Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "AT ISSUE." I AM H. WAYNE WILSON. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE YOU WITH
ISSUE." I AM H. WAYNE WILSON. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE YOU WITH US.
WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE YOU WITH US. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TWO WORD
US. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TWO WORD PHRASES THAT WE WILL RAISE THE
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TWO WORD PHRASES THAT WE WILL RAISE THE HACKLES ON THE BACK OF PEOPLE'S
PHRASES THAT WE WILL RAISE THE HACKLES ON THE BACK OF PEOPLE'S NECKS, ONE IS THE SECOND
HACKLES ON THE BACK OF PEOPLE'S NECKS, ONE IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT, OR WE COULD SAY GUN
NECKS, ONE IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT, OR WE COULD SAY GUN CONTROL. BY WITNESSING THE
AMENDMENT, OR WE COULD SAY GUN CONTROL. BY WITNESSING THE RIFLE THAT IS SITTING ON THE
CONTROL. BY WITNESSING THE RIFLE THAT IS SITTING ON THE TABLE HERE AT THE "AT ISSUE."
RIFLE THAT IS SITTING ON THE TABLE HERE AT THE "AT ISSUE." SET, YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHAT THE
TABLE HERE AT THE "AT ISSUE." SET, YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC OF THIS PROGRAM WILL BE.
SET, YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC OF THIS PROGRAM WILL BE. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH
TOPIC OF THIS PROGRAM WILL BE. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH TODD VANDERMYDE.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WITH TODD VANDERMYDE. TODD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODD VANDERMYDE. TODD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US.
TODD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US. >>NICE TO BE HERE.
WITH US. >>NICE TO BE HERE. HE IS THE LIASON FOR THE
>>NICE TO BE HERE. HE IS THE LIASON FOR THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.
HE IS THE LIASON FOR THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. ACROSS THE TABLE AND ACROSS THE
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. ACROSS THE TABLE AND ACROSS THE AISLE IS CHRIS BOYSTER.
ACROSS THE TABLE AND ACROSS THE AISLE IS CHRIS BOYSTER. CHRIS IS THE DOWNSTATE DIRECTOR
AISLE IS CHRIS BOYSTER. CHRIS IS THE DOWNSTATE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR THE
CHRIS IS THE DOWNSTATE DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR THE ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN
OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR THE ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE.
ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE. >>THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
VIOLENCE. >>THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. >> LET'S TALK IN GENERAL ABOUT
>>THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. >> LET'S TALK IN GENERAL ABOUT WHY, WITH BOTH OF YOU, WHY IS
>> LET'S TALK IN GENERAL ABOUT WHY, WITH BOTH OF YOU, WHY IS THIS SUCH A DEVISIVE ISSUE?
WHY, WITH BOTH OF YOU, WHY IS THIS SUCH A DEVISIVE ISSUE? I MEAN WE HAVE HAD WEAPONS IN
THIS SUCH A DEVISIVE ISSUE? I MEAN WE HAVE HAD WEAPONS IN AMERICA SINCE BEFORE ITS
I MEAN WE HAVE HAD WEAPONS IN AMERICA SINCE BEFORE ITS CREATION.
AMERICA SINCE BEFORE ITS CREATION. WHY DO WE GET SO BENT OUT OF
CREATION. WHY DO WE GET SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE OVER GUNS?
WHY DO WE GET SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE OVER GUNS? >> I THINK ON OUR PERSPECTIVE,
SHAPE OVER GUNS? >> I THINK ON OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE
>> I THINK ON OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND OUR MEMBERSHIP,
IT IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND OUR MEMBERSHIP, AND PEOPLE WHO HUNT AND OWN
THEIR RIGHTS AND OUR MEMBERSHIP, AND PEOPLE WHO HUNT AND OWN FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE ARE
AND PEOPLE WHO HUNT AND OWN FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING
FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENSE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEIR
VERY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, RIGHT TO
THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, RIGHT TO DEFEND THEIR FAMILIES FROM
RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, RIGHT TO DEFEND THEIR FAMILIES FROM INTRUDERS, THEIR RIGHT TO HUNT
DEFEND THEIR FAMILIES FROM INTRUDERS, THEIR RIGHT TO HUNT AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES
INTRUDERS, THEIR RIGHT TO HUNT AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL AS A RIGHT ENUMERATED IN
AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES AS WELL AS A RIGHT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION SINCE ITS
AS WELL AS A RIGHT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION SINCE ITS INCEPTION THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT
THE CONSTITUTION SINCE ITS INCEPTION THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN A FIRE ARM.
INCEPTION THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN A FIRE ARM. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT
TO OWN A FIRE ARM. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT REMOVING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT REMOVING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PERSONAL LIBERTIES, OUR MEMBERS,
REMOVING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PERSONAL LIBERTIES, OUR MEMBERS, AND A LOT OF AMERICANS, THE
PERSONAL LIBERTIES, OUR MEMBERS, AND A LOT OF AMERICANS, THE GALLOP POLLS SHOW 73% OF THE
AND A LOT OF AMERICANS, THE GALLOP POLLS SHOW 73% OF THE PEOPLE SAY IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL
GALLOP POLLS SHOW 73% OF THE PEOPLE SAY IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND SUPPORT THAT.
PEOPLE SAY IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND SUPPORT THAT. BUT I THINK WE ARE A COUNTRY
RIGHT AND SUPPORT THAT. BUT I THINK WE ARE A COUNTRY FOUNDED IN LIBERTY, FOUNDED IN
BUT I THINK WE ARE A COUNTRY FOUNDED IN LIBERTY, FOUNDED IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THAT WERE
FOUNDED IN LIBERTY, FOUNDED IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THAT WERE GRANTED TO US AND PRESERVED IN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THAT WERE GRANTED TO US AND PRESERVED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
GRANTED TO US AND PRESERVED IN THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT MONKEYING AROUND WITH THAT BASIC
WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT MONKEYING AROUND WITH THAT BASIC PREMISE THAT'S BEEN ENGRAINED IN
MONKEYING AROUND WITH THAT BASIC PREMISE THAT'S BEEN ENGRAINED IN OUR COUNTRY FOR 225 YEARS, IT
PREMISE THAT'S BEEN ENGRAINED IN OUR COUNTRY FOR 225 YEARS, IT RAISES A LOT OF PEOPLE'S HACK
OUR COUNTRY FOR 225 YEARS, IT RAISES A LOT OF PEOPLE'S HACK HACKLES.
RAISES A LOT OF PEOPLE'S HACK HACKLES. >>FROM THE PREMISE OF YOUR
HACKLES. >>FROM THE PREMISE OF YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, THE
>>FROM THE PREMISE OF YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, THE PROBLEM -- THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME
ORIGINAL QUESTION, THE PROBLEM -- THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME AN ISSUE OF PERCEPTION, THIS
PROBLEM -- THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME AN ISSUE OF PERCEPTION, THIS SIDE HAS THIS STANCE, AND THIS
AN ISSUE OF PERCEPTION, THIS SIDE HAS THIS STANCE, AND THIS SIDE HAS THIS STANCE.
SIDE HAS THIS STANCE, AND THIS SIDE HAS THIS STANCE. I REPRESENT THE ILLINOIS COUNCIL
SIDE HAS THIS STANCE. I REPRESENT THE ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE BEING
I REPRESENT THE ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE BEING AND OUR MISSION IS REDUCE DEATH
AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE BEING AND OUR MISSION IS REDUCE DEATH AND INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH
AND OUR MISSION IS REDUCE DEATH AND INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH FIREARM VIOLENCE.
AND INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH FIREARM VIOLENCE. PROBABLE OTHER THAN ANY
FIREARM VIOLENCE. PROBABLE OTHER THAN ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON THE
PROBABLE OTHER THAN ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, THE HIGHEST
INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE AND *** RATE.
FACE OF THE EARTH, THE HIGHEST HOMICIDE RATE AND *** RATE. AND, UNLIKE THOSE OTHER
HOMICIDE RATE AND *** RATE. AND, UNLIKE THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES, THE COMMON
AND, UNLIKE THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES, THE COMMON DENOMINATOR, IS THAT A FIRE ARM
COUNTRIES, THE COMMON DENOMINATOR, IS THAT A FIRE ARM IS INVOLVED.
DENOMINATOR, IS THAT A FIRE ARM IS INVOLVED. WE HAVE, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE,
IS INVOLVED. WE HAVE, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE, HAS BEEN PERCEIVED IN RIGHT
WE HAVE, BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE, HAS BEEN PERCEIVED IN RIGHT VERSUS NOT RIGHT, IT HAS BECOME
HAS BEEN PERCEIVED IN RIGHT VERSUS NOT RIGHT, IT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE OF DON'T TROM P ON MY
VERSUS NOT RIGHT, IT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE OF DON'T TROM P ON MY RIGHTS VERSUS THE GOOD OF PUBLIC
AN ISSUE OF DON'T TROM P ON MY RIGHTS VERSUS THE GOOD OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
RIGHTS VERSUS THE GOOD OF PUBLIC SAFETY. >>TODD MENTIONED THE
SAFETY. >>TODD MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTION.
>>TODD MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTION. LET'S LOOK AT THE SECOND
CONSTITUTION. LET'S LOOK AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SO EVERYBODY IS
LET'S LOOK AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SO EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR TW.
AMENDMENT SO EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR TW. IT IS VERY SHORT.
FAMILIAR TW. IT IS VERY SHORT. TODD, YOU KNOW IT BY HEART.
IT IS VERY SHORT. TODD, YOU KNOW IT BY HEART. >>27 WORDS, WEG REGULATED
TODD, YOU KNOW IT BY HEART. >>27 WORDS, WEG REGULATED MILITIA, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
>>27 WORDS, WEG REGULATED MILITIA, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT
MILITIA, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. >>STATE CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE
BE INFRINGED. >>STATE CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE NUMBER ONE, SECTION 22 ALSO HAS
>>STATE CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE NUMBER ONE, SECTION 22 ALSO HAS SOMETHING, AND, CHRIS, ARE YOU
NUMBER ONE, SECTION 22 ALSO HAS SOMETHING, AND, CHRIS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
SOMETHING, AND, CHRIS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> YES, I AM.
FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> YES, I AM. AS YOU LOOK AT BOTH THE SECOND
>> YES, I AM. AS YOU LOOK AT BOTH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE STATE
AS YOU LOOK AT BOTH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE THE
AMENDMENT AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT IS
CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
SUPREME COURT CASE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF US TODAY. I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH
CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF US TODAY. I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE EARLIER ON WAY UP HERE,
I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE EARLIER ON WAY UP HERE, AND THEY SAID IN THE REALM OF
SOMEONE EARLIER ON WAY UP HERE, AND THEY SAID IN THE REALM OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY ANT TIME THE
AND THEY SAID IN THE REALM OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY ANT TIME THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, IT
WHERE WE ARE TODAY ANT TIME THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, IT IS AS RELEVANT AS THE THIRD
SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, IT IS AS RELEVANT AS THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS TODAY.
IS AS RELEVANT AS THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS TODAY. LOOK, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AN
AMENDMENT IS TODAY. LOOK, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AN ISSUE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY BECAUSE
LOOK, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AN ISSUE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC
ISSUE IN TODAY'S SOCIETY BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY OF.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY OF. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMON
SAFETY OF. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMON SENSE GUN REGULATION WHICH THE
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMON SENSE GUN REGULATION WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN ITS HISTORY
SENSE GUN REGULATION WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN ITS HISTORY HAS SAID STATES HAVE THE RIGHT
SUPREME COURT HAS IN ITS HISTORY HAS SAID STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENACT COMMON SENSE, SENSIBLE
HAS SAID STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENACT COMMON SENSE, SENSIBLE GUN REGULATION.
TO ENACT COMMON SENSE, SENSIBLE GUN REGULATION. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
GUN REGULATION. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT TO
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP OR BEAR ARMS.
OR NOT SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP OR BEAR ARMS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REGULATING
KEEP OR BEAR ARMS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REGULATING FIREARMS WITH COMMON SENSE GUN
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REGULATING FIREARMS WITH COMMON SENSE GUN LEGISLATION.
FIREARMS WITH COMMON SENSE GUN LEGISLATION. THAT'S OUR PER PERSPECTIVE OF
LEGISLATION. THAT'S OUR PER PERSPECTIVE OF IT.
THAT'S OUR PER PERSPECTIVE OF IT. >>WEREN'T PERSPECTIVE. WHAT
IT. >>WEREN'T PERSPECTIVE. WHAT COMMON SENSE IS.
>>WEREN'T PERSPECTIVE. WHAT COMMON SENSE IS. D.C. CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER OR
COMMON SENSE IS. D.C. CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO OWN A FIRE ARM.
D.C. CASE IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO OWN A FIRE ARM. YOU HAVE A SECURITY GUARD
NOT TO OWN A FIRE ARM. YOU HAVE A SECURITY GUARD CHARGED TO PROTECT PUBLIC
YOU HAVE A SECURITY GUARD CHARGED TO PROTECT PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT CAN'T HAVE A FIRE
CHARGED TO PROTECT PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT CAN'T HAVE A FIRE ARM IN HIS OWN HOME FOR SELF
PROPERTY, BUT CAN'T HAVE A FIRE ARM IN HIS OWN HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE.
ARM IN HIS OWN HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE. HE IS BARRED FROM HAVING A
DEFENSE. HE IS BARRED FROM HAVING A HANDGUN IN HIS HOME, HE IS
HE IS BARRED FROM HAVING A HANDGUN IN HIS HOME, HE IS BARRED FROM SHOTGUN TO TAKE CARE
HANDGUN IN HIS HOME, HE IS BARRED FROM SHOTGUN TO TAKE CARE OF HIS FAMILY IN CASE HE HAS A
BARRED FROM SHOTGUN TO TAKE CARE OF HIS FAMILY IN CASE HE HAS A BURGLAR.
OF HIS FAMILY IN CASE HE HAS A BURGLAR. WHEN WE HAD A CASE AFTER MAN IN
BURGLAR. WHEN WE HAD A CASE AFTER MAN IN WILMETTE, HAIL LAMAR, WHO
WHEN WE HAD A CASE AFTER MAN IN WILMETTE, HAIL LAMAR, WHO DEFENDED HIS FAMILY, HE JUST PUT
WILMETTE, HAIL LAMAR, WHO DEFENDED HIS FAMILY, HE JUST PUT HIS TWO YOUNG CHILDREN TO BED.
DEFENDED HIS FAMILY, HE JUST PUT HIS TWO YOUNG CHILDREN TO BED. HEARD A BURGLAR BREAKING IN HIS
HIS TWO YOUNG CHILDREN TO BED. HEARD A BURGLAR BREAKING IN HIS HOUSE, TWO NIGHTS IN A ROW, THE
HEARD A BURGLAR BREAKING IN HIS HOUSE, TWO NIGHTS IN A ROW, THE BURGLAR GAME IN HIS HOME, HE
HOUSE, TWO NIGHTS IN A ROW, THE BURGLAR GAME IN HIS HOME, HE WENT DOWNSTAIRS WITH A SHOTGUN,
BURGLAR GAME IN HIS HOME, HE WENT DOWNSTAIRS WITH A SHOTGUN, SHOT THE IN INTRUDER, AND HE
WENT DOWNSTAIRS WITH A SHOTGUN, SHOT THE IN INTRUDER, AND HE FLED.
SHOT THE IN INTRUDER, AND HE FLED. THEY CHARGED HIM WITH A
FLED. THEY CHARGED HIM WITH A VIOLATION OF HANDGUN.
THEY CHARGED HIM WITH A VIOLATION OF HANDGUN. IN YOUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THE
VIOLATION OF HANDGUN. IN YOUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THE BILL THAT SAID IT WAS WRONG AND
IN YOUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THE BILL THAT SAID IT WAS WRONG AND ILLEGAL TO CHARGE A MAN WHO
BILL THAT SAID IT WAS WRONG AND ILLEGAL TO CHARGE A MAN WHO DEFENDS HIS OWN FAMILIARFULLY IN
ILLEGAL TO CHARGE A MAN WHO DEFENDS HIS OWN FAMILIARFULLY IN HIS OWN HOME. THIS IS ABOUT
DEFENDS HIS OWN FAMILIARFULLY IN HIS OWN HOME. THIS IS ABOUT DEFENDING YOU ARE RIGHT TO OWN A
HIS OWN HOME. THIS IS ABOUT DEFENDING YOU ARE RIGHT TO OWN A FIRE ARM AND HAVE A FIRE ARM IN
DEFENDING YOU ARE RIGHT TO OWN A FIRE ARM AND HAVE A FIRE ARM IN YOUR HOUSE.
FIRE ARM AND HAVE A FIRE ARM IN YOUR HOUSE. >>OUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT
YOUR HOUSE. >>OUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE ALSO
>>OUR ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT MUNICIPALITIES, AND
LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT MUNICIPALITIES, AND THAT WILL GO INTO FURTHER WHEN
BELIEVE THAT MUNICIPALITIES, AND THAT WILL GO INTO FURTHER WHEN WE GO IN THE SUPREME COURT CASE.
THAT WILL GO INTO FURTHER WHEN WE GO IN THE SUPREME COURT CASE. LET ME BACK UP AND SAYS THE
WE GO IN THE SUPREME COURT CASE. LET ME BACK UP AND SAYS THE SUPREME COURT CASE DEALS WITH
LET ME BACK UP AND SAYS THE SUPREME COURT CASE DEALS WITH D.C.
SUPREME COURT CASE DEALS WITH D.C. >>WE WILL LOOK AT THAT IN A
D.C. >>WE WILL LOOK AT THAT IN A MOMENT.
>>WE WILL LOOK AT THAT IN A MOMENT. >>MY ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT
MOMENT. >>MY ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT BILL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT
>>MY ORGANIZATION OPPOSED THAT BILL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO
BILL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET FORTH THEIR OWN HEALTH AND
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET FORTH THEIR OWN HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN GARDZ
SET FORTH THEIR OWN HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN GARDZ REGARDS TO FIREARM REGULATION.
SAFETY STANDARDS IN GARDZ REGARDS TO FIREARM REGULATION. DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND
REGARDS TO FIREARM REGULATION. DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE STATE
DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE STATE HAVE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND
DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE STATE HAVE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND DIFFERENT ISSUES.
HAVE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND DIFFERENT ISSUES. IT IS THE MUNICIPALITY'S DEAL
DIFFERENT ISSUES. IT IS THE MUNICIPALITY'S DEAL WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
IT IS THE MUNICIPALITY'S DEAL WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS. >>A MAN WHO DEFENDS HIS OWN
STANDARDS. >>A MAN WHO DEFENDS HIS OWN FAMILY IN HIS OWN HOME, WITH A
>>A MAN WHO DEFENDS HIS OWN FAMILY IN HIS OWN HOME, WITH A FIRE ARM SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTED,
FAMILY IN HIS OWN HOME, WITH A FIRE ARM SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTED, CHARGED AND TRIED BECAUSE HE
FIRE ARM SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTED, CHARGED AND TRIED BECAUSE HE CHOSE TO USE A FIRE ARM TO
CHARGED AND TRIED BECAUSE HE CHOSE TO USE A FIRE ARM TO DEFEND HIS FAMILY.
CHOSE TO USE A FIRE ARM TO DEFEND HIS FAMILY. I DON'T THINK THE LAST REFUGE
DEFEND HIS FAMILY. I DON'T THINK THE LAST REFUGE THE PEOPLE THINK SHOULD BE IN A
I DON'T THINK THE LAST REFUGE THE PEOPLE THINK SHOULD BE IN A BEDROOM WITH A LOCKED DOOR WITH
THE PEOPLE THINK SHOULD BE IN A BEDROOM WITH A LOCKED DOOR WITH 9-1-1 PRAYING THE COPS WILL GET
BEDROOM WITH A LOCKED DOOR WITH 9-1-1 PRAYING THE COPS WILL GET THERE IN TIME.
9-1-1 PRAYING THE COPS WILL GET THERE IN TIME. >>BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GO
THERE IN TIME. >>BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK -- THAT GOES BACK
>>BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK -- THAT GOES BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION.
BACK AND LOOK -- THAT GOES BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, IT,
TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, IT, WELL, IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, IT, WELL, IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT. IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT TO HAVE
WELL, IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT. IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT TO HAVE THE FIREARM TO PROTECT MY FAMILY
IT IS MY INHERENT RIGHT TO HAVE THE FIREARM TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND SAVE MY FAMILY AND USE IT
THE FIREARM TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND SAVE MY FAMILY AND USE IT FOR SELF PROTECTION.
AND SAVE MY FAMILY AND USE IT FOR SELF PROTECTION. YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK THAT A
FOR SELF PROTECTION. YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK THAT A FIRE ARM IN THE HOME, WE ARE
YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK THAT A FIRE ARM IN THE HOME, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY.
FIRE ARM IN THE HOME, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY. NO ONE HAS EVER COME OUT AND
TALKING ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY. NO ONE HAS EVER COME OUT AND SAID THAT INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS
NO ONE HAS EVER COME OUT AND SAID THAT INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS NO BAN SAYS HE CAN'T HAVE THAT
SAID THAT INDIVIDUAL, THERE IS NO BAN SAYS HE CAN'T HAVE THAT GUN IN HIS HOME.
NO BAN SAYS HE CAN'T HAVE THAT GUN IN HIS HOME. >> SAID HE COULDN'T HAVE THE
GUN IN HIS HOME. >> SAID HE COULDN'T HAVE THE HANDGUN IN HIS HOME.
>> SAID HE COULDN'T HAVE THE HANDGUN IN HIS HOME. WHICH WILL BHETS HAS A BAN
HANDGUN IN HIS HOME. WHICH WILL BHETS HAS A BAN ACROSS THE BOARD, IN'S AND'S AND
WHICH WILL BHETS HAS A BAN ACROSS THE BOARD, IN'S AND'S AND BUT THE'S.
ACROSS THE BOARD, IN'S AND'S AND BUT THE'S. >>HE IS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN F
BUT THE'S. >>HE IS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN F HE IS CITIZEN, WITH A FIRE ARM
>>HE IS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN F HE IS CITIZEN, WITH A FIRE ARM IN THAT HOME, HE WAS NOT --
HE IS CITIZEN, WITH A FIRE ARM IN THAT HOME, HE WAS NOT -- >>WAS MARTIN LUTHER KING WRONG
IN THAT HOME, HE WAS NOT -- >>WAS MARTIN LUTHER KING WRONG FOR MARCHING AGAINST THE LAWS
>>WAS MARTIN LUTHER KING WRONG FOR MARCHING AGAINST THE LAWS AGAINST THE MINORITIES IN THE
FOR MARCHING AGAINST THE LAWS AGAINST THE MINORITIES IN THE SOUTH.
AGAINST THE MINORITIES IN THE SOUTH. HE DID CIVIL OBEDIENCE, AND
AS A TRUMPETER TO KEEP HIM RIGHT. HE NEEDED IT.
RIGHT. HE NEEDED IT. HE USED IT.
HE NEEDED IT. HE USED IT. >>
IT IS RIGHT TO STAND UP FOR REGULATION THAT SAYS, PROHIBITIVE PURCHASERS, SOMEONE
REGULATION THAT SAYS, PROHIBITIVE PURCHASERS, SOMEONE WITH A RECORD SHOULDN'T BE ABLE
PROHIBITIVE PURCHASERS, SOMEONE WITH A RECORD SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A FIRE ARM.
WITH A RECORD SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A FIRE ARM. THOSE ARE REGULATIONS.
TO HAVE A FIRE ARM. THOSE ARE REGULATIONS. THOSE ARE REGULATIONS.
THOSE ARE REGULATIONS. THOSE ARE REGULATIONS. COMMON SENSE --
THOSE ARE REGULATIONS. COMMON SENSE -- >>WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
COMMON SENSE -- >>WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE HAVE NOT SAID THAT
>>WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE HAVE NOT SAID THAT CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD BE ABLE
AND WE HAVE NOT SAID THAT CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK IN AND BUY A GUN.
CONVICTED FELONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK IN AND BUY A GUN. WE SAID DOPE HEADS SHOULDN'T BE
TO WALK IN AND BUY A GUN. WE SAID DOPE HEADS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO WALK IN AND BUY A CUN
WE SAID DOPE HEADS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO WALK IN AND BUY A CUN ON ARE.
ALLOWED TO WALK IN AND BUY A CUN ON ARE. WE WROTE A LAW FOR MENTAL
ON ARE. WE WROTE A LAW FOR MENTAL HEALTH -- TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE
WE WROTE A LAW FOR MENTAL HEALTH -- TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ADJUDICATED AND COMMITTED TO
HEALTH -- TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ADJUDICATED AND COMMITTED TO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS WERE
ADJUDICATED AND COMMITTED TO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS.
MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS. THOSE TYPES OF REGULATION, I
NOT FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS. THOSE TYPES OF REGULATION, I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON WHEN THIS
THOSE TYPES OF REGULATION, I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON WHEN THIS COMES TO THOSE ISSUES.
THINK WE CAN AGREE ON WHEN THIS COMES TO THOSE ISSUES. WHEN YOU SAY COMMON SENSE
COMES TO THOSE ISSUES. WHEN YOU SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION, IT INVOLVES BARRING
WHEN YOU SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION, IT INVOLVES BARRING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM HAVING A FIRE
REGULATION, IT INVOLVES BARRING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM HAVING A FIRE ARM FOR SELF DEFENSE, HANDGUN,
AN INDIVIDUAL FROM HAVING A FIRE ARM FOR SELF DEFENSE, HANDGUN, RIFLE, SHOTGUN, A FIRE ARM OF
ARM FOR SELF DEFENSE, HANDGUN, RIFLE, SHOTGUN, A FIRE ARM OF THEIR CHOICE. THAT'S NOT COMMON
RIFLE, SHOTGUN, A FIRE ARM OF THEIR CHOICE. THAT'S NOT COMMON SENSE, AND THAT'S NOT
THEIR CHOICE. THAT'S NOT COMMON SENSE, AND THAT'S NOT REGULATION.
SENSE, AND THAT'S NOT REGULATION. AS JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID WHAT IS
REGULATION. AS JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID WHAT IS REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL BAN.
AS JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID WHAT IS REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL BAN. THE D.C. SOLICITED, THEY
REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL BAN. THE D.C. SOLICITED, THEY COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
THE D.C. SOLICITED, THEY COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>GO AHEAD.
COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>GO AHEAD. I WANT TO MOVE TO D.C.
>>GO AHEAD. I WANT TO MOVE TO D.C. WE KEEP REFERRING TO D.C.
I WANT TO MOVE TO D.C. WE KEEP REFERRING TO D.C. >> LET ME GO BACK AND SAY, THERE
WE KEEP REFERRING TO D.C. >> LET ME GO BACK AND SAY, THERE WAS NO STATE BAN SAYING THERE IS
>> LET ME GO BACK AND SAY, THERE WAS NO STATE BAN SAYING THERE IS NO STATE BAN FROM HAND GUN IN
WAS NO STATE BAN SAYING THERE IS NO STATE BAN FROM HAND GUN IN YOUR HOME.
NO STATE BAN FROM HAND GUN IN YOUR HOME. MY ORGANIZATION MY BOARD OF
YOUR HOME. MY ORGANIZATION MY BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS GOTTEN TOGETHER
MY ORGANIZATION MY BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS GOTTEN TOGETHER AND SAID DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT
DIRECTORS HAS GOTTEN TOGETHER AND SAID DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT BANNING HANDGUNS?
AND SAID DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT BANNING HANDGUNS? WE WILL NOT BE AN ORGANIZATION
BANNING HANDGUNS? WE WILL NOT BE AN ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A
WE WILL NOT BE AN ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A HANDGUN, BUT WE WILL BE AN
THAT SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A HANDGUN, BUT WE WILL BE AN ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS IF YOU
HANDGUN, BUT WE WILL BE AN ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A HANDGUN IN THE HOME, YOU
ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A HANDGUN IN THE HOME, YOU SHOULD KNOW THERE IS INHERENT
HAVE A HANDGUN IN THE HOME, YOU SHOULD KNOW THERE IS INHERENT RISKS.
SHOULD KNOW THERE IS INHERENT RISKS. WE MIGHT -- AND WE ARE GOING TO
RISKS. WE MIGHT -- AND WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT MUNICIPALITIES WHO FEEL
WE MIGHT -- AND WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT MUNICIPALITIES WHO FEEL THEY NEED TO HAVE A BAN ON
SUPPORT MUNICIPALITIES WHO FEEL THEY NEED TO HAVE A BAN ON FIREARMS IN THAT MUNICIPALITY,
THEY NEED TO HAVE A BAN ON FIREARMS IN THAT MUNICIPALITY, WE BELIEVE IT IS THEIR RIGHT
FIREARMS IN THAT MUNICIPALITY, WE BELIEVE IT IS THEIR RIGHT BASED UPON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
WE BELIEVE IT IS THEIR RIGHT BASED UPON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND
BASED UPON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE ISSUES THEY HAVE TO DEAL
STANDARDS IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE ISSUES THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
THE ISSUES THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH. BUT OUR PERSPECTIVE IS MORE
WITH. BUT OUR PERSPECTIVE IS MORE PROMINENT ISSUE OF PREVENTION.
BUT OUR PERSPECTIVE IS MORE PROMINENT ISSUE OF PREVENTION. WE TAKE THE STANCE THAT YOU NEED
PROMINENT ISSUE OF PREVENTION. WE TAKE THE STANCE THAT YOU NEED THESE REGULATIONS FOR
WE TAKE THE STANCE THAT YOU NEED THESE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTION.
THESE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTION. ARE THEY GOING TO SOLVE THEM ALL
PREVENTION. ARE THEY GOING TO SOLVE THEM ALL NO.
ARE THEY GOING TO SOLVE THEM ALL NO. ARE THEY GOING TO STOP
NO. ARE THEY GOING TO STOP EVERYTHING?
ARE THEY GOING TO STOP EVERYTHING? NO.
EVERYTHING? NO. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF
NO. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF CRIME.
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF CRIME. ITS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF
CRIME. ITS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF PROTECTING ONE'S SELF.
ITS NOT NECESSARILY ISSUE OF PROTECTING ONE'S SELF. WHEN YOU LOOK AT VIOLENCE, YOU
PROTECTING ONE'S SELF. WHEN YOU LOOK AT VIOLENCE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT ONE OF
WHEN YOU LOOK AT VIOLENCE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS SUICIDE AND ACCIDENTAL
THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS SUICIDE AND ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS.
SUICIDE AND ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS. SOME OF THESE ARE DESIGNED WITH
SHOOTINGS. SOME OF THESE ARE DESIGNED WITH PREVENTATIVE MEASURES, TO
SOME OF THESE ARE DESIGNED WITH PREVENTATIVE MEASURES, TO PREVENT CRIMINAL INTENT, AND
PREVENTATIVE MEASURES, TO PREVENT CRIMINAL INTENT, AND ACCESSIBILITY.
PREVENT CRIMINAL INTENT, AND ACCESSIBILITY. WHEN THERE IS INCREASED
ACCESSIBILITY. WHEN THERE IS INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY, YOU HAVE
WHEN THERE IS INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY, YOU HAVE INCREASED RISKS.
ACCESSIBILITY, YOU HAVE INCREASED RISKS. >>FOR AUDIENCE BENEFIT, LET'S GO
INCREASED RISKS. >>FOR AUDIENCE BENEFIT, LET'S GO BACK TO THE D.C. CASE.
>>FOR AUDIENCE BENEFIT, LET'S GO BACK TO THE D.C. CASE. FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES,
BACK TO THE D.C. CASE. FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES, WASHINGTON D.C. HAS HAD A
FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES, WASHINGTON D.C. HAS HAD A HANDGUN BAN.
WASHINGTON D.C. HAS HAD A HANDGUN BAN. THAT HAS COME TO SUPREME COURT.
HANDGUN BAN. THAT HAS COME TO SUPREME COURT. ORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD.
THAT HAS COME TO SUPREME COURT. ORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD. WE EXPECT SOMETIME IN THE EARLY
ORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD. WE EXPECT SOMETIME IN THE EARLY SUMMER TO HEAR THE RESULTS OF
WE EXPECT SOMETIME IN THE EARLY SUMMER TO HEAR THE RESULTS OF THAT.
SUMMER TO HEAR THE RESULTS OF THAT. YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOME OF
THAT. YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED
YOU MADE REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENT. >> THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS YOU
DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENT. >> THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS YOU HAVE *** HELLER, THE PLAINTIFF
>> THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS YOU HAVE *** HELLER, THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE, WHO IS IS SECURITY
HAVE *** HELLER, THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE, WHO IS IS SECURITY GUARD, WHO WANTED TO KEEP A
IN THIS CASE, WHO IS IS SECURITY GUARD, WHO WANTED TO KEEP A HANDGUN IN HIS HOME FOR HIS OWN
GUARD, WHO WANTED TO KEEP A HANDGUN IN HIS HOME FOR HIS OWN SELF PROTECTION.
HANDGUN IN HIS HOME FOR HIS OWN SELF PROTECTION. HE CARRIES ONE AT WORK TO
SELF PROTECTION. HE CARRIES ONE AT WORK TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND
HE CARRIES ONE AT WORK TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY.
PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY. HE WANTED TO HAVE ONE BECAUSE HE
PUBLIC PROPERTY. HE WANTED TO HAVE ONE BECAUSE HE LIVES IN A HIGH CRIME AREA FOR
HE WANTED TO HAVE ONE BECAUSE HE LIVES IN A HIGH CRIME AREA FOR SELF DEFENSE IN HIS OWN HOME.
LIVES IN A HIGH CRIME AREA FOR SELF DEFENSE IN HIS OWN HOME. THE CIRCUIT DENIED HIS CHALLENGE
SELF DEFENSE IN HIS OWN HOME. THE CIRCUIT DENIED HIS CHALLENGE THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD HIS
THE CIRCUIT DENIED HIS CHALLENGE THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD HIS RIGHT TO HAVE A FIRE ARM STRUCK
THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD HIS RIGHT TO HAVE A FIRE ARM STRUCK DOWN THE D.C. HANDGUN IS
RIGHT TO HAVE A FIRE ARM STRUCK DOWN THE D.C. HANDGUN IS VIOLATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
DOWN THE D.C. HANDGUN IS VIOLATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
VIOLATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE D.C. CITY COUNCIL APPEALED
UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE D.C. CITY COUNCIL APPEALED THAT TO THE UNITED STATES
THE D.C. CITY COUNCIL APPEALED THAT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
THAT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKEN UP THE
SUPREME COURT. U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKEN UP THE CASE AND ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE
U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKEN UP THE CASE AND ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE JUST HEARD ON THE 18TH OF MARCH.
CASE AND ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE JUST HEARD ON THE 18TH OF MARCH. IT IS VERY TELLING BY THROUGH
JUST HEARD ON THE 18TH OF MARCH. IT IS VERY TELLING BY THROUGH THE QUESTIONS -- A A LOT OF
IT IS VERY TELLING BY THROUGH THE QUESTIONS -- A A LOT OF TIMES SUPREME COURT OBSERVERS
THE QUESTIONS -- A A LOT OF TIMES SUPREME COURT OBSERVERS SAY DON'T READ EVERYTHING INTO
TIMES SUPREME COURT OBSERVERS SAY DON'T READ EVERYTHING INTO THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OR QUESTIONS
SAY DON'T READ EVERYTHING INTO THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED.
THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. WHEN YOU HAVE JUSTICE KENNEDY
THAT WERE ASKED. WHEN YOU HAVE JUSTICE KENNEDY COME OUT AND SAY HE SEES AN
WHEN YOU HAVE JUSTICE KENNEDY COME OUT AND SAY HE SEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, ABSENT ANY
COME OUT AND SAY HE SEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, ABSENT ANY CONNECTION TO THE MILITIA.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, ABSENT ANY CONNECTION TO THE MILITIA. IT IS A WAY OF TELLING WHERE THE
CONNECTION TO THE MILITIA. IT IS A WAY OF TELLING WHERE THE JUSTICES ARE GOING.
IT IS A WAY OF TELLING WHERE THE JUSTICES ARE GOING. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS QUESTIONED
JUSTICES ARE GOING. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS QUESTIONED THE COUNSEL FOR D.C. WHAT WAS
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS QUESTIONED THE COUNSEL FOR D.C. WHAT WAS REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON
THE COUNSEL FOR D.C. WHAT WAS REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS.
REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
CLASS OF FIREARMS. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THEY
HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THEY ARE GOES CLOSE TO 9 OH BRIEFS
AND IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THEY ARE GOES CLOSE TO 9 OH BRIEFS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.
ARE GOES CLOSE TO 9 OH BRIEFS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THE ANTI
FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THE ANTI GUN GROUPS WENT FROM IT IS NOT
IF YOU READ THE BRIEFS, THE ANTI GUN GROUPS WENT FROM IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
GUN GROUPS WENT FROM IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. IT IS ONLY SUBJECT TO YOUR
AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. IT IS ONLY SUBJECT TO YOUR SERVICE WITH THE MILITIA TO
IT IS ONLY SUBJECT TO YOUR SERVICE WITH THE MILITIA TO TODAY THEY ARE NOW SAYING WE ARE
SERVICE WITH THE MILITIA TO TODAY THEY ARE NOW SAYING WE ARE HOPING THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN SET
TODAY THEY ARE NOW SAYING WE ARE HOPING THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN SET THEIR OWN REGULATIONS BASED ON
HOPING THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN SET THEIR OWN REGULATIONS BASED ON THEIR NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS.
THEIR OWN REGULATIONS BASED ON THEIR NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS. WE TAKE THE POSITION THIS IS AN
THEIR NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS. WE TAKE THE POSITION THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
WE TAKE THE POSITION THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THIS IS A RIGHT JUST LIKE THE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THIS IS A RIGHT JUST LIKE THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR JUST LIKE THE
THIS IS A RIGHT JUST LIKE THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR JUST LIKE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR THE FIFTH
FIRST AMENDMENT OR JUST LIKE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THAT YOU CAN'T
FOURTH AMENDMENT OR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THAT YOU CAN'T SUBJECT A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO
AMENDMENT AND THAT YOU CAN'T SUBJECT A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO JUST POLITICAL WHIMS.
SUBJECT A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO JUST POLITICAL WHIMS. THAT IS IT IS UP FOR A
JUST POLITICAL WHIMS. THAT IS IT IS UP FOR A REFERENDUM VOTE EVERY TIME YOU
THAT IS IT IS UP FOR A REFERENDUM VOTE EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO GO DO SOMETHING ELSE.
REFERENDUM VOTE EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. >>WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
WANT TO GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. >>WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS CASE, NATIONAL RIFLE
>>WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS CASE, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS HAVE
THIS CASE, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS HAVE LOOKED AT THE SUPREME COURT CASE
ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS HAVE LOOKED AT THE SUPREME COURT CASE CHOMPING AT THE THE BY BECAUSE
LOOKED AT THE SUPREME COURT CASE CHOMPING AT THE THE BY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE E FIEF
CHOMPING AT THE THE BY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE E FIEF ANY OF SUPREME COURT CASES.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE E FIEF ANY OF SUPREME COURT CASES. YOU HAVE TO --
ANY OF SUPREME COURT CASES. YOU HAVE TO -- >>BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT
YOU HAVE TO -- >>BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HASN'T REALLY RULED ON ANY GUN
>>BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HASN'T REALLY RULED ON ANY GUN ISSUES.
HASN'T REALLY RULED ON ANY GUN ISSUES. >>IN SEVEN YEARS, THEY HAVEN'T
ISSUES. >>IN SEVEN YEARS, THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN THE STRAIGHT UP QUESTION.
>>IN SEVEN YEARS, THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN THE STRAIGHT UP QUESTION. >>WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE
TAKEN THE STRAIGHT UP QUESTION. >>WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY DEALS
>>WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH D.C.
THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH D.C. THE D.C. BAN.
WITH D.C. THE D.C. BAN. MR. VANDERMYDE AND OTHERS WOULD
THE D.C. BAN. MR. VANDERMYDE AND OTHERS WOULD WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, HOWEVER THE
MR. VANDERMYDE AND OTHERS WOULD WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, HOWEVER THE SUPREME COURT THAT WILL HAVE AN
WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, HOWEVER THE SUPREME COURT THAT WILL HAVE AN AFFECT ON, FOR INSTANCE,
SUPREME COURT THAT WILL HAVE AN AFFECT ON, FOR INSTANCE, CHICAGO'S ORDINANCES, AND OTHER
AFFECT ON, FOR INSTANCE, CHICAGO'S ORDINANCES, AND OTHER ORDINANCES, MUNICIPALITIES THAT
CHICAGO'S ORDINANCES, AND OTHER ORDINANCES, MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE THEIR OWN ORDINANCES.
ORDINANCES, MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE THEIR OWN ORDINANCES. THIS WOULD NOT.
HAVE THEIR OWN ORDINANCES. THIS WOULD NOT. THIS WOULD SPECIFICALLY DEAL
THIS WOULD NOT. THIS WOULD SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH D.C.
THIS WOULD SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH D.C. THEREFORE, THE CHICAGO BAN WOULD
WITH D.C. THEREFORE, THE CHICAGO BAN WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE AND OTHER
THEREFORE, THE CHICAGO BAN WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE AND OTHER AREAS IN ILLINOIS, OTHER
STILL BE IN PLACE AND OTHER AREAS IN ILLINOIS, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, BANS WOULD STILL
AREAS IN ILLINOIS, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, BANS WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE.
MUNICIPALITIES, BANS WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. >>IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
BE IN PLACE. >>IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. >>WELL, BUT THE SUPREME COURT,
>>IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. >>WELL, BUT THE SUPREME COURT, AND WE WOULD HOPE -- WE HAVEN'T
>>WELL, BUT THE SUPREME COURT, AND WE WOULD HOPE -- WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING YET.
AND WE WOULD HOPE -- WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING YET. THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD.
HAD A RULING YET. THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING YET.
THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING YET. SUPREME COURT HISTORICALLY HAS
WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING YET. SUPREME COURT HISTORICALLY HAS AIRED ON THE SIDE THAT STATES DO
SUPREME COURT HISTORICALLY HAS AIRED ON THE SIDE THAT STATES DO HAVE A RIGHT, AND THERE IS IS A
AIRED ON THE SIDE THAT STATES DO HAVE A RIGHT, AND THERE IS IS A RIGHT TO REGULATE FIREARMS.
HAVE A RIGHT, AND THERE IS IS A RIGHT TO REGULATE FIREARMS. AND, AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK, WE
RIGHT TO REGULATE FIREARMS. AND, AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK, WE BELIEVE, WE ARE AN ORGANIZATION
AND, AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK, WE BELIEVE, WE ARE AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO REDUCE DEATH AND
BELIEVE, WE ARE AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO REDUCE DEATH AND INJURY ASOD WITH FIREARM
THAT WANTS TO REDUCE DEATH AND INJURY ASOD WITH FIREARM VIOLENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THOSE
INJURY ASOD WITH FIREARM VIOLENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THOSE REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO
VIOLENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THOSE REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PRESPRENT DEATH AND INJURY.
REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PRESPRENT DEATH AND INJURY. >>WILMETTE AND OTHERS HAD THE
PRESPRENT DEATH AND INJURY. >>WILMETTE AND OTHERS HAD THE RIGHT TO REGULATE, IS THAT
>>WILMETTE AND OTHERS HAD THE RIGHT TO REGULATE, IS THAT REGULATION?
RIGHT TO REGULATE, IS THAT REGULATION? >> NO, I THINK JUSTICE ROBERTS'
REGULATION? >> NO, I THINK JUSTICE ROBERTS' QUESTION CUT TO THE HEART OF
>> NO, I THINK JUSTICE ROBERTS' QUESTION CUT TO THE HEART OF THAT.
QUESTION CUT TO THE HEART OF THAT. WHAT IS REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL
THAT. WHAT IS REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS.
WHAT IS REASONABLE ABOUT A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS. I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE
BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS. I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE HEART OF THIS.
I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE HEART OF THIS. I THINK BASED ON OUR READ OF IT,
AT THE HEART OF THIS. I THINK BASED ON OUR READ OF IT, I THINK THERE ARE FIVE JUSTICES
I THINK BASED ON OUR READ OF IT, I THINK THERE ARE FIVE JUSTICES THERE WHO WILL VOTE THAT IT IS
I THINK THERE ARE FIVE JUSTICES THERE WHO WILL VOTE THAT IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
THERE WHO WILL VOTE THAT IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. I THINK YOU WILL HAVE FIVE
AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. I THINK YOU WILL HAVE FIVE JUSTICES WHO WILL STRIKE DOWN
I THINK YOU WILL HAVE FIVE JUSTICES WHO WILL STRIKE DOWN THE D.C. HANDGUN BAN AS NOT
JUSTICES WHO WILL STRIKE DOWN THE D.C. HANDGUN BAN AS NOT BEING REASONABLE UNDER ANY TEST
THE D.C. HANDGUN BAN AS NOT BEING REASONABLE UNDER ANY TEST YOU COULD APLY TO A
BEING REASONABLE UNDER ANY TEST YOU COULD APLY TO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
YOU COULD APLY TO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. FROM THERE, IF THOSE TWO THINGS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. FROM THERE, IF THOSE TWO THINGS OCCUR, THE NEXT ONE IS HOW FAR
FROM THERE, IF THOSE TWO THINGS OCCUR, THE NEXT ONE IS HOW FAR AND HOW WIDE THIS DECISION MAY
OCCUR, THE NEXT ONE IS HOW FAR AND HOW WIDE THIS DECISION MAY GO.
AND HOW WIDE THIS DECISION MAY GO. BECAUSE IF THEY BRING IN THE
GO. BECAUSE IF THEY BRING IN THE INCORPORATION OF THE 14TH
BECAUSE IF THEY BRING IN THE INCORPORATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT LIKE THEY HAVE FOR
INCORPORATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT LIKE THEY HAVE FOR EVERY OTHER RIGHT UNDER THE BILL
AMENDMENT LIKE THEY HAVE FOR EVERY OTHER RIGHT UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT THEN APPLIES TO
EVERY OTHER RIGHT UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT THEN APPLIES TO THE STATES.
OF RIGHTS, IT THEN APPLIES TO THE STATES. >>BUT IT WILL BE A LONG PROCESS
THE STATES. >>BUT IT WILL BE A LONG PROCESS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.
>>BUT IT WILL BE A LONG PROCESS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO HAVE -- I
BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO HAVE -- I MEAN BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE
YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO HAVE -- I MEAN BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS
MEAN BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS SPECIFICALLY THE D.C. BAN.
LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS SPECIFICALLY THE D.C. BAN. >>THEY ARE, BUT DEPENDING HOW
SPECIFICALLY THE D.C. BAN. >>THEY ARE, BUT DEPENDING HOW THOSE JUSTICES WRITE THAT
>>THEY ARE, BUT DEPENDING HOW THOSE JUSTICES WRITE THAT DECISION, IF THEY BRING IN THE
THOSE JUSTICES WRITE THAT DECISION, IF THEY BRING IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT, IT AUTOMATICALLY
DECISION, IF THEY BRING IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT, IT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES TO THE STATES, AND I
14TH AMENDMENT, IT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES TO THE STATES, AND I THINK IN SHORT ORDER, YOU WILL
APPLIES TO THE STATES, AND I THINK IN SHORT ORDER, YOU WILL SEE THE HANDGUN BANS AROUND THE
THINK IN SHORT ORDER, YOU WILL SEE THE HANDGUN BANS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND OTHER TYPES OF
SEE THE HANDGUN BANS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND OTHER TYPES OF ERRONEOUS REGULATIONS FALL.
COUNTRY AND OTHER TYPES OF ERRONEOUS REGULATIONS FALL. I THINK WHEN YOU -- I THINK THE
ERRONEOUS REGULATIONS FALL. I THINK WHEN YOU -- I THINK THE STANDARD THAT YOU CAN REASONABLY
I THINK WHEN YOU -- I THINK THE STANDARD THAT YOU CAN REASONABLY LOOK AT WHEN A REGULATION IS
STANDARD THAT YOU CAN REASONABLY LOOK AT WHEN A REGULATION IS DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE OR IMPEDE
LOOK AT WHEN A REGULATION IS DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE OR IMPEDE AN INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO EXER
DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE OR IMPEDE AN INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO EXER SIZE THEIR RIGHT, THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO EXER SIZE THEIR RIGHT, THAT REGULATION WILL NOT STAND
SIZE THEIR RIGHT, THAT REGULATION WILL NOT STAND EXECUTE DPLI ANY.
REGULATION WILL NOT STAND EXECUTE DPLI ANY. JUSTICE SCALIA DISCUSSED GUN
EXECUTE DPLI ANY. JUSTICE SCALIA DISCUSSED GUN LAWS, HIS CONVERSATION, AND
JUSTICE SCALIA DISCUSSED GUN LAWS, HIS CONVERSATION, AND KENNEDY'S, IT WILL BE ON THE
LAWS, HIS CONVERSATION, AND KENNEDY'S, IT WILL BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.
KENNEDY'S, IT WILL BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. >>WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING.
CHOPPING BLOCK. >>WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING. IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICES TO
>>WE HAVEN'T HAD A RULING. IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICES TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING THERE.
IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICES TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING THERE. IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICING
LOOK AT EVERYTHING THERE. IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICING TO LOOK AT EVERY SIDE.
IT IS THE JOB OF THE JUSTICING TO LOOK AT EVERY SIDE. THEY HAVE TAKEN THINGS LIKE THIS
TO LOOK AT EVERY SIDE. THEY HAVE TAKEN THINGS LIKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION HISTORICALLY
THEY HAVE TAKEN THINGS LIKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST.
INTO CONSIDERATION HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST. THE FINAL RULING HAS BEEN THE
IN THE PAST. THE FINAL RULING HAS BEEN THE STATES CAN SET FORTH REGULATION.
THE FINAL RULING HAS BEEN THE STATES CAN SET FORTH REGULATION. AGAIN, THIS CASE THEY ARE
STATES CAN SET FORTH REGULATION. AGAIN, THIS CASE THEY ARE LOOKING ATING WHILE THEY MAY
AGAIN, THIS CASE THEY ARE LOOKING ATING WHILE THEY MAY LOOK AT OTHER INTERPRETATIONS
LOOKING ATING WHILE THEY MAY LOOK AT OTHER INTERPRETATIONS WHICH IS THEIR JOB TO DO SO,
LOOK AT OTHER INTERPRETATIONS WHICH IS THEIR JOB TO DO SO, DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH D.C.
WHICH IS THEIR JOB TO DO SO, DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH D.C. TODD WOULD HAVE YOU THINK THIS
DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH D.C. TODD WOULD HAVE YOU THINK THIS IS A LITMUS TEST FOR OTHER
TODD WOULD HAVE YOU THINK THIS IS A LITMUS TEST FOR OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION COMING
IS A LITMUS TEST FOR OTHER PIECES OF LEGISLATION COMING DOWN, AND I RESPECTFULLY
PIECES OF LEGISLATION COMING DOWN, AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
DOWN, AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. >>IF THEY ISSUE STRICT SCRUTINY
DISAGREE. >>IF THEY ISSUE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE
>>IF THEY ISSUE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHAT
STANDARD WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHAT LAWS WILL PASS SCUNGES TUTIONNAL
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHAT LAWS WILL PASS SCUNGES TUTIONNAL MUSTER JUSTICE SCLIA DISCUSSED
LAWS WILL PASS SCUNGES TUTIONNAL MUSTER JUSTICE SCLIA DISCUSSED THE ASPECTS OF THE SECOND
MUSTER JUSTICE SCLIA DISCUSSED THE ASPECTS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
THE ASPECTS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WELL REGULATED MEANS WELL
AMENDMENT. WELL REGULATED MEANS WELL TRAINED, NOT MASSIVELY
WELL REGULATED MEANS WELL TRAINED, NOT MASSIVELY REGULATED.
TRAINED, NOT MASSIVELY REGULATED. YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO JUSTICE
REGULATED. YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO JUSTICE ROBERTS' COMMENT, WHAT IS
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO JUSTICE ROBERTS' COMMENT, WHAT IS REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON
ROBERTS' COMMENT, WHAT IS REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS.
REASONABLE ON A TOTAL BAN ON CLASS OF FIREARMS. AND THAT'S WHERE --
CLASS OF FIREARMS. AND THAT'S WHERE -- >>WAIT UNTIL JUNE TO FIND THAT
AND THAT'S WHERE -- >>WAIT UNTIL JUNE TO FIND THAT OUT.
>>WAIT UNTIL JUNE TO FIND THAT OUT. LET'S MOVE TO STATE LEGISLATION,
OUT. LET'S MOVE TO STATE LEGISLATION, OR WE WON'T HAVE TIME TO GO OVER
LET'S MOVE TO STATE LEGISLATION, OR WE WON'T HAVE TIME TO GO OVER IT.
OR WE WON'T HAVE TIME TO GO OVER IT. LET'S START WITH HOUSE BILL
IT. LET'S START WITH HOUSE BILL 4357.
LET'S START WITH HOUSE BILL 4357. THAT'S A BAN ON THE SAILOR
4357. THAT'S A BAN ON THE SAILOR PURCHASE OF SEMIAUTOMATIC
THAT'S A BAN ON THE SAILOR PURCHASE OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS. IF YOU ALLOW, CHRIS,
PURCHASE OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS. IF YOU ALLOW, CHRIS, FOR A MOMENT, TODD, WOULD YOU
WEAPONS. IF YOU ALLOW, CHRIS, FOR A MOMENT, TODD, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A
FOR A MOMENT, TODD, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON IS.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON IS. >>SURE.
SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON IS. >>SURE. THIS IS A MODIFIED RUGER1022
>>SURE. THIS IS A MODIFIED RUGER1022 RIFLE.
THIS IS A MODIFIED RUGER1022 RIFLE. IT IS SEMIAUTOMATIC, .22 CALIBER
RIFLE. IT IS SEMIAUTOMATIC, .22 CALIBER MY RIFLE USE FOR HUNTING COYOTE
IT IS SEMIAUTOMATIC, .22 CALIBER MY RIFLE USE FOR HUNTING COYOTE IS, SQUIRRELS, AND TARGET
MY RIFLE USE FOR HUNTING COYOTE IS, SQUIRRELS, AND TARGET PRACTICE.
IS, SQUIRRELS, AND TARGET PRACTICE. SEMIAUTOMATIC, WHEN A ROUND IS
PRACTICE. SEMIAUTOMATIC, WHEN A ROUND IS CHAMBERED, YOU WILL PULL THE THE
SEMIAUTOMATIC, WHEN A ROUND IS CHAMBERED, YOU WILL PULL THE THE TRIGGER, ONE ROUND WILL FIRE
CHAMBERED, YOU WILL PULL THE THE TRIGGER, ONE ROUND WILL FIRE FROM THE RIFLE.
TRIGGER, ONE ROUND WILL FIRE FROM THE RIFLE. YOU RELEASED TRIGGER, AND IT IS
FROM THE RIFLE. YOU RELEASED TRIGGER, AND IT IS CYCLED.
YOU RELEASED TRIGGER, AND IT IS CYCLED. IT WILL LOAD ANOTHER ROUND
CYCLED. IT WILL LOAD ANOTHER ROUND BEHIND IT.
IT WILL LOAD ANOTHER ROUND BEHIND IT. YOU RELEASE THE TRIGGER, PULL
BEHIND IT. YOU RELEASE THE TRIGGER, PULL THE TRIGGER AGAIN, AND IT WILL
YOU RELEASE THE TRIGGER, PULL THE TRIGGER AGAIN, AND IT WILL EXPEL A SECOND ROUND.
THE TRIGGER AGAIN, AND IT WILL EXPEL A SECOND ROUND. ONE ROUND IS FIRED FOR EVERY
EXPEL A SECOND ROUND. ONE ROUND IS FIRED FOR EVERY PULL THE TRIGGER, UNLIKE A
ONE ROUND IS FIRED FOR EVERY PULL THE TRIGGER, UNLIKE A MACHINE GUN WHERE YOU PULL THE
PULL THE TRIGGER, UNLIKE A MACHINE GUN WHERE YOU PULL THE TRIGGER AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO
MACHINE GUN WHERE YOU PULL THE TRIGGER AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO FIRE AS LONG AS YOU HOLD THE
TRIGGER AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO FIRE AS LONG AS YOU HOLD THE TRIGGER BACK.
FIRE AS LONG AS YOU HOLD THE TRIGGER BACK. >> WHAT ASPECTS OF THIS MAKE IT
TRIGGER BACK. >> WHAT ASPECTS OF THIS MAKE IT ILLEGAL UNDER THE PROPOSED
>> WHAT ASPECTS OF THIS MAKE IT ILLEGAL UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION?
ILLEGAL UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION? >> UNDER THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION? >> UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION THIS HERE, AGAIN, IS
>> UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION THIS HERE, AGAIN, IS A COMPEN SAY TORE OR MUZZLE
LEGISLATION THIS HERE, AGAIN, IS A COMPEN SAY TORE OR MUZZLE BREAK.
A COMPEN SAY TORE OR MUZZLE BREAK. UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION,
BREAK. UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, ANY RIFLE THAT HAS A COMPEN SAY
UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, ANY RIFLE THAT HAS A COMPEN SAY TORE OR MUZZLE BREAK WOULD BE
ANY RIFLE THAT HAS A COMPEN SAY TORE OR MUZZLE BREAK WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR SALE IN THE STATE OF
TORE OR MUZZLE BREAK WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR SALE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
ILLEGAL FOR SALE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. THIS ONE VERY EASILY COMES OFF,
ILLINOIS. THIS ONE VERY EASILY COMES OFF, JUST BY UNSCREWING IT, AND JUST
THIS ONE VERY EASILY COMES OFF, JUST BY UNSCREWING IT, AND JUST THE MERE POSSESSION OF THAT
JUST BY UNSCREWING IT, AND JUST THE MERE POSSESSION OF THAT PIECE RIGHT THERE WITHOUT THE --
THE MERE POSSESSION OF THAT PIECE RIGHT THERE WITHOUT THE -- WITHOUT THE RIFLE, IN THE STATE
PIECE RIGHT THERE WITHOUT THE -- WITHOUT THE RIFLE, IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE STOCK ON THIS
WITHOUT THE RIFLE, IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE STOCK ON THIS RIFLE IS ONE THAT HAS A THUMB
OF ILLINOIS, THE STOCK ON THIS RIFLE IS ONE THAT HAS A THUMB HOLDER BACK HERE.
RIFLE IS ONE THAT HAS A THUMB HOLDER BACK HERE. IT HELPS IN STEADYING THE RIFLE.
HOLDER BACK HERE. IT HELPS IN STEADYING THE RIFLE. IT IS THIS CUT OUT AREA.
IT HELPS IN STEADYING THE RIFLE. IT IS THIS CUT OUT AREA. IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP.
IT IS THIS CUT OUT AREA. IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP. UNDER THE LEGISLATION, ANY RIFLE
IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP. UNDER THE LEGISLATION, ANY RIFLE THAT HAS A DETACHMENT MAGAZINE
UNDER THE LEGISLATION, ANY RIFLE THAT HAS A DETACHMENT MAGAZINE AND THUMB WHOLE OR PISTOL GRIP
THAT HAS A DETACHMENT MAGAZINE AND THUMB WHOLE OR PISTOL GRIP STOP WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
AND THUMB WHOLE OR PISTOL GRIP STOP WOULD BE ILLEGAL. UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION,
STOP WOULD BE ILLEGAL. UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, JUST THIS STOCK WOULD EARN YOU A
UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, JUST THIS STOCK WOULD EARN YOU A FELONY CHARGE IN THE STATE OF
JUST THIS STOCK WOULD EARN YOU A FELONY CHARGE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
FELONY CHARGE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. THIS IS A TYPICAL TARGET AND
ILLINOIS. THIS IS A TYPICAL TARGET AND HUNTING RIFLE THAT I OWN, MY
THIS IS A TYPICAL TARGET AND HUNTING RIFLE THAT I OWN, MY FAMILY OWNS, AND HUNDREDS OF
HUNTING RIFLE THAT I OWN, MY FAMILY OWNS, AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER HUNTERS AND
FAMILY OWNS, AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS ACROSS THE STATE HAVE.
THOUSANDS OF OTHER HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS ACROSS THE STATE HAVE. AND THAT'S HOW BROAD THIS
SHOOTERS ACROSS THE STATE HAVE. AND THAT'S HOW BROAD THIS LEGISLATION TRULY IS.
AND THAT'S HOW BROAD THIS LEGISLATION TRULY IS. >>CHRIS, IS THIS A GOOD PIECE OF
LEGISLATION TRULY IS. >>CHRIS, IS THIS A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION?
>>CHRIS, IS THIS A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION? >> IT IS A GOOD PIECE OF
LEGISLATION? >> IT IS A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
>> IT IS A GOOD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. LET'S LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATION. LET'S LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION.
LET'S LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION. FIRST OF ALL, TODD DIDN'T TELL
LEGISLATION. FIRST OF ALL, TODD DIDN'T TELL YOU, THERE IS EXEMPTIONS IN THE
FIRST OF ALL, TODD DIDN'T TELL YOU, THERE IS EXEMPTIONS IN THE BILL, EXEMPTIONS USED FOR
YOU, THERE IS EXEMPTIONS IN THE BILL, EXEMPTIONS USED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES, ATHLETIC
BILL, EXEMPTIONS USED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES, ATHLETIC PURPOSES, ATHLETIC EXEMPTIONS,
SPORTING PURPOSES, ATHLETIC PURPOSES, ATHLETIC EXEMPTIONS, LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTIONS, TODD
PURPOSES, ATHLETIC EXEMPTIONS, LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTIONS, TODD WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS UNDER
LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTIONS, TODD WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS UNDER THE BILL BECAUSE HE WOULD BE
WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS UNDER THE BILL BECAUSE HE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
THE BILL BECAUSE HE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN. THE LEGISLATION HAS SPECIFIC
GRANDFATHERED IN. THE LEGISLATION HAS SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT DEFINES
THE LEGISLATION HAS SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT DEFINES SEMIAUTOMATIC GUN.
CRITERIA THAT DEFINES SEMIAUTOMATIC GUN. SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON.
SEMIAUTOMATIC GUN. SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. MOST OF THOSE FEATURES, FOR
SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. MOST OF THOSE FEATURES, FOR INSTANCE, A SILENCER, OTHER
MOST OF THOSE FEATURES, FOR INSTANCE, A SILENCER, OTHER CRITERIA, ARE REALLY
THAT FIREARM WAS ALREADY OUTLAWED UNDER CURRENT AND STATE LAWS.
OUTLAWED UNDER CURRENT AND STATE LAWS. THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ON THE
LAWS. THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ON THE STREET, WHEN HE WAS KNOWN TO LAW
THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ON THE STREET, WHEN HE WAS KNOWN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR TRAFFICKING
STREET, WHEN HE WAS KNOWN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR TRAFFICKING FIREARMS.
ENFORCEMENT FOR TRAFFICKING FIREARMS. WHY WAS HE ON THE STREET?
FIREARMS. WHY WAS HE ON THE STREET? HE BROKE OVER 50 FIREARMS LAWS
WHY WAS HE ON THE STREET? HE BROKE OVER 50 FIREARMS LAWS BY TRAFFICKING FIREARMS ACROSS
HE BROKE OVER 50 FIREARMS LAWS BY TRAFFICKING FIREARMS ACROSS INDIANA.
BY TRAFFICKING FIREARMS ACROSS INDIANA. HE WAS KNOWN TO CHICAGO LAW
INDIANA. HE WAS KNOWN TO CHICAGO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
HE WAS KNOWN TO CHICAGO LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHY THEY ALLOWED HIM TO REMAIN
ENFORCEMENT. WHY THEY ALLOWED HIM TO REMAIN ON THE STREET BEFUDDLES US TO
WHY THEY ALLOWED HIM TO REMAIN ON THE STREET BEFUDDLES US TO THIS DAY.
ON THE STREET BEFUDDLES US TO THIS DAY. IT IS NOT ABOUT BANNING AK47.
THIS DAY. IT IS NOT ABOUT BANNING AK47. IT IS ABOUT BANNING AS MANY
IT IS NOT ABOUT BANNING AK47. IT IS ABOUT BANNING AS MANY FIREARMS AS YOU CAN.
IT IS ABOUT BANNING AS MANY FIREARMS AS YOU CAN. >>IT IS GOING AFTER HIGH POWERED
FIREARMS AS YOU CAN. >>IT IS GOING AFTER HIGH POWERED METHALITY.
>>IT IS GOING AFTER HIGH POWERED METHALITY. >>THERE IS NOTHING HIGH POWER
METHALITY. >>THERE IS NOTHING HIGH POWER BOUNDARY THIS .22.
>>THERE IS NOTHING HIGH POWER BOUNDARY THIS .22. >>I WANT TO ASK YOU.
BOUNDARY THIS .22. >>I WANT TO ASK YOU. >> TEN ROUND MAGAZINE THIS IS A
>>I WANT TO ASK YOU. >> TEN ROUND MAGAZINE THIS IS A 10 ROUND MAGAZINE IT A 22 LONG
>> TEN ROUND MAGAZINE THIS IS A 10 ROUND MAGAZINE IT A 22 LONG RIFLE.
10 ROUND MAGAZINE IT A 22 LONG RIFLE. IT IS A SQUIRREL HUNTING RIFLE,
RIFLE. IT IS A SQUIRREL HUNTING RIFLE, TARGET RIFLE.
IT IS A SQUIRREL HUNTING RIFLE, TARGET RIFLE. THERE IS NOTHING -- YOU WANT TO
TARGET RIFLE. THERE IS NOTHING -- YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT LETHAL TY.
THERE IS NOTHING -- YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT LETHAL TY. NO MATTER WHAT BULLET KILLS
TALK ABOUT LETHAL TY. NO MATTER WHAT BULLET KILLS SOMEBODY, IT DEAD IS DEAD.
NO MATTER WHAT BULLET KILLS SOMEBODY, IT DEAD IS DEAD. DOESN'T MATTER, .22, .22-250.
SOMEBODY, IT DEAD IS DEAD. DOESN'T MATTER, .22, .22-250. IT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN,
DOESN'T MATTER, .22, .22-250. IT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN, IT IS NOT THE GUN OF WE MADE
IT IS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN, IT IS NOT THE GUN OF WE MADE THIS ARGUMENT CONTINUOUSLY THAT
IT IS NOT THE GUN OF WE MADE THIS ARGUMENT CONTINUOUSLY THAT YOU TRY BANNING HANDGUNS IN
THIS ARGUMENT CONTINUOUSLY THAT YOU TRY BANNING HANDGUNS IN CHICAGO.
YOU TRY BANNING HANDGUNS IN CHICAGO. TRIED BANNING SEMI AUTOS IN
CHICAGO. TRIED BANNING SEMI AUTOS IN CHICAGO, IT DOESN'T WORK.
TRIED BANNING SEMI AUTOS IN CHICAGO, IT DOESN'T WORK. NOW YOU WANT TO BLAME THE REST
CHICAGO, IT DOESN'T WORK. NOW YOU WANT TO BLAME THE REST OF THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CITY
NOW YOU WANT TO BLAME THE REST OF THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF CHICAGO, EVEN THE GOOD ONES
OF THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF CHICAGO, EVEN THE GOOD ONES INSIDE THE CITY OF CHICAGO FOR
OF CHICAGO, EVEN THE GOOD ONES INSIDE THE CITY OF CHICAGO FOR THE PROBLEMS THERE.
INSIDE THE CITY OF CHICAGO FOR THE PROBLEMS THERE. THE PEOPLE IN SPRINGFIELD, THE
THE PROBLEMS THERE. THE PEOPLE IN SPRINGFIELD, THE PEOPLE IN BLOOMINGTON, THE
THE PEOPLE IN SPRINGFIELD, THE PEOPLE IN BLOOMINGTON, THE PEOPLE IN PEORIA, THE LAWFUL GUN
PEOPLE IN BLOOMINGTON, THE PEOPLE IN PEORIA, THE LAWFUL GUN OWNERS OF THIS STATE WHO HAVE
PEOPLE IN PEORIA, THE LAWFUL GUN OWNERS OF THIS STATE WHO HAVE NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME ARE
OWNERS OF THIS STATE WHO HAVE NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU
NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THEY CAN'T BUY
GOING TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THEY CAN'T BUY A .22 FOR HUNTING SQUIRRELS.
ARE GOING TO SAY THEY CAN'T BUY A .22 FOR HUNTING SQUIRRELS. >>THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE
A .22 FOR HUNTING SQUIRRELS. >>THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE EVERY TIME THERE IS A PIECE OF
>>THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE EVERY TIME THERE IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
EVERY TIME THERE IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION. TODD STANDING UP AND OTHERS
LEGISLATION. TODD STANDING UP AND OTHERS STANDING UP SAYING DON'T
TODD STANDING UP AND OTHERS STANDING UP SAYING DON'T INFRINGE UPON THIS.
STANDING UP SAYING DON'T INFRINGE UPON THIS. THE INTENT OF THAT LEGISLATION
INFRINGE UPON THIS. THE INTENT OF THAT LEGISLATION WAS TO GO AFTER HIGH POWERED
THE INTENT OF THAT LEGISLATION WAS TO GO AFTER HIGH POWERED PIECES OF AMMUNITIION HIGHER
WAS TO GO AFTER HIGH POWERED PIECES OF AMMUNITIION HIGHER PIECES OF LETHAL TY.
PIECES OF AMMUNITIION HIGHER PIECES OF LETHAL TY. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
PIECES OF LETHAL TY. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH CHICAGO'S BAN IS IT IS A CITY
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH CHICAGO'S BAN IS IT IS A CITY THAT HAS OTHER STATES, WE DON'T
CHICAGO'S BAN IS IT IS A CITY THAT HAS OTHER STATES, WE DON'T HAVE UNIFORM FEDERAL LAWS.
THAT HAS OTHER STATES, WE DON'T HAVE UNIFORM FEDERAL LAWS. YOU KNOW, YES, WELL, YOU KNOW,
HAVE UNIFORM FEDERAL LAWS. YOU KNOW, YES, WELL, YOU KNOW, WILL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE
YOU KNOW, YES, WELL, YOU KNOW, WILL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE INCONVENIENCES?
WILL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS HAVE INCONVENIENCES? YES.
INCONVENIENCES? YES. WE ALL HAVE INCONVENIENCES.
YES. WE ALL HAVE INCONVENIENCES. I HAVE INCONVENIENCES -- I CAN'T
WE ALL HAVE INCONVENIENCES. I HAVE INCONVENIENCES -- I CAN'T JUST GET IN MY CART AND DRIVE
I HAVE INCONVENIENCES -- I CAN'T JUST GET IN MY CART AND DRIVE WITHOUT A LICENSE.
JUST GET IN MY CART AND DRIVE WITHOUT A LICENSE. THERE ARE REASONS WE HAVE SUCH
WITHOUT A LICENSE. THERE ARE REASONS WE HAVE SUCH REGULATIONS, TO PROTECT THE
THERE ARE REASONS WE HAVE SUCH REGULATIONS, TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR
REGULATIONS, TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. >> LET'S MOVE ONTO ANOTHER, IN
COMMUNITY. >> LET'S MOVE ONTO ANOTHER, IN THE FEW MINUTES WE HAVE
>> LET'S MOVE ONTO ANOTHER, IN THE FEW MINUTES WE HAVE REMAINING.
THE FEW MINUTES WE HAVE REMAINING. LOCAL LEGISLATOR AARON SCHOCK
REMAINING. LOCAL LEGISLATOR AARON SCHOCK HAS PROPOSED A CONCEAL AND CARRY
LOCAL LEGISLATOR AARON SCHOCK HAS PROPOSED A CONCEAL AND CARRY BILL.
HAS PROPOSED A CONCEAL AND CARRY BILL. I BELIEVE 48 STATES HAVE SOME
BILL. I BELIEVE 48 STATES HAVE SOME FORM OF CONCEAL CARRY, RIGHT
I BELIEVE 48 STATES HAVE SOME FORM OF CONCEAL CARRY, RIGHT CARRY.
FORM OF CONCEAL CARRY, RIGHT CARRY. WHY NOT ILLINOIS?
CARRY. WHY NOT ILLINOIS? >> LET ME JUMP BACK A LITTLE BIT
WHY NOT ILLINOIS? >> LET ME JUMP BACK A LITTLE BIT TO THIS, AND I WILL GET INTO
>> LET ME JUMP BACK A LITTLE BIT TO THIS, AND I WILL GET INTO THIS.
TO THIS, AND I WILL GET INTO THIS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE HAVE
THIS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TODD AND
THESE CONVERSATIONS. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TODD AND I AND OTHERS SIT DOWN AND WE
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TODD AND I AND OTHERS SIT DOWN AND WE HAVE A CONVERSATION.
I AND OTHERS SIT DOWN AND WE HAVE A CONVERSATION. WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
HAVE A CONVERSATION. WE HAVE A PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, UNLIKE OTHER NATIONS,
WE HAVE A PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, UNLIKE OTHER NATIONS, WE HAVE INCIDENTS, VIRGINIA TECH
YOU KNOW, UNLIKE OTHER NATIONS, WE HAVE INCIDENTS, VIRGINIA TECH INCIDENT, AND UNFORTUNATE
WE HAVE INCIDENTS, VIRGINIA TECH INCIDENT, AND UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS
INCIDENT, AND UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, COMMON DENOMINATOR
INCIDENT AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THOSE SITUATIONS WAS THAT A
UNIVERSITY, COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THOSE SITUATIONS WAS THAT A FIRE ARM WAS USED.
IN THOSE SITUATIONS WAS THAT A FIRE ARM WAS USED. YOU DON'T SEE THOSE SITUATIONS
FIRE ARM WAS USED. YOU DON'T SEE THOSE SITUATIONS IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATIONS
YOU DON'T SEE THOSE SITUATIONS IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATIONS BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS NOT AS
IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATIONS BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS NOT AS PREVALENT IN THOSE OTHER
BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS NOT AS PREVALENT IN THOSE OTHER NATIONS.
PREVALENT IN THOSE OTHER NATIONS. SO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION,
NATIONS. SO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION
SO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BESIDES SOMEONE SAYING THAT THIS
AND WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BESIDES SOMEONE SAYING THAT THIS IS -- DON'T, DON'T STEP ON THIS.
BESIDES SOMEONE SAYING THAT THIS IS -- DON'T, DON'T STEP ON THIS. DON'T DO THIS, AND WE NEED TO
IS -- DON'T, DON'T STEP ON THIS. DON'T DO THIS, AND WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO
DON'T DO THIS, AND WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO.
FIND OUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO. THERE IS A SERIES OF THINGS THAT
DO. THERE IS A SERIES OF THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.
THERE IS A SERIES OF THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN. NOT EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION
NEED TO HAPPEN. NOT EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION WILL SOLVE IT ALL.
NOT EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION WILL SOLVE IT ALL. I KNOW THAT, AND YOU KNOW THAT.
WILL SOLVE IT ALL. I KNOW THAT, AND YOU KNOW THAT. BUT WE NEED TO HAVE PREVENTATIVE
I KNOW THAT, AND YOU KNOW THAT. BUT WE NEED TO HAVE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE
BUT WE NEED TO HAVE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SITUATIONS DON'T HAVE
MEASURES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SITUATIONS DON'T HAVE IT.
THAT THOSE SITUATIONS DON'T HAVE IT. >>WHAT IS WRONG WITH
IT. >>WHAT IS WRONG WITH PREVENTATIVE MEASURES.
>>WHAT IS WRONG WITH PREVENTATIVE MEASURES. >>MAKE SURE A NOT PROHIBITED
PREVENTATIVE MEASURES. >>MAKE SURE A NOT PROHIBITED CLASS.
>>MAKE SURE A NOT PROHIBITED CLASS. WE SUPPORT THE BACKGROUND
CLASS. WE SUPPORT THE BACKGROUND CHECKS.
WE SUPPORT THE BACKGROUND CHECKS. WE WROTE THE BACKGROUND CHECK IN
CHECKS. WE WROTE THE BACKGROUND CHECK IN 1992 WHICH SUPERSEDED THE
WE WROTE THE BACKGROUND CHECK IN 1992 WHICH SUPERSEDED THE FEDERAL LAW.
1992 WHICH SUPERSEDED THE FEDERAL LAW. WE HAVE NOT BEEN OPPOSED TO
FEDERAL LAW. WE HAVE NOT BEEN OPPOSED TO THAT.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN OPPOSED TO THAT. BUT OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT SUBJECT
THAT. BUT OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL WHIMS AND
BUT OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL WHIMS AND REFERENDUM OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO
TO THE LOCAL WHIMS AND REFERENDUM OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE.
REFERENDUM OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE. THERE IS A REASON WE HAD THE
DISAGREE. THERE IS A REASON WE HAD THE REVOLUTION AND BROKE AWAY FROM
THERE IS A REASON WE HAD THE REVOLUTION AND BROKE AWAY FROM ENGLAND.
REVOLUTION AND BROKE AWAY FROM ENGLAND. WE ARE NOT JAPAN, MONARCHY.
ENGLAND. WE ARE NOT JAPAN, MONARCHY. THERE IS A REASON IT IS THE
WE ARE NOT JAPAN, MONARCHY. THERE IS A REASON IT IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE
THERE IS A REASON IT IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE FOUGHT WARS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE FOUGHT WARS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AS A VETERAN WHO PUT 18 YEARS OF
FOUGHT WARS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AS A VETERAN WHO PUT 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE IN SERVICE TO OUR
AS A VETERAN WHO PUT 18 YEARS OF MY LIFE IN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY ARE I KNOW WHAT I SWORE
MY LIFE IN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY ARE I KNOW WHAT I SWORE TO WHEN I SWORE TO UPHOLD THE
COUNTRY ARE I KNOW WHAT I SWORE TO WHEN I SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
TO WHEN I SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
STATES. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SCHOCK RIGHT TO CARE.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SCHOCK RIGHT TO CARE. IT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST
SCHOCK RIGHT TO CARE. IT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROUP.
IT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROUP. WE TRUST THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROUP. WE TRUST THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE A GOOD SOUND DECISION BASED ON
WE TRUST THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE A GOOD SOUND DECISION BASED ON WHAT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE.
A GOOD SOUND DECISION BASED ON WHAT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE. WE HAVE FAITH THAT THE PEOPLE IN
WHAT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE. WE HAVE FAITH THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WILL MAKE
WE HAVE FAITH THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WILL MAKE GOOD SOUND DECISION.
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WILL MAKE GOOD SOUND DECISION. THEY DON'T TRUST PEOPLE WITH
GOOD SOUND DECISION. THEY DON'T TRUST PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN SELF DEFENSE OUT ON
THEY DON'T TRUST PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN SELF DEFENSE OUT ON THE STREETS.
THEIR OWN SELF DEFENSE OUT ON THE STREETS. I THINK, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE
THE STREETS. I THINK, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE WILMETTE CASE. WE THINK AN
I THINK, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE WILMETTE CASE. WE THINK AN INDIVIDUAL WHO RECEIVES PROPER
WILMETTE CASE. WE THINK AN INDIVIDUAL WHO RECEIVES PROPER TRAINING, HAS THE RIGHT TO SELF
INDIVIDUAL WHO RECEIVES PROPER TRAINING, HAS THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN PUBLIC PLACES.
TRAINING, HAS THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN PUBLIC PLACES. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RETREAT
DEFENSE IN PUBLIC PLACES. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RETREAT BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE VICTIM
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RETREAT BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE VICTIM OF A CRIME.
BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE VICTIM OF A CRIME. WE DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE
OF A CRIME. WE DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BE AROUND TO BE
WE DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BE AROUND TO BE VICTIMS OF CRIME.
FORCED TO BE AROUND TO BE VICTIMS OF CRIME. >>FINAL 30 SECONDS FROM CHRIS.
VICTIMS OF CRIME. >>FINAL 30 SECONDS FROM CHRIS. >>CONCEAL CARRY, THAT'S PART OF
>>FINAL 30 SECONDS FROM CHRIS. >>CONCEAL CARRY, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM, TEXAS CONCEAL
>>CONCEAL CARRY, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM, TEXAS CONCEAL CARRY, 66% OF PERMIT HOLDERS
THE PROBLEM, TEXAS CONCEAL CARRY, 66% OF PERMIT HOLDERS ENDED UP HAVING SOME FORM OF,
CARRY, 66% OF PERMIT HOLDERS ENDED UP HAVING SOME FORM OF, AFTER THEY HAD A PERMIT USED FOR
ENDED UP HAVING SOME FORM OF, AFTER THEY HAD A PERMIT USED FOR CHARGED WITH SOME FORM OF A
AFTER THEY HAD A PERMIT USED FOR CHARGED WITH SOME FORM OF A CRIME.
CHARGED WITH SOME FORM OF A CRIME. YOU ASKED ABOUT 48 STATES, AND
CRIME. YOU ASKED ABOUT 48 STATES, AND WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT, AND THOSE
YOU ASKED ABOUT 48 STATES, AND WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT, AND THOSE OTHER 48 STATES, IT IS NOT BEEN
WHY DON'T WE HAVE IT, AND THOSE OTHER 48 STATES, IT IS NOT BEEN IN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE
OTHER 48 STATES, IT IS NOT BEEN IN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE CONCEAL CARRY.
IN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE CONCEAL CARRY. IT HAS BEEN A VOCAL MINORITY,
WHO WANT THE CONCEAL CARRY. IT HAS BEEN A VOCAL MINORITY, AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE
IT HAS BEEN A VOCAL MINORITY, AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS USED THEIR
AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS USED THEIR INFLUENCE AND BULLIED
ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS USED THEIR INFLUENCE AND BULLIED LEGISLATORS AND WENT THROUGH THE
INFLUENCE AND BULLIED LEGISLATORS AND WENT THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO GET IT.
LEGISLATORS AND WENT THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO GET IT. >>WITH THAT, I HAVE TO SAY IT
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO GET IT. >>WITH THAT, I HAVE TO SAY IT HAS BEEN MOST, MOST ENJOYABLE,
>>WITH THAT, I HAVE TO SAY IT HAS BEEN MOST, MOST ENJOYABLE, AND VERY INFORMATIVE.
HAS BEEN MOST, MOST ENJOYABLE, AND VERY INFORMATIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO TODD
AND VERY INFORMATIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO TODD VANDERMYDE OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO TODD VANDERMYDE OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND CHRIS BOYSTER,
VANDERMYDE OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND CHRIS BOYSTER, ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN
ASSOCIATION AND CHRIS BOYSTER, ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE.
ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE. >>THANK YOU.
VIOLENCE. >>THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING ON "AT
>>THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING ON "AT ISSUE."
THANK YOU FOR BEING ON "AT ISSUE." >>THANK YOU.
ISSUE." >>THANK YOU. >>WE WILL JOIN YOU AGAIN THEKS
>>THANK YOU. >>WE WILL JOIN YOU AGAIN THEKS WEEK ON "AT ISSUE.".
>>WE WILL JOIN YOU AGAIN THEKS WEEK ON "AT ISSUE.". WE HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING.