Out of Control Gun Control

Published Jun 28, 2022, 2:47 PM

Chuck Schumer—and some Senate Republicans—deliver a major blow to law-abiding citizens in the most sweeping gun control legislation this country has seen since the 90s. Senator Ted Cruz, straight from the Senate floor and primed for a late-night Verdict, comes to the podcast studio to reveal what happened, and how the crisis was nearly averted. But all hope is not lost! In the very same week, the Supreme Court That Keeps On Giving delivers a huge win for gun rights in America. So, what kind of effects will we see across America from these two developments? Plus, wait until you hear how the attorney who advocated in front of the Supreme Court in this gun control case (and won) fared at the hands of his woke law firm.

--

Diversify your savings and get up to $1,500 of free silver today with American Hartford Gold: text CACTUS to 6-5-5-3-2.

--

Bags and puffiness under the eyes are a problem for millions of men and women. With Genucel's instant effects, you’ll see results in the first 12 hours. Use promo code CACTUS to save an extra 50% off he brand new ultra retinol serum: https://genucel.com/cactus.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last Thursday night, in this incredible term for the Supreme Court, we had just gotten a major ruling on the Second Amendment. So Senator Cruz and I sat down middle of the night. He had just come from the Senate, from the Capitol, and we were discussing this issue from the Court, what's going on with the legislators trying to pass gun control. And the very next morning we got the ruling in Dabbs, the most important Supreme Court decision, certainly of my lifetime, one of the most important ever in the history of the United States. And so we came out emergency episode, breaking news, Verdict episode. But we still want to bring this to you. This is still incredible news. While Dabbs is the big headline, there are so many other great things that have come out of this Court term. So without further ado, here is our discussion of the Second Amendment. A major loss for Second Amendment rights and a major win for Second Amendment rights, all in the same day, and in true Verdict style. It is the middle of the night. Senator Cruz is coming straight off the Senate floor. This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. This episode, a Verdict with Ted Cruise is brought to you by American Hartford Gold. Now, the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of gas is way up, the price of housing is up, the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately, given the way that our current administration prints money and spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money, your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence, Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy to get started. All it takes is a short phone call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door, or if you prefer inside your four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy. If you call them right now, then they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on your first order. So don't wait, call them right now. Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three, or if you prefer texting. You can text the word cactus to six five five three two. Again. The phone number is eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three, or text the word cactus to six five five three two. This episode a verdict that Ted Cruise is brought to you by Jenna Cell. How old does your mirror say you are? You can delay this question by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting right here on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina. Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product, My skin loves it. I have spent more money, she says, on creams over the years, enough to pay off my house. Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying high with Jennie Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid. This works to hydrate your skin at the cellular level. It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects. And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise, we know that you use our face products, our skincare products, and it's fun. All's fair in love and war. Now, if you go to my uurl that is genu cell dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty percent off Genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is fifty percent off if you go to genu cell dot com slash cactus. It's spelled g n u cel dot com slash cactus, genua cell dot com slash cactus. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, and I am totally cheating this time because it is Thursday evening right now when we are filming this, and it is a lovely nine thirty pm where I am here in California, Senator. For you, it is after midnight, you've just come off the Senate floor and we're about to start a show. You know, it really feels like we're reliving our past, our origin story. I think all verdicts ought to be filmed after midnight, and the show would get much better if we did a tequila shot after every topic. Well, I did want to take some tequila shots after I saw the machinations, and the Senate today and the Democrats and the squishes pushing gun control. You saw it a lot closer than I did. What happened, you know, today was a really frustrating day. Today the United States Senate passed the most significant gun control bill since nineteen ninety four. And it's even more frustrating. So in the last podcast, we talked about the broader issues. But I told you then that I would have more to say in the hours and days coming forward. Well earlier this week, in fact, right after the last podcast, I introduced my own legislation, and my own legislation. I teamed up with John Barrasso, who is the number three Republican in the in the conference leadership. He is the senator from Wyoming. Great guy, great friend, great conservative. Actually we've had John Barrasso on the show, That's right, a former guest on Verdict. Yes, So we teamed up and introduced legislation that was called Cruz Barrasso. By any measure, the legislation I introduced and I fought for, would do much much more, would be much more effective, was much more serious in stopping mass murders and stopping mass shootings and keeping our kids safe, and yet every single Democrat lined up against it, and they said, we don't want to double the number of cops in schools, We don't want to prosecute gun criminals. Instead, our objective is to meet our political priorities of restricting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. It's really frustrating and it's maddening. So you come up with the legislation with John Barosso, and you you bring it in, you introduce it into the Senate, and then while you're waiting for Chuck Schumer to come sign on as a co sponsor, because this basic stuff. If Democrats really wanted to solve this, then they would they would do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats are picking off fourteen Republicans to support their legislation, which, whatever you think about gun control, is just far less relevant to these actual shootings than legislation like yours would be. And then the legislation that the Democrats proposed passes the Senate. So it's done, right, it's it's over. It's going to go to Biden's desk, and then it's going to go It has to go to the House next, but the House is expected to take it up in the House, I will pass it, so it will go to Biden's desk, but the House has to pass it first, and the Democrats there are going to support it. And look, the Democrats understand, this is the camel's nose under the tent. The provision in this bill that is the most problematic is the red flag provision. So this this bill provides significant federal funding for states to pass so called red flag laws. And the problem is red flag laws really can invite abuse because they're a mechanism to take away the guns from law abiding citizens. And it varies state by states, but we've seen some blue states enact red flag laws where they can take away your guns with little to no due process, with to know judicial protection. Now, the Second Amendment is not just some sort of privilege that various political communities have decided to pass. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. The right to keep in bear arms. No matter what you think of it is a basic civil right. So my question is, how can the Democrats and these fourteen Republicans lower the threshold so much to deprive someone of their basic civil rights? And will this if it's challenged in court, would would this kind of legislation be overruled. So it depends the Democrats by and large don't care. And more and more Congressional Democrats are becoming quite candid that their objective is gun confiscation, that they want to take guns away from the American people. They used to hide that. More and more Democrats are being very open. Beto O'Rourke famously said, hell, yes, we're going to take your R. Fifteen. I mean, they're yes, embracing it. Justice John Paul Stevens, a lion of the left, wrote an op ed saying we should repeal the Second Amendment. That is more and more becoming The position of the hard left is, screw the Second Amendment, we want your guns. With Republicans, it's more complicated a number of Republicans. So we had at lunch today with the Senate Republicans. We had a hot lunch. It's it's as hot as an AI can remember in years. People were angry and yelling at each other. This this this look. It's an emotional issue. It's a divisive issue on the question of red flag laws. What the defenders of this bill we're saying as well, gosh, no courts have struck down the state laws as being unconstitutional. No courts have concluded that they don't adequately protect due process. Well, look, there are lots of things that are unconstitutional that have yet to be adjudicated. And if your standard is whatever New York or Connecticut does is just oki doki by me, unlessen until a court structs it strikes it down, you're on pretty dangerous territory. So I found that argument particularly unpersuasive. We heard, we have heard in the Judiciary Committee significant testimony about how these laws have been abused. And one of the things I said on the Senate floor is, as a consequence of this bill tonight, we will see people assaulted and lose their life. So we had a big argument today at lunch over my amendment. So we started the day with me being told by multiple senators, Oh, Chuck Schumer is going to schedule a vote on your amendment. He's agreed. We're gonna have one amendment. It's your amendment. It's the cruise barosso amend. We're gonna vote on that and then we'll be done. And at lunch several of my colleagues asked, Okay, is your amendment? Is it simply an addition to this bill adding new provisions, or is it a substitute. A substitute is delete what you got and replace it with this right, And I said, guys, it's a substitute. I don't like what you're doing. What you're doing is bad. It's a bad bill. It undermines the Second Amendment. So I don't want to add my bill to yours and undermine the Second Amendment and do something good. I'd just like to do something good. I'd like us actually to pass a straight up bill going after criminals and keeping people safe. I will tell you my Republican colleagues who are in support of this bill were furious. That was the cause of much of the fireworks at lunch, as they're like, we don't want to substitute. We want you just to just add our bill, add your bill ours, and we'll be fine with it. In your estimation, Senator, I don't want to make you play psychobabble or anything like that. But is your read from your squishier colleagues who backed the DEM's gun control bill. Is your read that they did it for political reasons to appease their purple or blue constituencies, or did they do it because of conviction, because they think it's actually good to take away guns from more Americans. Oh look, there were a number of them from pretty red states that weren't from blue or purple states. I don't know. I'm not an armchair shrink. I think it is consistently the case that when a Republican compromises with the Democrats and does what the Democrats want, that the press will praise them. It's an easy path. If you want the press to call you a statesman, just do what the Democrats want, and as a Republican, it's simple. One hundred percent of the time you give into the Democrats, the press says, oh, you're so wise, you're so enlightened. And it's a pattern we see over and over again. You know, you think about this bill. This is a bill that united all the Democrats. Every Democrat voter for this bill, the most left wing Democrats happily voted for this bill, and less than a third of the Republicans voted for this bill. More than a few of us were asking of our leadership, why are we teeing up a bill that unites all the Democrats and divides the Republicans and makes us fight with each other. I get by this makes sense for Chuck Schumer, Why does this make sense for us? But when I said my amendment is going to be a substitute, I'm not willing to just rubber stamp what you're doing. It made the proponents of the bill pretty angry, and Schuber ended up saying no amendments at all, and so he blocked amendments. Now, the way you block amendments, and let's get into a little bit of our kne Senate procedure. When you have a bill pending on the floor, there is what's called the amendment tree, which is there are open slots for amendments. And what Schumer did is what's called filling the tree, which is he brings up the bill, then he files an amendment, he files another amend and he fills the legs on the tree. And typically the blocking amendment is something really minor and inconsequential. It's something like changing a date from September first to September second. I mean, it doesn't matter what it is. It's just an amendment to block that slot so no one else can file an amendment. So because Schumer refused to allow any amendments, what I did tonight is I exercised the prerogatives of a senator to move to table a pending amendment, and in particular, I moved to table Schumer's amendment that was filling the tree, that was blocking the tribe. And under Senate rules, a motion to table an amendment is a privileged motion with no debate, that forces a vote. So it was a way for me to force a vote. And I stood up and said, look, I moved to table this in order to force a vote on Cruiz Barosso. And this is a chance for everyone here to decide which one you want. Do you want to pass a bill that is serious about going after violent criminals, about locking up gun criminals, and that provides much much more funds and resources to make schools safe, to double the number of cops in schools to protect our kids. Or do you want to pass a political bill that satisfies the partisan urges of the Democrats. That's your choice. That's what we voted on tonight, and unfortunately that vote failed. We got a total of thirty nine votes to table the amendment, which meant all the Democrats and eight Republicans voted to block any more amendments to prevent consideration of the serious legislation that actually would put real resources on the table to stop violent crime. So that means that six Republicans backed the Democrats gun control bill but also didn't didn't try to shoot down your amendment. Correct a way to sort of split the baby there, But I guess we'll take what we can get. Yeah, we picked off about half the Republicans who were supporting this, and so that was that was an incremental benefit. And by the way, look, I'll also say we were working with gun rights groups so that the NRA actively supported my amendment and publicly urged Senators to vote for it. Why because it targets the bad guys, it targets criminals. It actually focuses on how you stop gun crimes rather than disarming law abiding citizens. But unfortunately, a majority of the Senate wanted to go down a political road instead. So the Democrats run the Senate, so the Democrats get their way on their gun bill. The Democrats do generally do not run the Supreme Court. We have a vaguely conservative, vague majority on the Court, and the Court handed down a major victory for the Second Amendment today. That was the New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, And it was a case that decided whether and how New Yorkers are allowed to keep and bear arms. Could you describe a little bit about the case. Sure, it's a big case. It is a big victory, and it is caused for celebration. So New York has in place a law that severely restricts the ability of New Yorkers to carry a firearm outside the home. So, if you want to conceal carry a handgun, New York had a handful of very narrow circumstances in which you were allowed to do it, but as a practical matter, you couldn't. It was illegal to carry a firearm outside your home. So if you're on the subway, if you want to protect yourself, New York made it illegal to do that. This was a lawsuit saying, look, making it illegal to protect yourself, it's contrary to the Second Amendment, which says the right to keeping bear arms shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court agreed. The decision is six three, so it was a big majority decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority, it's a fantastic majority opinion, and it vigorously gave life to the Second Amendment, and it said, look, you've got a right to protect your own life. The Second Amendment. It's not about hunting, it's not about skeet shooting, it's not about recreational use of firearms. The Second Amendment is about the fundamental right you have, you, Michael Knowles, to defend your life, to protect your life, and to defend your family. And that right of life and self defense, the ability to both keep and to bear arms, to carry them with you to protect yourself is fundamental. And the Supreme Court said restrictions that are not in the tradition of what has been allowed with the right to keep in bear arms are beyond what is allowed under the Constitution. It was a big, big victory. I remember when I was living in New York, I did a little research to see what it would take to allow me to carry a weapon. Even just to have a weapon in my apartment. It was difficult enough, but to carry a weapon outside of my apartment, and it was it was virtually impossible. And in the law at issue here, New York decided that you had to prove that you had a cause to have to keep in bear this weapon, and it would it would seem to me that the cause would be the government's trying to take away my Second Amendment rights. That would seem to be a sufficient cause to exercise my Second Amendment rights. Will this have ripple effects around the rest of the country, So it will. I think you will see litigation against other significant constraints the right to keep in bare arms. And I think you will see gun grabbing restriction struck down. The left wants to make it hard, if not impossible, for you to protect yourself. And I think this decision, this decision is the biggest Second Amendment decision since Heller versus District Columbia, which, as you know, I led a coalition of states in Heller defending the Second Amendment right to keep in bear arms. That was a landmark five four decision. Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion. It's probably the finest majority opinion. Justice Scalia ever wrote. In this case, I led an amicus brief for twenty four senators defending the Second Amendment right to keep in bare arms. So we filed a brief of the court, and the court agreed with us. The Court agreed with us down the line that the right to keeping bare arms is real, it's significant, it's meaningful, it needs to be protected. And you know, the Bill of Rights is not optional. It's not a recommendation. If you don't agree with it, who cares? It is in the Constitution. If you don't agree with it, try to amend the Constitution. But you don't get to ignore it just because you'd like to ignore it. And so I think this was a big decision and a really important long term victory for the Second Amendment. I will tell you something amazing. So imagine for a second, Michael, that you're the lawyer who argues the New York case wins a six three landmark case defending a constitutional right. Imagine you are also a partner at a law firm who's just one a landmark victory at the Supreme Court. What do you think the reward and the response from your law firm would be and should be. I would imagine I should get a big, fat, gigantic bonus. I think I should get an upgrade to my office if I'm in some little kind of I'd like that corner office now, maybe a nice leather chair into coco bolo desk, that's what I would expect. Look, all of that makes sense, and you got it almost exactly right. What happened in this case is the lawyer who argued the case was Paul Clement. He was the former Solicitor General of the United States. Paul, someone I know very well, is an incredibly talented advocate. He won six to three. He was a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, and immediately after the decision came down, Kirkland fired he was fired. They fired him, and they fired Aaron Murphy, who was also his partner. What the law firm said is, we have decided we are no longer willing to defend the Second Amendment. So you, Paul and you Aaron, have a choice. Fire your client, who is a long standing client, tell him you will no longer represent them, or get the hell out of the firm. And Paul and Aaron, God bless them, said nice knowing you guys, see you later. We won't let the door hit us on the ass on the way out. And they left the firm today, literally within hours of winning this landmark decision. Do you want to know something even more amazing? I can't imagine what would be more amazing than that. But sure, this is not the first time this has happened to Paul Clement, So more than a decade, you're going to say, this is not the first time that this has happened in the history of the court. This poor man, this has happened to multiple times. So over a decade ago. Paul was a partner at King and Spaulding, one of the top Supreme Court litigators on the planet, and the US House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans at the time, hired Paul to defend the Defensive Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress that Barack Obama refused to defend and so the Republican House wanted somebody to defend it in the Supreme Court. They hired Paul. King and Spalding said either refused to represent the United States House of Representatives or leave the firm, and Paul left the firm. He formed his own firm. That particular case he lost five four, so he didn't he didn't win it, but he got four votes at the court. It was it was a very important case. He went to a little litigation boutique, practiced there for years and then twenty sixteen Kirkland and Ellis, which is a big whiteshoe firm based in Chicago, one of the most profitable firms in America, brought him in and brought his team in. He was representing the New York State Rifle Association. He had these clients. He was doing the Second Amendment representation at the time, and Kirkland agreed at the time, you can keep these clients. We know who your clients are. You can keep your clients. It's all good with us. And the thing to understand about this, Michael, this is woke corporate America. Law firms are the handmaidens for the giant companies, and this is woke general counsels saying our politics matters more to us than anything else. And this is law firms being cowards and saying, okay, then we've decided certain parts of the Bill of Rights we don't care about. If their clients that are unpopular, we don't care about. And they literally are chasing away. They're marquee like like Paul is their top Supreme Court litigator. So by the way, they're also telling all the corporate clients, if you have a Supreme Court case, oh well, we can't do it anymore. We don't have the big dog anymore because our politics is more important than actually representing your interests. It really is shameful what's happened to law firms and what has happened to corporate America that is, you know, I guess it's a mark of honor for Paul in the sense that the guy is obviously very very effective, very very successful, and the soft power that has a lot of power in this country. Corporate power really doesn't like him and is punishing him. Good on him. He should he should fire the pink slip that he received. All in all, especially as as we're looking at these big wins and big potential wins from the Supreme Court, you're seeing that rise in the vitriol from the left and danger as well. We will have to leave it there on that sort of ominous cliffhanger with lots of big decisions awaiting their final conclusion. But that's it for right now. It's it's one o'clock. I know that's an early night for you, senator, but we will let you get the sleep. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.