GUTFELD: All right.

PERINO: OK. But in the meantime, do you have a right to unplug from the office when you're off the clock? Lawmakers here in New York City will consider that this week when a councilmember introduces a bill to give workers the right to disconnect.

The legislation would make it illegal for employees to access work-related emails outside their regular work hours if it's not voluntary. France has a similar law that went into effect last year.

We just did a segment, Greg, about free-range children --

GUTFELD: Yes.

PERINO: -- like letting kids be themselves. And now the government actually wants to step in and tell adults how to behave at business. I can't stand it.

GUTFELD: Well, No. 1, do not take work-hour tips from the government.

PERINO: Or France.

GUTFELD: And -- France. This is -- if you need laws for this, you're a very -- you're a pathetic person.

The one thing, though, the thing I can't stand, though. I had a boss who used to do this. On Fridays in the work hours, arrange a meeting for Monday, like, out of the blue so you stewed about it for two days.

PERINO: You were worried about what it was going to be.

GUTFELD: That used to drive me crazy.

PERINO: Do you answer work emails after hours, Jesse?

WATTERS: Yes, because you have to in the news business or else you get fired. So it doesn't work for us. But if you have to punch a clock, some jobs, this is great.

I don't like taking tips from the French. Looks like France actually fined a baker for staying open for too many days a week. That's insane. That's why the French lose and we win.

GUTFELD: How much was the dough?

PERINO: Ha, ha, ha.

WATTERS: But the funny thing is, when we talked about doing this segment, all the producers loved this legislation --

PERINO: Yes.

WATTERS: -- because they don't have to field Greg's emails at all hours of the night.

GUILFOYLE: They're weird.

PERINO: One thing that you can do if you're a boss, Juan, if you have thoughts at night, you can let your team know you're not expected to respond to this before work hours. Or you can, like, put them in drafts and then send them when work hours start.

GUILFOYLE: Set a reminder.

WILLIAMS: I think that's a great idea.

PERINO: Yes, just trying to help everybody out.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think that what the French say is you should have a right to disconnect. And I think of this in terms of family.

PERINO: But you do. It's not -- the government doesn't have to give you that right.

GUILFOYLE: I think it's so stupid.

WILLIAMS: No, but if your employer says, "You didn't answer my email that I sent to you at 11 at night, and why didn't you do that, Ms. Perino?" I think that's outrageous.

PERINO: I'd say, first of all, don't call me that. Just kidding.

GUILFOYLE: But you are up early and you send me little pictures. But here's the thing. I don't like this at all, because I am obsessed with efficiency. I like to go through my messages, get everything organized, answer people back. I feel like this is winning in life. I mean, winning feels good. So I'm not into this. Like "no, don't answer, blah, blah, blah."

I like to see your weird emails at night, Greg. Dana's emails --

GUTFELD: And pictures, as well.

GUILFOYLE: -- or texts in the morning. Yes. Or the weird calls from you at 2 a.m., when you think you've got a scoop.

PERINO: Anyway, so I think we are -- we're not for this.

GUILFOYLE: We're not for it, not in the news business. Not in the news business.

PERINO: Not in any business. Answer your emails.

All right. "One More Thing" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WATTERS: Time now for "One More Thing" -- Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: Thank you so much. This is a wonderful "One More Thing" today, thank you Quinnette. And it's courtesy of Shannon Bream, our very own Shannon Bream who was on an airplane.

And she tweeted out a plea for help after a man on the plane told her about his 11-year-old nephew Emilio, who is battling cancer and has just days to live. And he absolutely loves the Marvels Avengers. And you see the tweet there.

She was hoping just one of the actors could send Emilio a greeting, and guess what happened. With the help of the Twitterverse and other journalists like Jake Tapper, Greg's man crush, within an hour she had responses from at least eight, all wanting to help, including Captain America, Chris Evans; Hawkeye, Jeremy Renner; even non-Avenger super heroes reached out, including Deadpool, all the way hot, Ryan Reynolds. What a sweet gesture for a very, very special little boy. So God bless you, Shannon Bream, and also Emilio and his uncle.

WATTERS: Very nice.

Speaking of sweet, here's some sweet dance moves from W. That is 43, dancing up a storm at the wedding of, I think, his niece. Was it? I think. Pierce.

PERINO: It was his nephew.

WATTERS: Yes.

PERINO: His nephew got married.

WATTERS: His nephew in Colorado. Dana knows more about my "One More Thing" than I do. Thank you for saving me, Dana.

Did he ever dance like that in your presence?

PERINO: Oh, yes, you've got to Google it and look it up, especially dancing in Africa.

WATTERS: Those were some great moves.

PERINO: That is -- he's totally unselfconscious. Amazing.

WATTERS: That's the only way to dance well is to be totally unselfconscious.

PERINO: Danced like no one's watching. Or, like, the world is watching.

WATTERS: That's right. And he sure was.

Dana.

PERINO: OK, we have a mystery to solve. This is the case of who bit Beyonce. OK. A recent interview with actress Tiffany Haddish revealed an unnamed celebrity once bit Beyonce's face at an after-party. And now celebrities find themselves denying this jaw-dropping accusation.

Here's Sarah Foster, a Business Insider reporter that e-mailing: "Flattering that anyone thinks I could get this close to Beyonce."

And then they even asked Shirley McClain, and a spokesperson said, "No. Shirley did not bite anything. She's 83 years old, for God's sakes."

TMZ is now reporting that Sanaa Lathan is the culprit. And she said, "You all are funny."

Anyway, will we ever know who bit Beyonce?

GUILFOYLE: How nuts?

WATTERS: For the original face biter, Greg Gutfeld himself.

GUTFELD: All right. That was a terrible "One More Thing."

GUILFOYLE: Hannibal.

PERINO: Thanks.

GUTFELD: Let's do this.

PERINO: You've been great.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAPHIC: "Greg's What's Up with Koalas Anyway?"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUTFELD: "Greg's What's Up with Koalas Anyway?"

GUILFOYLE: Oh, that's a good one.

GUTFELD: You know it. Did you know that in Australia, they actually have "The Five," but it's completely hosted by koala bears? Here is koala Juan Williams and koala Greg Gutfeld arguing over gun control. And it goes on for quite a while.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(TWO KOALAS PLAY FIGHTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUILFOYLE: Anybody packing heat?

GUTFELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Look how cute they are.

GUTFELD: Yes, they do.

GUILFOYLE: That looks a little bit more like romance.

GUTFELD: They are high on eucalyptus.

WATTERS: I think -- yes, you won that, right, Gutfeld?

WILLIAMS: Yes, because he had more eucalyptus.

WATTERS: There it is. All right. Juan.

WILLIAMS: So we switch now to a serious note of history. Linda Brown, the woman whose name is on the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, died this week. As a 9-year-old attending Sumner Elementary School in 1953, Topeka, Kansas, her dad attempted to enroll her in her neighborhood school, but his bid failed because it was for whites only.

That led to a legal challenge. And I came to know her story when I wrote the biography of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was the lead counsel in the Brown case.

Her family foundation now continues to play a role in encouraging educational excellence for all children. But with her death at 76, we're all reminded how one life can change our world.

PERINO: Indeed.

GUILFOYLE: Fantastic.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

WATTERS: Set your DVRs. Never miss an episode of "The Five." "Special Report" up next. Not a koala bear but a Bret Baier.

GUILFOYLE: Bret Baier.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS: So good.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.