Episode 251 – You Can Carry Outside The Home*

0:00
yeah
0:00
this episode is brought to you by travis
0:03
bull johnson who is running to be the
0:04
next representative for the seventh
0:06
district of minnesota if you want to
0:08
find out more go to bull johnson for
0:10
congress dot us
0:14
[Music]
0:14
[Applause]
0:20
[Music]
0:22
[Applause]
0:26
[Music]
0:32
and now matt wright and
0:34
spike cohen
0:37
good morning good afternoon or good
0:39
evening and welcome to the vanguard for
0:42
spike former vp al [ __ ] cohen i am matt
0:46
wright and together we are traversing
0:48
the muddied waters of
0:49
freedom first and foremost allow me to
0:51
thank benjamin daniel morris chestnut
0:54
the 13th for the cava i am drinking on
0:56
this week’s episodes and allow me to
0:59
thank costco daniel’s kirkland signature
1:01
the 37th uh for this uh purified water
1:04
that i got from costco boulevard
1:09
little known fact costco is named after
1:13
costco morgan kirkland signature the
1:15
32nd
1:19
they just shortened it to costco
1:22
so
1:23
greek name this is a muddy waters media
1:24
production uh check us out on all social
1:26
media platforms on all
1:28
podcasting platforms or wherever you are
1:31
listening or watching this right now and
1:33
wherever that is like follow subscribe
1:35
hit the bell and all that stuff and of
1:36
course if you have not already done so
1:39
head on over to anchor dot fm slash
1:41
muddy water slash subscribe to become a
1:45
member of the muddied
1:47
mud people militia
1:49
become a member subscribe to money
1:51
waters and if you do that then you get
1:54
access to exclusive weekly money waters
1:57
media members only content you also get
2:00
a an ad free experience on anchor and
2:03
spotify
2:05
and you get a discount at our money
2:07
waters media store which is at
2:08
moneywaters media.com
2:11
uh you get a very wonderful discount
2:13
there as well and all that for only ten
2:15
dollars a month so sign up right now
2:18
right now
2:19
so as we know
2:20
the uh supreme court
2:23
decided not to release any opinions for
2:25
the first month
2:27
for some reason um
2:29
and then
2:30
in the last week they are just pushing
2:33
these things out
2:35
as fast as they can one of the opinions
2:38
that came out last week had to do with
2:40
gun control so let’s go through a brief
2:43
history before we get into that case in
2:46
2008 the district of columbia versus
2:49
heller a very famous gun control case
2:52
that was decided on by the supreme court
2:54
yeah the heller decision
2:55
the supreme court held that the second
2:58
amendment secures the right to possess a
3:00
handgun inside the home for self-defense
3:02
purposes
3:03
obviously
3:06
yes this was after dc of course tried to
3:08
ban handguns throughout the entire uh
3:10
city the supreme court spanked them back
3:13
into submission and said no you can’t do
3:15
that
3:16
in mcdonald versus chicago in 2010
3:20
uh the right was applied against state
3:23
and local governments so not only could
3:26
it meaning that it was not
3:28
go ahead
3:29
uh that it wasn’t a city
3:31
making this but like also
3:33
larger governments
3:36
couldn’t make the same yeah so there was
3:37
a
3:38
there was a belief among
3:40
uh among some that the second amendment
3:43
only applied to the federal government
3:46
even though it says the right of the
3:47
people to keep and bear arms shall not
3:48
be infringed it didn’t say shall not be
3:50
infringed by the federal government and
3:53
in the amendment right before it it say
3:55
it says congress shall make no law
3:58
restricting and then it goes on the
4:00
right of the freedom of the speech and
4:01
press and all of that stuff right
4:04
and everyone recognizes that doesn’t
4:05
just mean congress it means everyone
4:08
but for this one which didn’t even
4:10
specify congress to go no no no no that
4:12
meant that the states and the locals
4:13
could definitely do that and the courts
4:15
correctly said no that that right was uh
4:18
was throughout uh and no one uh no one
4:21
including state and local governments
4:23
can infringe on that correct
4:26
so this last week in new york state
4:29
rifle and pistol association versus
4:32
ruin
4:34
is it brewing or broad
4:36
i’ve only read it so i think it’s
4:37
brewing okay is it bro i think it’s
4:39
brewing all right yeah i think i’ve only
4:41
read it and i was like
4:42
as i was reading it i don’t know if i’ve
4:44
ever said this word out loud
4:46
um
4:47
the right was recognized to extend
4:50
outside the home
4:51
because obviously
4:53
the right of the people to keep and bear
4:56
arms shall not be infringed um it’s kind
4:59
of there did not mean just in your house
5:01
right
5:02
in a
5:04
landmark victory for gun rights
5:06
activists the u.s supreme court ruled
5:09
6-3 that the second and 14th amendments
5:12
protect an individual’s right to carry a
5:15
handgun for self-defense outside the
5:17
home
5:19
and i know what a lot of you are
5:20
thinking and we’re going to kind of
5:22
discuss a lot of what they didn’t say
5:25
but they did say
5:26
in a little bit so bear with us for over
5:29
a hundred years new york had a law
5:31
requiring anyone seeking a license to
5:33
carry a concealed handgun in public to
5:36
first satisfy a local official
5:38
that he has proper cause
5:44
a generalized wish to carry concealed
5:47
weapon for defense purposes was not
5:49
sufficient to meet proper cause standard
5:52
so just saying hey
5:53
just in case
5:55
i happen to be at a supermarket in
5:58
buffalo
5:59
and somebody
6:00
decides to bring a gun in to start
6:03
shooting the place up i would like a gun
6:05
to stop that person
6:07
is not was not hypothetically
6:09
hypothetically uh was
6:11
not considered sufficient to meet the
6:14
proper cause
6:15
standard yeah
6:17
now that guy who illegally had a firearm
6:20
and used it to kill people or try to
6:22
kill people
6:23
they were
6:26
they didn’t factor that in
6:28
they did not no but you can’t have a gun
6:30
no in 43 states observed the majority
6:33
opinion by
6:34
justice clarence thomas who truly has
6:37
been dunking all over the people who
6:40
hate him this term
6:42
um good god just like
6:44
tracy mcgrady hang right over everybody
6:47
good god the government issues licenses
6:49
to carry based on objective criteria but
6:52
in six states including new york the
6:54
government further conditions issuance
6:56
of a license to carry on a citizen’s
6:59
showing of some additional special need
7:01
because the state of new york issues
7:04
public carry licenses only when an
7:07
applicant demonstrates a special need
7:09
for self-defense
7:11
we conclude that the state’s licensing
7:13
regime violates the constitution yeah
7:16
and not just the second amendment
7:19
no the second and the fourteenth
7:22
yep
7:23
second and the fourteenth
7:25
yep question of whether the discretion
7:27
that new york placed in the hands of
7:29
local licensing officials was consistent
7:31
with how
7:32
constitutional rights are typically
7:34
treated in the american system thomas
7:36
said we know of no other constitutional
7:39
rights that an individual may exercise
7:42
only after demonstrating to government
7:44
officers some special need unless you’re
7:46
a felon that is not how the first
7:48
amendment works when it comes to
7:50
unpopular speech or the free exercise of
7:52
religion is not how the sixth amendment
7:55
works when it comes to defendants rights
7:58
to confront the witnesses against him
8:00
and it is not how the second amendment
8:02
works when it comes to public carry for
8:05
self-defense i don’t know if i have it
8:07
in here but in his uh majority opinion
8:10
he said
8:11
not a lot of people are walking or
8:13
holstering a pistol in their bedroom or
8:15
at the dinner table and i thought
8:17
justice thomas you need to meet more
8:19
libertarians
8:21
yeah because i bet there are some that
8:23
wear them in the shower you’re right but
8:26
for normal people yes that’s not when
8:28
they when they are and it violates the
8:30
14th amendment obviously it it violates
8:33
the second amendment because it
8:35
the right of the people to keep and bear
8:36
arms shall not be a french it violates
8:38
the 14th amendment uh in equal
8:40
protection because it straight up says
8:43
yeah we’re going to discriminate against
8:45
people based on our arbitrary
8:47
case-by-case decision whether or not
8:49
someone has uh we’re going to let them
8:51
exercise their constitutional rights not
8:54
you can’t
8:55
but oh it depends you probably can’t but
8:58
you might we might let you but we really
9:01
got to hear your story first right that
9:03
is a textbook example of violating the
9:06
14th amendment it would be like saying
9:08
well
9:10
not everyone can vote let’s uh
9:13
let’s uh let’s see if you really need to
9:15
vote i i’d like to get to meet you first
9:17
talk with you a little bit then we’ll
9:18
decide if you if you really have a
9:21
special
9:22
need to be able to vote right that’s
9:25
that’s a perfect example of violating
9:26
the 14th amendment right or you know
9:28
yeah we want to have a rally uh we want
9:31
to have a political rally and uh talk
9:33
about you know ending
9:35
some government program um well let’s
9:38
sit down and talk first because i’d like
9:40
to meet you and talk to you before i let
9:42
you exercise your free speech
9:46
yeah exactly each year a coalition of
9:49
public defense lawyer organizations
9:50
including the black attorneys of legal
9:53
aid the bronx defenders and brooklyn
9:55
defender services told the court in an
9:57
amicus brief
9:59
each year we represent hundreds of indi
10:01
indigent people whom new york criminally
10:04
charges for exercising their right to
10:06
keep and bear arms for our clients new
10:09
york’s licensing requirements renders
10:11
the second amendment illegal fiction
10:14
which it has
10:16
which it absolutely has they’re telling
10:18
you yes we can’t stop you from owning a
10:20
gun but you can’t take it anyway and
10:22
we’re doing everything we can to make
10:24
sure you can’t really own one in
10:26
addition to new york california hawaii
10:29
maryland massachusetts new jersey rhode
10:32
island and delaware
10:33
all require residents
10:35
applying for concealed carry permits to
10:37
demonstrate a justifiable need
10:40
to carry a concealed weapon
10:43
gavin newsom well they they used to
10:48
now
10:49
no they can’t now they now every state
10:51
has to be shall issue
10:53
or not issue or they could just not
10:54
require a permit that’s the other option
10:56
so do you think do you think that the
10:59
i’m going to have to pull this up on my
11:01
phone that the california attorney
11:03
general accidentally published full list
11:06
of every concealed carry member in the
11:07
state to include names home addresses
11:09
phone numbers sex and race of every
11:12
member on on the state government
11:14
website in retaliation
11:16
to this decision
11:18
right absolutely absolutely yep there is
11:21
no question in my mind for anybody who
11:23
doesn’t know what we’re talking about
11:25
i’ll just say it again the california
11:26
attorney general accidentally
11:30
uh publishes full list of every
11:32
concealed carry member in the state to
11:34
include names home addresses phone
11:36
numbers sex and race of every member on
11:40
the state government website so anybody
11:42
can go out there and see that you know
11:45
bob michaels from redondo beach has a
11:48
concealed carry and whenever you see him
11:51
he might have a gun
11:52
anybody can do this which could lead to
11:57
the triggering
11:58
unintended of uh california’s massive
12:01
red flag laws yep that’s exactly what
12:05
that was for that was a list for
12:07
swatting yeah and thanks to uh the
12:10
republican turncoats uh who’ve worked
12:13
with democrats to pass the newest
12:14
abomination of gun control laws uh
12:17
that’s exactly what’s gonna happen uh
12:19
although we’re already hearing of other
12:20
groups that are already gearing up
12:22
there’s some far-right groups who have
12:24
said you know the data actually shows
12:27
that uh people who tend to have
12:29
progressive political beliefs are more
12:31
likely to uh to seek medical care for
12:33
mental health problems uh which it could
12:35
very well be just because they’re more
12:37
likely to seek medical care in general
12:38
for that kind of stuff it’s not as
12:40
stigmatized maybe or they’re just more
12:41
mentally ill either way either or some
12:43
combination of those things but
12:44
regardless um
12:46
they’re gonna just start naming every
12:47
every liberal they know and uh and
12:50
calling for them to get swatted if these
12:52
red flag laws pass this thing’s going to
12:53
get ddosed so hard so everyone’s going
12:56
to be spamming it to
12:58
set up people for swatting it’s going to
13:00
be an absolute nightmare but yes i think
13:02
the california attorney general did it
13:04
uh as uh revenge and also to try to
13:07
prime the pump for uh red flag law uh
13:10
enforcement uh which is by the way why
13:12
uh this uh hopefully the supreme court
13:16
uh strikes down red flag laws as an
13:18
infringement i also think uh that they
13:20
will end up uh striping down uh red
13:23
striking down the permit requirement
13:25
because if you read the actual wording
13:27
of this decision
13:28
uh they’re very clear yep
13:31
the government telling you whether or
13:32
not you’re allowed to have your right to
13:34
keep and bear arms is in and of itself
13:36
an infringement of the second amendment
13:38
it may not be an infringement of the
13:40
14th amendment although you could argue
13:42
it is because it doesn’t allow felons
13:43
and people who seek you know medical
13:46
cannabis or things like that to have it
13:47
but even if it’s not a
13:49
violation of the 14th amendment
13:51
it’s a violation of the second amendment
13:53
so this was a very powerful decision
13:55
that could be used successfully to
13:58
challenge anything that falls short of
14:00
constitutional carry open or concealed
14:04
without a permit without permission none
14:06
of the government’s business no registry
14:08
no nothing and a lot of people are like
14:09
i don’t think that this went far enough
14:11
why didn’t he just get rid of all
14:12
licensing uh all licensing across the
14:15
board or why didn’t they i don’t want to
14:17
say he like thomas did it on his own but
14:20
why didn’t they do this and it’s the
14:22
reasoning behind it is because they were
14:25
there to decide on one case and the
14:28
thing that was brought up is are these
14:30
licensing requirements too strict
14:33
so what thomas did
14:34
when he’s good he’s really good uh what
14:37
he did was he wrote he was like yes
14:40
these are too strict nobody has any
14:41
right to
14:43
require you to fill out a license to i
14:45
don’t remember the wording of it exactly
14:46
but basically he said right no
14:49
government can ask you for a license to
14:50
carry a gun
14:52
shall not be infringed means no
14:54
licensing yeah that means that it is in
14:57
there it is precedent
15:00
yep for at least 50 years
15:01
um and then
15:03
we can
15:06
and then you have an end precedent where
15:08
he says okay well he said that we don’t
15:10
need licensing anymore so i’m willing to
15:12
bet that when the fall session rolls
15:14
around there is going to be a case
15:18
where they are talking about whether or
15:20
not you need a license to conceal carry
15:23
or to carry a gun in public nationwide
15:28
yep
15:29
i am i i would take that to that
15:33
and and it’ll be it’ll definitely be
15:36
used to challenge them and and i believe
15:39
and i think you probably agree with me
15:40
that it will be successful i think that
15:42
that i think that we are headed towards
15:44
permit-less carry
15:46
and that at that point if we have
15:48
permit-less carry
15:50
then i think the next step is uh looking
15:53
at red flag laws as a violation of both
15:56
uh due process uh unreasonable search
15:59
and seizure or or limit or
16:02
bans on an unreasonable search and
16:04
seizure in the second amendment um i
16:06
think that based on that decision not
16:10
just the decision that they made but the
16:11
way it was written i think we have
16:13
potentially a very very pro-second
16:16
amendment court which if utilized
16:18
correctly can be a pro-criminal justice
16:21
reform court yes because ultimately you
16:24
can’t enforce infringements on the
16:26
second amendment without having a uh a
16:29
reckless unaccountable criminal justice
16:31
system so i i see i i’m actually very
16:35
very hopeful about this yeah i’m very
16:37
hopeful about it gavin newsom however
16:41
not so hopeful he uh called this hopeful
16:45
he called this ruling a dark day in
16:47
america oddly enough not the only time
16:49
you said that
16:50
i am willing to bet i would racist i
16:52
would bet good money
16:54
i would bet good money
16:56
that somewhere out there there is a
16:58
picture of gavin newsom in blackfare oh
17:00
gosh i easily i would bet good that guy
17:04
has
17:05
that guy has i was a schmuck frat bro
17:08
who did every insensitive thing i
17:11
possibly could in law school
17:13
all over him that guy 100 percent he
17:18
blackfaced it at some point what we need
17:20
to find is the polaroid of it at some
17:23
point that guy blackfaced we’re gonna
17:25
find it we’re gonna find it and that’ll
17:27
be a truly dark day for him for him
17:30
and i bet he can’t even moonwalk so
17:33
unlike the whole unlike potential 2024
17:36
presidential candidate
17:39
junkin
17:40
um that’s funny yeah he’s talking about
17:43
running and uh well no not
17:45
not yunkan junkin’s the
17:47
republican that replaced oh it’s young
17:49
okay junkin is the one that replaced uh
17:51
what was his name yeah um
17:53
north okay junkin is like northam
17:56
northam ralph northam yes
17:58
glenn younkin’s the guy that’s in there
18:00
now yes ralph northam okay so okay so
18:02
glenn young is the one talking about
18:04
running um i’d think that would be a
18:06
that’s funny i think that would be a
18:08
terrible move for him but um yeah
18:10
terrible terrible pick but gavin newsom
18:14
who we know did blackface uh we just
18:16
don’t know where that picture is um
18:19
yes he said he’s definitely done that
18:21
this is a dangerous decision from a
18:23
court hell bent on pushing a radical
18:26
ideological agenda
18:28
coming from gavin newsom and infringing
18:31
on the rights of states to protect our
18:33
citizens from being gunned down in our
18:36
streets schools and churches
18:39
shameful
18:42
well that’s a take
18:43
uh
18:44
and then of course on the other side of
18:46
the coin uh biden
18:48
signed into law the gun control bill
18:50
that we spoke about
18:52
after an agreement was made two weeks
18:54
ago biggest news that came from that
18:56
bill is the closing of the so-called
18:58
boyfriend loophole which is a really
19:00
extremely sexist ass way of saying
19:02
that uh basically a legit uh
19:05
basically saying females can’t be
19:07
abusers
19:15
yeah
19:16
that bill would ban anyone convicted of
19:18
misdemeanor domestic violence who has a
19:20
current or recent former dating
19:22
relationship with the victim from owning
19:24
a gun
19:26
so i’m going to say that again
19:30
this would ban anyone who’s been
19:32
convicted of even a misdemeanor domestic
19:34
violence
19:36
so which does not necessarily
19:38
have to include
19:39
actually like beating someone right so
19:44
from my understanding and i could be
19:45
wrong on this i don’t want to i don’t
19:47
want to say this like it’s gospel
19:49
from my understanding
19:51
is if you have a domestic situation with
19:54
your wife
19:56
more than likely it’s going to come out
19:58
as a felony if you have one with your
19:59
girlfriend
20:00
a lot of times it just comes out as a
20:02
misdemeanor so that’s why they threw
20:04
this in there um okay
20:08
but
20:09
you’re unless you’re a cop well
20:11
forty percent
20:12
um
20:13
forty percent
20:15
self reports forty percent admits to it
20:19
the other 60 says ah
20:22
she fell
20:23
wasn’t it 40 of their wives admitted to
20:26
it
20:27
no 40 percent of them
20:29
oh i thought it was 40 percent of them
20:32
admitted to it nope 40 of the people
20:35
that were being asked have you you know
20:37
basically beaten your wife or kids
20:39
said yeah
20:44
on a sheet of paper
20:46
that’s insane certainly none of that
20:48
other 60
20:49
said no even though they did right
20:54
certainly
20:55
because if there’s one thing i know
20:57
about wifebeaters it’s that they’re
20:59
always honest
21:03
they’re not hypocrites at all
21:05
and they would definitely just fill out
21:07
a government form saying yeah i did that
21:11
yeah i did that they would definitely
21:12
fill out a survey saying yes i beat my
21:15
wife you know
21:17
the thing is about a lot of these uh
21:19
these wife beaters and rapists and other
21:22
types of abusers
21:24
it’s the hypocrisy
21:25
[Laughter]
21:28
it’s the life it’s the lying
21:31
it’s the lying
21:33
that’s the bad part
21:38
now some of you might think no it’s
21:39
actually the the wife beating is the bad
21:41
part
21:42
well agree to disagree i agree
21:46
no i think that the uh i i think that uh
21:50
basically this says you know if you’ve
21:52
ever been in a domestic dispute
21:54
which there’s never
21:56
any kind of false claims there right
21:58
never
21:59
but if you’ve ever been in a domestic
22:01
dispute
22:02
um and are not a police officer
22:05
you now aren’t allowed to
22:07
protect yourself
22:09
right and
22:11
the wording is also like massively vague
22:13
in a lot of other ways of course and you
22:15
know how long is a recent former dating
22:18
relationship
22:20
like
22:21
does that mean you broke up recently
22:22
like within the last what year
22:25
two years three years like how long ago
22:28
was a recent dating relationship and
22:30
what is a recent former dating
22:32
relationship like hook up with a girl
22:35
twice and then you’re like okay
22:37
or you hook up with the guy twice this
22:39
works both ways i say girl just because
22:41
that’s my history
22:43
because they said it they said boyfriend
22:44
loophole right
22:46
so you hook up with a girl twice and
22:48
then you’re like okay no she’s
22:51
not my she’s not who i want to date
22:53
because of a myriad of reasons um so you
22:58
just kind of back out and then
23:00
she’s like okay well
23:03
we were in a relationship
23:05
now i’m going to
23:06
now now
23:09
what i’m going to do is i’m going to say
23:11
that you hit me and i know you own guns
23:14
so i’m going to get you red flagged get
23:16
you charged with this domestic and then
23:18
you’re going to lose the ability to have
23:20
any firearms for the next five years
23:25
yep just because you stopped talking to
23:27
me and again this works either way like
23:29
either sex can
23:31
be that shitty oh it could be a guy
23:32
doing it yeah it could be a jilted uh uh
23:35
you know a jilted guy that you know you
23:38
went out on a date with or said no to
23:41
because that’s the other thing right
23:43
it’s not hard to say yeah yeah we dated
23:46
well no
23:47
you didn’t date you know you talked a
23:48
few times on social media got together
23:50
she wasn’t into you and so now you’re
23:52
you’re stalking her and then you decide
23:54
to swatter and that’s what red flag laws
23:56
are there’s water
23:58
you are it’s swatting with extra steps
24:00
uh with the with the veneer of a court
24:02
process that really isn’t a process
24:04
right there is no
24:05
at no point in this chain
24:08
is there any negative down in any
24:10
negative repercussions if this is
24:12
misused right if the person doing the
24:15
snitching
24:16
is wrong or lied if the police were too
24:19
quick to believe them if the judge was
24:21
too quick to to sign off on the the
24:23
warrant with no uh disputing proof uh to
24:27
uh to try to you know to to give them
24:29
the authority to basically no knock raid
24:32
your house if all that turns out that
24:34
none of that was needed or that they end
24:35
up killing someone or whatever there’s
24:37
no negative consequence except for the
24:39
victim of all of this right it’s a
24:40
terrible terrible thing
24:43
the senate said that when they they
24:45
wrote this that they wanted the states
24:46
to define it but that just leads to more
24:48
headaches in the upper courts and
24:49
devices across the board it’s going to
24:51
be
24:51
really uh arbitrarily and capriciously
24:54
enforced and defined in the first place
24:56
so yeah like in california it might be
24:58
yeah you hooked up with this person
24:59
twice
25:00
uh that counts
25:02
that absolutely counts where in
25:05
somewhere else it’s you were together
25:07
for two years you were living together
25:09
for a year and that’s that’s what counts
25:12
and that’s going to create so many more
25:15
headaches
25:16
um
25:17
on top of the fact that they’re funding
25:20
red flag laws for states now
25:24
yeah
25:25
my hope and i and i hate this i hate
25:27
that this is the case um as long as uh
25:31
status authoritarians are in charge
25:34
my hope here is that it’s
25:36
the supreme court i mean i hate that i’m
25:38
even saying this but that it’s the
25:39
supreme court who has to step in and
25:42
say listen this violates the second
25:44
amendment you can’t do this stuff
25:47
you can’t do it i hope that’s what it
25:49
takes uh or i hope it’s not what it
25:51
takes but i hope if that is what it
25:52
takes that it happens
25:54
i was very
25:55
heller was a good decision uh chicago
25:58
versus uh um mcdonald was a good
26:01
decision and uh and bruin was an
26:04
incredible decision bruin is probably my
26:06
favorite second amendment decision to
26:08
come from the supreme court and it’s
26:10
interesting because in the
26:12
uh in the you know almost 150 years or
26:16
160 some odd years to the day of dred
26:18
scott
26:19
where the courts that same supreme court
26:21
said well
26:22
we can’t allow black people to be
26:25
considered citizens
26:26
or people
26:28
because then they’d be able to own guns
26:32
and 160 some odd years to the day
26:36
clarence thomas the descendant of slaves
26:39
said you’re damn right it does and uh
26:41
and and and drove that home yeah i like
26:43
it no that was that that was a huge
26:46
victory
26:47
for uh the second amendment uh that was
26:50
a huge victory for anybody out there
26:52
that is uh that owns guns that wants to
26:56
own guns that wants to be able to carry
26:57
their guns once to have self-protection
27:00
um
27:01
huge victory all the way around the only
27:04
question is
27:05
will
27:06
congress
27:08
both
27:09
the democrats and the republicans in
27:11
congress uh
27:13
screw it up
27:16
yes so uh but can the supreme court out
27:20
unscrew them up
27:22
you’re never going to believe what
27:23
happens uh folks thanks again for tuning
27:25
into this episode and later this week
27:27
this weekend
27:29
be sure to tune in
27:31
tomorrow be sure to tune that’s right
27:33
because we’re ahead
27:34
uh be sure to tune in this uh tomorrow
27:36
for the next subscriber only episode
27:42
we have one every week the next
27:43
subscriber only episode of the muddy
27:45
waters of freedom and i know what you’re
27:46
thinking well how the hell do i get to
27:48
watch a subscriber-only episode well if
27:50
you go to anchor dot fm slash muddy
27:53
water slash subscribe you can sign up by
27:55
becoming a subscriber today uh for only
27:57
ten dollars a month you get uh exclusive
28:00
access to our weekly
28:02
members only episodes and you also get a
28:06
ad free experience on anchor and spotify
28:09
and you get a discount at the muddy
28:11
waters media store which is at
28:13
moneywatersmedia.com all of that for
28:15
only ten dollars a month
28:17
get your get your
28:19
bid in well it’s not you don’t really
28:21
bid you just give us ten dollars get
28:22
your ten dollars in uh and let’s start
28:25
enjoying the truly premier muddy waters
28:28
experience together today we will see
28:30
you tomorrow and where we’re going we
28:33
don’t need roads
28:38
[Music]
29:00
you