Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 13 10 15 transcript 2nd Amendment Under Attack

13 10 15 transcript 2nd Amendment Under Attack

13 10 15 transcript 2nd Amendment Under Attack

Page 1: 13 10 15 transcript 2nd Amendment Under Attack

Category:Panel Transcripts

Number of Pages:28

Date Created:April 8, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 08, 2014

Tags:Emily, HALBROOK, Heller, Bloomberg, steve, Voter ID, control, maryland, amendment, fitton, people, Supreme, Miller, California, ATF, Obama, White House, Supreme Court, states, court, united, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE SECOND AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK 
 
header_main
 
MODERATOR: 
 
TOM FITTON, 
PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH 
 
 
PANELISTS:   
 
DR. JOHN LOTT JR., 
PRESIDENT, CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER, 
AUTHOR MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME 
 
ATTORNEY STEPHEN HALBROOK, 
REPRESENTED MAJORITY MEMBERS  
CONGRESS AMICI CURIAE D.C. HELLER, 
AUTHOR THE FOUNDERS SECOND AMENDMENT  
 
EMILY MILLER, 
SENIOR EDITOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES  
OPINION PAGES, AUTHOR EMILY GETS HER GUN:  
BUT OBAMA WANTS TAKE YOURS 
 
 
 
 
 
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013 
 
TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED TRANSCRIPTION  WWW.DCTMR.COM  
 
  
 
 
 
TOM FITTON:  And were ready begin.  For those you the Internet, appreciate your sticking with while figured out the delay. welcome Judicial Watch and our panel this morning.  Good morning.  Im Tom Fitton, president Judicial Watch.  And Judicial Watch conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation dedicated transparency, integrity, and accountability government, politics, and the law.  Through our educational activities, advocate high standards ethics and morality our nations public life and seek ensure that public officials not abuse the powers entrusted them the American people.   
 
Judicial Watch strongly believes the rule law and that end, government that adheres the limits imposed upon the U.S. Constitution.   
 
Our panel today entitled The Second Amendment under Attack, seeks highlight the recent controversies and debates over the protections and limits the Second Amendment right keep and bear arms. will examine how the recent mass shootings two mentally ill individuals Sandy Hook and the Washington Navy Yard have embolden the Obama administration and its allies through executive action and legislation restricting certain Second Amendment rights Americans.   
 
Our panel will explore the efficacy and constitutionality anti-gun actions the federal and state level.   
 
Following the Sandy Hook shooting, President Obama working through his point man, Vice President Biden, almost immediately announced nearly two dozen executive actions related gun control.  But despite massive media and other left-leaning pressure, including from Barack Obama and his personal political operation, Congress refused seriously consider massive gun ban and other gun control measures.   
 
Meanwhile, handful states have passed additional restrictions, such New York and Connecticut, and our neighbor, the state Maryland passed slew gun control measures this past year, which are now also subject legal challenge, the chief result which seem massive gun purchases law abiding citizens the run the implementation the law.   
 
But interestingly, Governor Jerry Brown California just vetoed massive gun control bill the liberal state California. course, could argued that the real news over the last several years increased gun control, but the easing gun restrictions result the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald decision that affirmed that individuals had the individual constitutional right keep and bear arms.   
 
Judicial Watch has noticed recently, though, that government corruption and gun regulation seem going hand hand.  Firstly, theres the debate about the lawfulness some  President Obamas executive orders that mentioned earlier, some which seem end run around, for instance, longstanding laws that prevent federal health bureaucrats from using tax money promote the motion that gun violence, like cigarette smoking, public health issue.   
 
And then theres the local abuse public office, suspect its the case with Mayor Michael Bloomberg Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  This Bloomberg scandal seems involve the misappropriation local tax dollars advance the private lobbying agenda Bloombergs anti-gun group.   
 
And then here D.C., Im sure Emily will talk about, the local police and prosecutors happily enforced draconian anti-gun laws against average Americans.  Yet, you hold politically correct views gun rights such David Gregory NBC News, not only can you violate these gun laws but with impunity, but you can the case Dianne Feinstein, senator from California, get help violating these laws from the D.C. chief police. our nations capital, long you want more gun control laws, seems you dont have follow the gun control laws the books. theres lot talk about today. lets get our panelists.  Emily Miller senior editor the Opinion pages the Washington Times, and she regularly appears the media gun control issues.  And her reporting the Second Amendment has won her several awards.  She was senior editor the Human Events and columnist for AOLs Politics Daily.  Shes worked for both ABC and NBC News.  And shes the author the new great book Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants Take Yours.  (Laughter.)   
 
Stephen Halbrook has litigated cases the federal and state courts nationwide constitutional issues involving various firearm laws.  Hes argued and won cases the U.S. Supreme Court representing manufacturers, law enforcement officers, and criminal defendants matters pertaining the International Firearms Act. the seminal case D.C. Heller represented the majority the members the Congress amicus curiae.  Hes the author the book The Founders Second Amendment, and the upcoming book Gun Control the Third Reich.  Were lucky have Stephen here. key legal resource and leader Second Amendment issues.   
 
And also John Lott Jr. the president the newly formed Crime Convention  Crime Prevention Research. also the author More Guns, Less Crime.  And his newest book Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench.  And Johns analysis and research has really transformed the gun rights debate this country. again, were lucky have these panelists here with today.   
 
And well just down the row here, beginning with Emily.  And our panelists will making remarks  the time they see fit, and then well open for discussion and questions from our audience. Emily Miller, thank you for joining us.   
 
EMILY MILLER:  Thank you for having here.  Im honored here.  This  Judicial Watch does such great work enforcing especially the people this city and politics who refuse respond journalists and the First Amendment.  And appreciate everything you guys are doing.   
 
And you know,  new the Second Amendment fight and awe sitting next Steve Halbrook and John Lott right now, and even being panel with them. became involved  Ive always been conservative and pro-Constitution, pro-Second Amendment, but was theory until was victim home invasion few years ago and was  walked into home, was dog sitting, and walked and found the man robbing it.  And that really changed view guns because, quite frankly, thought, oh, God, wish had gun protect myself.  And they  but thankfully, wasnt physically hurt.  But quickly found out therere about other men the end the driveway with him. could have gone very badly.   
 
And then, decided get gun because thought D.C. has rising crime rate, all right, know D.C. has rising crime rate.  Chief Lanier will hide that from you.  But assaults with gun are up.  Robberies with gun are up.  And homicides this year are up.  Violent crime up.  This not safe city. want get gun check myself.  And told  went editor the Washington Times and said Im going get gun.  Would interesting wrote about Washington Times? know its somewhat difficult. had idea. said, think itll take about two weeks.  And have  very, very long story that book short  took four months get legal gun D.C.  There were steps had through. cost $435 fees.  And cant even take the gun out the home because there are carrier rights D.C. all.  Its the last place the country that doesnt allow you bear arms. this inspired get more involved broadly the Second Amendment.  And then decided write this book because quite soon after went through what supposed gun control laws are supposed make the city safer nothing but make hard for people, law abiding people like get gun.  And quite obviously dont affect the criminals whatsoever because they dont care what the laws are. does  and also doesnt affect, Tom mentioned, the liberal elite because Dianne Feinstein can get whatever illegal gun she wants.  And David Gregory NBC can get whatever illegal gun wants magazine, that case.   
 
What saw this year the greatest assault the Second Amendment least years and since the last assault weapons ban the early 90s.  And thats due the fact that weve got this rabidly anti-gun president the White House whos elected for second term and will nothing  are guys OK?   
 
STEPHEN HALBROOK:  (Off mic.)   
 
MS. MILLER:  Oh, OK.  Were  the reason that this the greatest assault Second Amendment the rabidly anti-gun president whos been reelected and going pursue his long time agenda, combined with the fact that weve got billionaire New York City mayor whos willing spend any amount money  because its pocket change him tens millions dollars make sure that gun control spreads throughout the state.  And weve seen this year alone, five states have passed radical gun control laws, including Western longtime pro-gun state like Colorado.  They didnt get enough votes the Senate April pursue so-called the universal background checks, but Obama just said after the terrible Navy Yard shooting that will, before the end his term, get federal gun control laws.   
 
And think the most important thing for those who are pro-Second Amendment and want defend our rights and defend our Constitution understand that the president, aided the liberal media, deliberately mislead the public into thinking certain things order pursue their agenda.  Primarily, they want people think that gun crime up.  They want you think youre more danger.  And were sitting here talking about  this panel today about how mass shootings are being exploited order push gun control laws  you heard just after the Navy Yard shooting, the president came out and said here have yet another one these.  Once again, Im here.   
 
Well, the last mass shooting was last December.  Its horrible day American history when killer killed children Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School.  But the president the United States talking about nine-month gap, and thats deliberate scare tactics. responsible president would have come out and said there reason for you afraid.  Mass shootings are not the rise.  Congressional Research Service did great study April that looked 30-year history.  Mass shootings are not the rise.  Youre safer now than ever.  Dont concerned.   
 
But thats not what this president does.  And get into more this along, but Im going just say that just for me, where came from victim and then now advocate for the Second Amendment, Ill just read you the last line book because sort explains you where  where Im coming from today.   
 
God gave the right defend ourselves, whether from dangerous citizens tyrannical government.  Our founding fathers said those rights cannot infringed. generally dont call myself pro-gun. choose describe myself pro-Second Amendment. gun just tool.  The fight for freedom.  Thank you.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Thank you, Emily.  You remind  was  recall being  when was robbed gunpoint just outside the Supreme Court.  all ironies, D.C., the more strict gun control rules the world the country  can argued  the crime just astronomical associated with it. appreciate your personal testimony that well.   
 
Mr. Halbrook, thank you.   
 
MR. HALBROOK:  Thank you, Tom.  Its real pleasure here Judicial Watch.  The organizations been doing Gods work for long time now. really appreciate it. dont know about you people, but feel lot safer knowing that Emilys gun registered and that she had through all that trouble get it.  Im also  also feel safer because her registration will expire three years  
 
MS. MILLER:  Thats right. 
 
MR. HALBROOK:   and even though they wanted background checks her every day, itll expire, and then, she doesnt get the notice the mail, then she will become illegal gun possessor and subject one year incarceration, unless the guns outside her home.  Then, will be, think five years.   
 
MS. MILLER:  And will you represent when get?  (Laughter.)   
 
MR. HALBROOK:  You know, when Eric Holder was U.S. attorney for the District Columbia, proposed that unregistered gun should get you mandatory five years incarceration. your papers are not order, then you should incarcerated.  Mr. Holder, who would like decriminalize crack cocaine and hes worried about the prisons being too populated, but mean, can you imagine five years mandatory for that?   
 
Weve been litigating case called Heller the District Columbia.  After the Supreme Court victory District Columbia Heller, the District tried make harder than ever before own gun. the steps that you had through even acquire gun became even more draconian.  Youve heard Emilys story.   
 
One the plaintiffs our case, for example, was guy that only wanted was target rifle bolt-action caliber.  And had through all  jump through all these hoops and take course handgun training get rifle. that case, the way, went the D.C. Circuit and its backed down the remand.  The Court Appeals, two one opinion, ruled against this the so-called Assault Weapon Ban, but remanded the case the registration issues saying that theres evidence been submitted that registration has any role fighting crime protecting police officers. those were the two reasons the District gave.   
 
And then get back into discovery the lower court. take Chief Laniers deposition and found out that the police never ever use registration system when they crime scene. mean, why would they? registered gun owner, thats probably really criminal kind person there.  And probably you wouldnt even going residence where you had registered gun.   
 
And learned lot  all the excuses they give for registration guns, they all fall the wayside because its one thing have Violence Policy Center, where the Brady people and testify city council hearing about all the benefits registration, but none these actually are used for any purpose. its just way  guess favorite argument D.C. made back then, the way, was that making unregistered guns crime, you can arrest people you dont have anything else charge them with.  And that was even too much for the D.C. Circuit.  They said thats sort circular and dont accept that reason. anyway, can all walk out here today feeling very glad that Emilys got gun registered because just  makes feel safe.   
 
Im going just touch very briefly some the litigation going on. had draconian laws passed New York State and Connecticut and then Maryland.  Marylands not quite draconian the other two, but think maybe favorite one New York that first, they passed the so-called Safe Act. would ban magazines that would hold more than seven rounds.  And then they found out that nobody makes magazines that hold only seven rounds less for most guns that is. Mayor Cuomo called around the manufacturers and say would you make seven round magazines, please.  And they told them where go. the way they amended the law was say you cannot have magazine that holds more than rounds, but you cannot put more than seven rounds it.  And weve seen reports the first people arrested for that offense.  But there was exemption for you are involved competitive shooting shooting range, you can put rounds it.  But youre home and you have your gun loaded protect your family and your home, then you cannot have more than seven rounds it. obviously were making the usual Second Amendment arguments.  Were making arguments about vagueness and equal protection.   
 
Heller, the Supreme Court decision Justice Scalia, basically formally the test  firearm possessed  type thats possessed law abiding people for lawful purposes, and handguns obviously overwhelmingly passed that test, rifles and shotguns.  The District argued the time that, well, you can have rifles and shotguns, you dont need handguns.  And the people supporting the District, like the Brady center and others, said that rifles and shotguns are better for self-defense.  Now, find ourselves situation where the Supreme Court says handguns are protected, were litigating New York.  And the Brady center coming saying that, well, rifles and shotguns are good for self-defense. you have the opposite day, right? mean, whatever said yesterday doesnt count.  And can say anything want. can say things like rifles are  especially semi-auto rifles are the favorite tools this that kind criminal terrorist, drug dealers, gangbangers, and you know, down the list.  And then you find that theyre used less crimes than any other kind firearm. thats basically what were doing now litigating that issue.  The D.C. Circuit had held, the way, that so-called assault weapons, dont agree with that word, the way.  Thats linguistic manipulation.  Its just pejorative term made call something bad.  Why dont you just call them murder weapons guns that only really bad people like, stuff like that?   
 
And the definition changes daily.  You know, there was the federal definition. had have two generic features.  Now, its been redefined New York and Connecticut have just one generic feature. linguistic manipulation, you can basically away with Second Amendment rights.  Can you imagine doing that with any other topic?  And Connecticut, even have definition that  its illegal you can  you have least one finger under the trigger finger when you fire opposed to, guess, holding like old fashion straight stock. you have  can you imagine for Second Amendment purposes, doesnt that trivialize things little bit?  You got finger thats not the trigger finger under the trigger finger.  Thats bizarre.  But thats what were litigating.  And the defendants these cases  Connecticut, New York, now Maryland  basically think that they file briefs and the word assault weapon appears every other sentence that they win.  And know basically also that the courts have been involved massive resistance the Heller decision and the McDonald decision coming out Ohio because virtually every issue, most courts are holding that, well, you know, its such important right, but you cant carry outside the homes.  The word bear arms means nothing.  Theres  cert. petitions being denied already over that.  Theres new one the Supreme Court coming from Maryland.  but could ramble long time and Id better quite and let you hear from the master statistics and data, something stay away from.  And John, ahead.   
 
MR. FITTON:  OK, well give John second while let the screen come down and have presentation.  Well move aside, folks can view his PowerPoint more easily. just need slide the chairs back here little bit.   
 
John and its  
 
JOHN LOTT JR.: hate make everybody move.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Oh, thats OK.   
 
MR. LOTT: could probably talk  
 
MR. FITTON:  Our lawyer guest going get killed back there.   
 
MR. LOTT:  Well, can start talking while were waiting for this go.   
 
MR. FITTON:  The microphone  you can take out the stand.   
 
MR. LOTT:  You know, Emily and Steve have been talking, theres been  and Tom  thereve been lot changes that occurred some states and youve also had the federal government put forward different rules. think one common feature thats occurred with these rules has basically been  its been make guns more costly for people have.  And understanding, the state New York, for example, the average cost for going through background check, through FFL supposedly like $85. means every time you buy ammunition now, you essentially have pay this flat $85 fee. Maryland, the rules arent set yet for going through the licensing and registration, but people there tell its likely over several hundred dollars. Washington, D.C., the Washington Post says costs $534 through the registration licensing process and get handgun here.   
 
And Colorado has new fees.  You have other places.  And think the general point this they realize they cant directly ban guns.  But what they can make very costly for people able have it.  And think one the big impacts when you see the high fees D.C. New York Maryland the questions whos going priced out being able and get guns.  And strong belief its basically going poor individuals, particularly poor blacks, who need the guns the most. research convinces anything, its basically the most vulnerable people our society terms crime benefit the most terms having gun able and protect themselves.  And those are the very people that youre going pricing out doing it. you have, you know, the administration stopping voter IDs different places because they say even free provided, somehow imposes undue burden somebody able and vote.  But having pay $534 through the process, and get handgun permit here D.C. not too much burden for somebody able and protect themselves. was just going mention something about the registration, licensing, something that Ive looked into over number years.  And you know, theory, gun left the crime scene and the gun registered the person that committed the crime, then youre going able and trace back the perpetrator. few problems with that, one crime guns virtually are never left the crime scene.  And the few times that theyre left the crime scene its either because the criminal has been either seriously injured killed.  And youre going retrieve anyway.  And when they are left the crime scene, theyre usually not registered and theyre registered, theyre not registered the person who committed the crime.   
 
And whether you look the data from Hawaii Chicago Canada other places that have registration, cant find crimes which have been solved result registration and licensing.  And its more than just the data for D.C. that youd 
going into the type case that Steve dealing with right here.  Just say  testified Hawaii, 2000, when theyre talking about changing the registration process.  The police chief for Honolulu said that took them 50,000 hours year and deal with registration that was there, 50,000 hours police time, which could have been used ways that know police work and solve crimes other places.   
 
The problem is, you know, were taking that away from real things that work and putting into something where the police chief himself couldnt identify one single crime that had been solved result registration, licensing. 
 
And the other thing that was  kind came mind when Emily was talking  Ill just mention briefly before get what was going say  and that the scare tactics that are used here constantly. mean, the president, for example, goes and says, million prohibited people have been prevented from buying guns because background checks.  Thats simply false.  The correct terminology  mean, sounds amazing, million people.  But the correct terminology million initial denials.  Theres huge difference between saying initial denials and prohibited people prevented. for example, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, five times, was the no-fly list and fly.  Now, later flew, but  presumably wouldnt count that five times stopped the terrorists from flying.  But thats  but thats essentially what the president counts  
 
MR. FITTON:  (Inaudible)  Ted Kennedy.   
 
MR. LOTT:  Well, dont know.  Maybe you want keep them from driving something.  (Laughter.) normally the joke hear.   
 
But anyway, you know, the point but thats the way the president counts those initial denials when hes getting the million number. fact, virtually all those initial denials are false positives.  And the question you run into then when youve got million people, therere going some people who really need get gun quickly for self-defense who were stopped from doing so.  And thats threat safety because those individuals, then, who may have needed, not all them, but some small percentage, really need get gun quickly for self-defense.  And theyre prevented from doing so.   
 
But could through  mean, Emily talked little bit about the scare tactics, and could for long time about it.  But  theres basically this legislation and the common feature just make costly for people own guns, particularly poor people.  But theres lot other things, since were talking about the threat here.  Id just mention one general area, and thats what think massive funding the government and lot foundations and push what think pretty horribly done research guns.   
 
Mayor Bloomberg just gave $250 million the Bloomberg School Public Health hire new academic positions.  Most them will dealing with gun control issues.  Thats addition the eight people that they already have. January, President Obama met with the heads foundations that have been pushing health care, government control health care, basically saying weve won this debate.  Its time for focus new issue.  And argued and they agreed that the new issue should gun control. you know, over the last couple decades, weve had Kaiser and the Wellness Foundation and others putting tens millions dollars into what regard bogus research, saying the problems with the American health care system and trying push for Canadian type other type government control the system.   
 
Now, theyre going putting those tens millions dollars into funding gun control studies public health, and could talk for while about that.  Just the last couple weeks, weve had several studies that have come out.  Each one have gotten lot attention.  And course, the president, this year, has promised spend tens millions dollars federal government money gun control research. dont mind people doing research.  Research great.  But just dont think that the president going able divorce politics from how they spend the government money terms deciding what type research.   
 
Were not talking about building cyclotron someplace.  Were talking about somebody getting some students others put together data.  You run your computer.  You know, you got software that.  Regular academics can that without having have the government kind put its heavy hand determining what type research that they want and fund.   
 
Since couple the studies that came out the last few weeks have gotten lot attention, dealing with international, just thought Id talk for minute about that.  Most the discussion that hear for these public health states, though not all, looking what call cross-sectional data. you know, terms normal parlance, people will say things like, well, the has relatively few guns, has low murders.  One was Piers Morgan, whose  Emily talked and others.  That you know, thats  and therefore must the gun control which causing the lower murder rates.   
 
Well, very few academics use cross-sectional data anymore.  And therere real problems with it. just give you simple example.  New York Times, few years ago, had this big study the death penalty.  And they looked across states and they said, look, the murder rate higher the states with the death penalty than the states without. they  being the New York Times said, look, anything, maybe even the death penalty causes higher murder rates.   
 
Heres the problem.  Lets say  well, first all, the states that didnt have the death penalty the time were like Alaska, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, 
Vermont, mainly small relatively rural states.  Lets say the high murder rate states are the ones that adopted death penalty.  And the death penalty causes the murder rate fall, but not enough, its low the low murder rate states that never felt the need and adopt the death penalty. Im only looking across places then, its going  the death penalty states are going have higher murder rate even though the death penalty caused fall.   
 
The only way you can really deal with this follow different jurisdictions over time and see how their murder rates change relative what they were before the law changed, and how their changes over time correspond those jurisdictions that didnt change their law.   
 
And  but Ill just  you know  Im going spend just minute talking about the type cross-sectional data that was talked about those studies that just came out just because something that, you know, you read the New York Times, you would have seen this like times this year.  And theres something called the Small Arms Survey and rates gun ownership, firearms per 100 people.  And the United States supposedly way out here firearms per 100 people.   
 
First all, would have done differently. would have had the percentage the population with guns, rather than guns per people, but thats relatively minor thing.  Switzerland supposedly here guns per 100 people.  And Israel supposedly way down over here seven guns per 100 people, just give you idea.   
 
Has anybody been Israel here? assume youve been Israel.  Youve been Israel. you think they have seven guns per 100 people Israel compared the United States?  That theyre like percent the gun ownership rate  gun possession rate that have here the United States? guess not.  And the reason why they get seven guns per 100 people the fact that just concealed people able carry handguns Israel, youve about percent the Jewish population able that.   
 
Anyway, its because technically the Israeli government owns almost all the guns.  You can have possession gun for decades, but they dont count that firearms per 100 people because the government technically owns the guns that are there. want talk about the risks people having guns, that should your possession, you know, whether its your home, whether youre carrying around, not who technically owns the gun now. you did that, youd probably get number thats going probably higher than the United States.  You know, Switzerland, they ended really not counting any the gun  this 2007, before recent changes the laws there  but you would have had people who were military age, 42, having weapons their home, but the government would technically own those.  Later on, you can purchase some when you left the military service, whatever.  But none those guns peoples homes were counted firearms per 100 people.  You put those types numbers, youre going get very high numbers.  But even without fixing that type 
data, when you look all the countries, you still get negative relationship between gun ownership and homicides. you look all the countries, United States about here terms murder rates.  Now, some the countries with very high murder  highest murder rates dont even count the data. theyre out the sample. you look just developed countries  and this looking developed countries without the United States.  Were just saying what can learn from other countries?  You, fact, again see negative relationship between this measure Small Arms Survey measure, gun ownership, and homicide rates.   
 
The thing that happens, though, that when you put the  when you put the United States in, since its way out over here and its about here, the United States just itself pulls this regression line. dont know any you have had statistics, but when you run regression, youre kind minimizing the sum the squared error. something thats kind outlier thats really far out because youre squaring the difference there has huge impact it.  And just that one observation itself will pull this line little bit.   
 
The things is, though, you fix Switzerland Israel, just those two themselves would pull right back down because they have very low murder rates compared most other countries that are there.   
 
But you know, most the press and surely the New York Times doesnt ask how did you get these numbers.  You know, they dont ask anything about the organization that puts out and unfortunately, dont have resources combat this stuff the sense that, you know, much money being spent the other side and put this type data together. they can control how the datas put together, they can control lot the debate thats going on, because then everybody just  these are the only numbers out there and people and use them. dont like cross-sectional data. dont think its very useful.  But just wanted show you.  Now, dont know how long you want talk.  You want stop?   
 
MR. FITTON: few more minutes.   
 
MR. LOTT:  OK. just showed you something  one thing thats come lot  mean, could give you slides for lots things. just  Australias come the debate lot.  They didnt ban guns technically.  They have licensing and registration for different types guns that were there and may harder get many types.  But the big thing that happened 96 and 97 was gun buyback.  And was big buyback.  They basically reduced the number legally held guns about third, which big change.   
 
The thing thats never talked about, really, though that people could out then and buy guns again.  And looks the gun ownership rate about back where was before the buybacks. you have the big drop and then the gun ownership rate increasing faster than the growth population.  And its been increasing again. you believe most these stories that are going one, you know, John Howard that writes the New York Times other things said, when they talk about suicides with guns other things, how should have changed over time.  You should have seen big drop and then should have increased.  Well, heres homicides.  You can see its basically flat, get out about eight, nine years, starts fall some, not the drop and then the increase that they might have expected.   
 
Heres armed robberies Australia, big increase right after the buyback, and then dropped.  Though, its still little bit higher than was before the buyback, not the drop and then the increase that they would have predicted, the opposite.   
 
Now, heres something that true.  There has been drop firearm suicides its the dotted line  after the buyback, but therere few things point.  One was falling virtually the exact same rate prior the buyback. cant really find any difference terms the rate.  The second thing over that same period time, the non-firearms suicide rate fell almost exactly the same amount the firearms suicide rate fell.  And the third thing just pattern. its falling the same rate, but this story was true, mean,  you dont need machine gun whatever  its stuff they could have begin with  and commit suicide.  One shot will usually it.   
 
And you would have imagined the drop and then increase.  But instead, this falling exactly the same rate that was beforehand.  and could on.  This for homicides.  Its the same type story. say, Ive other graphs could show you, but think this debate really just getting going.  And the legal thing and the  and kind the news media angles this that our other two speakers have talked about are just part this because, you know, you read something like Judge Posners opinion the Seventh Circuit, striking down Illinois concealed handgun ban.  And what did was went through the academic literature.  And said, look, the state Illinois had show that there was some damage citizens from allowing concealed carry.  They didnt show it.   
 
Posner basically went through the literature. said the worst that opponents can say that theres bad effect.  And that wasnt enough.  But you read things like Ginsburg decision Heller II, when read his decision there, sending parts back the district court, was almost plea, thought, his part  inaudible  00:39:02 and ask for some type evidence because would say parts, you know, the District claims dont really have anything your side.  Im going basically accept what the District has said.   
 
Now, maybe would have accepted anyway and maybe not everybody kind takes the balancing test terms intermediate scrutiny the same way that Posner does, though think Ginsburg kind economics-oriented type guy.  And think would have taken it.   
 
But  and could through for long time about the problems with the public health stuff that are there.  Its kind really antiquated statistics.  You know, makes these types problems with these cross-sectional comparisons that was talking about, and could through lots other things during the question period.  You know, these claims about the risk having guns the home just one good example that.  But think were  just like with the health care debate  they have put out study after study after study, and was kind like Chinese water torture.  And this just getting going and were going seeing huge amount this.  And somehow, this has countered some way.  So, anyway, appreciate your time.  Thank you very much. 
 
 MR. FITTON:  Thank you.  Well put the screen back and well begin  well continue our discussion amongst ourselves. you all are settling in, you know, what strikes me, you know, looking this issue, and its reaffirmed your presentations, about how little gun control has anything with crime.  And doesnt strike theres any good evidence based what hear here that theres correlation, and that think the other side, put the test, would probably agree. everyone agrees  shouldnt say everyone agrees  but its pretty clear that has nothing with crime control, then why the obsession with gun control the left your  your view?  John, you can take that first you like. 
 
MR. LOTT:  Yeah.  Look, mean, Im empirically oriented guy. me, the bottom line safety stuff.  But Ive talked enough people the Hill who are Democrats. think, heres  you look polls, think the one issue that most differentiates   
 
MR. FITTON:  Use the microphone.  Yeah. 
 
MR. LOTT:  Im sorry. you look polls, the one issue that most differentiates liberals and conservatives gun control. isnt abortion. isnt taxes.  And think liberals generally like have government make decisions for people.  And conservatives libertarians are much more willing let individuals make those decisions.   
 
And when comes guns weapons generally, you know, whether you trust individuals, its kind like the extreme outer bounds there with regard weapons.  You know, you dont want trust them make health care decisions  mean, God  you know, its  the notion trusting them with weapons like couple standard deviations farther than that.   
 
But talking people over the decades, have this impression that Democrats view  unions are Democrats gun owners are Republicans.  For example, dont think the Republicans would have taken the special  you know, the recall races Colorado, obviously, wasnt for the gun issue that was there.   
 
And let give you analogy that think its occurring. support vouchers for education and support  the main  virtually, the only reason why would support them because think competition improves the quality any product, and education very important. should have hard-quality education.   
 
Now, completely  side effect that you had vouchers tax credits, you would get rid the public teachers unions.  And you got rid the public teachers unions, think would have major impact the political debate lot this United States. mean, you just and look at, you know, the percentage delegates the Democratic National Convention that are public teachers. mean, its huge percentage, you know, third some years seems like.  And, obviously, they fund lot the Democratic campaigns. you had vouchers for whatever reason youre doing it, would have impact other ways terms the political  would hurt Democrats.  And think thats one reason why they oppose strongly even though their opposition hurts kids.   
 
Now, the same thing true with guns though the sense  least think from the way that Democrats view this, and that they think that they can reduce gun ownership, and they see the same polls and stuff Im sure others that, you know, whether you grow hunting family other types things  fact, the probability that youre going have guns, they can those things, you know, just make costly with all these taxes for people who owned guns, then after some period time, people are going less familiar with them.  Its going easier have the type scare tactics that Emily was talking about before.  People would less independent and youll weaken kind the natural support that the Republicans would having these things.   
 
And think, well, Democrats Im sure sincerely believe that the policies that theyre pushing make people safer.  And, you know, wrote whole book why people believe the things that they about guns. think that they also support it.  And one the reasons why they keep going after often that they think that its one way and weaken their political opponents the long run. anyway, thats answer your question. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Steve, what are you thinking?  Youve been dealing with the lawyers for the other side, seemingly disingenuous bunch based your description earlier.  Whats the motivation big gun groups and the politicians allied with them? 
 
MR. HALBROOK:  Well, the goal reduce gun ownership.  Take the recent decision, U.S. Court Appeals for the Fourth Circuit about Marylands carry law.  The other states the Four Circuit, that would Virginia and the Carolinas and West 
Virginia, have shall-issue carry for handguns.  You meet certain requirements, you get your permit.  Maryland has good and substantial reason test so-called.  You have convince law enforcement authorities that you have good and substantial reason.  And just because you have constitutional right does not mean that you have good, substantial reason. the opinion, the court explicitly talked about reduction the number people carrying handguns the reason for upholding this test despite the Second Amendment. there you had the court itself agreeing with that, that manner so-called public policy, should reduce handgun carriage.   
 
But courts have made excuse lists for long time, just use the Fourth Circuit example.  Back before Heller and McDonald, there was case that said the Second Amendment right the people keep and bear arms really means the collective right states maintain the militias its not about individual ownership.  And then, that was followed another case where upholding the old good and substantial reason test Maryland because the Second Amendment doesnt apply the states.  And then get Heller and McDonald saying its individual right and applies the states.   
 
And guess what?  The Fourth Circuit says that, well, yes. individual right applies the states, but theres public interest reducing handgun carrying.  And gave statistic for that that Maryland has high murder rate, higher than more states, and even rank Maryland terms murder and armed robbery and some other things, which made think, that sounds like you would want law-abiding people carry handguns, but no. means that law-abiding people should not carry handguns.  And they always use things like guns the streets and they never distinguish the law-abiding people from criminals. this just example how the judiciary will basically attempt nullify Supreme Court decisions they disagree with. saw this the Lopez case the Commerce Clause back decade and half ago. the fact that its recognized constitutional right doesnt mean anything.  Youve got Justice Ginsburg saying that its irrelevant and outdated and telling Egyptian that dont  whatever you do, dont adopt the U.S. type constitution. goes back what Madison talked about the Federalist Papers, the European monarchies are afraid trust the people with arms and trust them here and thats why wont have tyranny. its the same debate. goes back from  goes back the dawn civilization about whether you trust the people with arms. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Emily, youve been because your book Im sure lot more public debates with advocates for gun control.  Whats your take whats moving them and there good faith behind? they really care about the public safety power trip conservatives suspect? 
 
MS. MILLER:  Well, first all, think the biggest issue with  two groups, the gun control activists, the Brady Group, Mayors against Legal Guns, which the big one 
now, Bloombergs group, that about going back what both John and Steve said lack trust the individuals responsible enough get your guns.  They actually believe that dont know how train, that will shoot ourselves, will shoot somebody else, were going have this Wild West shootouts.  And thats their theory.   
 
And its political philosophy and its not much Democrat-Republican, because saw the Senate the recent bill, President Obamas bill universal background checks didnt through. was the Democrats who wouldnt pass it.  But its more socialist political view.   
 
And interviewed Governor Rick Perry Texas book about President Obama and his political philosophy gun control, and said  you know, Governor Perry obviously was the most pro-Second Amendment candidate 2012 and was very open about it.  And said, you know, what you think his philosophy  where this coming from?  And Governor Perry said that  said, look, got lot trouble 2012 for saying this, but Ill say again.  Hes like, Barack Obama classic central control socialist  Im going keep Texas accent when him  classic central control socialist.  And they believe part that philosophy, which control health care, control our taxes, more money government, more money Washington, but hes like, and part that disarming the populous.  That that political philosophy.   
 
And think thats where this comes from.  Its far left political philosophy where armed populous dangerous place because the government has less power, which is, obviously, the founding fathers, Steve said, fully intended that opposite. prevent tyranny, needed have armed populous.   
 
But the other big group people who are advocating for gun control, its not about political philosophy.  And would say those are the liberal media and thats not our political philosophy.  That  well, possibly, its their kneejerk liberal philosophy, but its also complete lack education, complete lack use facts. youre saying, Im really constantly sort having deal with these people and educate them think some small way.  You know, when went Piers Morgans show recently and said, fact, didnt even pause, the more guns there are, the more gun crime there is, blah, blah, blah.  And kept talking and interrupted him and said, no, Piers, that not true.  Gun ownership the highest rates its ever been.  Gun crime  all violent crime down, but gun murder specifically  the murder rate has gone down percent since 1993 and 2012.  And just completely changed topic. said, why are they letting blind people have guns Iowa?  You know, because you could talk about the actual facts that.  Its true.  Its (the blind people.  You know, wouldnt continue because broke his entire push, which more guns  this John Lotts book, More Guns, Less Crime.  Did get right?  Not backwards?  More Guns, Less Crime. this continual push the liberal media confuse public combined with the White House and the anti-gun groups doing it, and unfortunately, although those this room know these facts, overwhelming majority Americans not.   
 
And Pew did this poll May, which thought was telling.  And asked people, you think gun crime up?  And they asked different time periods, near time, five years, years, years.  Eighty-eight percent the public said gun crime either the same.  That means, put point it, fine point it, only one out Americans know that gun crime down.  And equate  think the reason for that they get their information from liberal media, which continues say things, like Piers Morgan will openly say, more guns more crime.   
 
And other  you know, was Anderson Coopers show and one his panelists  Im sorry  all five his panelists kept saying, mass shootings are up; mass shootings are up; mass shootings are up.  And interrupted.  And said, based what?  And one the panelists  (inaudible)  said, based the fact that theyre happening all the time.  And was like, OK.  Well, lets base this real fact.  Its called the Congressional Research Service. did report April that shows that mass shootings are not down the course years.  They pretty much are even.  Theyre very hard prevent because the unpredictability them, and they count for about innocent lives year. all five you CNN cannot sit around and say that mass shootings are any factual bases.  And thats cause for this large misconception the public the gun ownership and gun crime. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Steven, see  noted that Jerry Brown vetoed the massive push for more gun bans and regulation while guess signing law that would have prevented illegal aliens from accessing guns requiring you keep gun under lock and key you have alien resident with you, doesnt seem me, despite all the press noise  and, you know, kind alluded this the beginning that the other side necessarily winning this.  However frustrating terms the media narrative, the sides  these kind these liberal states passing really absurd gun restrictions, theyre not getting much traction otherwise, even place like California.  Whats your take that?  Are the battles increasing, John and Steven, terms  the threat increasing decreasing? 
 
MR. LOTT: dont know. Id say that theyre  think its kind draw right. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Its draw? 
 
MR. LOTT:  Myself, mean, you have some states, Texas made easier get concealed handgun permit something, but, look, they passed ban led hunting, you know, rifle bullets California.  They had lots regulations into effect last year.  You know, costs $85 each time you and buy ammunition New York and its going cost over several hundred dollars license and register handgun Maryland, think youre going have big drought.   
 
Look Massachusetts.  Massachusetts, 1998 had about 1.5 million legal registered gun owners the state.  Now its down about 200,000.  Theyve had percent drop the number legal gun owners Massachusetts since 1998 result the registration system there.  Now, think its bigger drop than youll have other places, like Maryland.  But, you know, because they  you have get approval from local police. some places, like Boston, basically impossible get approval.  But, mean, think thats their goal. the way, Massachusetts crime, violent crime relative its neighbors has gone fairly dramatically right after the licensing and registration rules that they had there went into effect.  But, you know, you can point some states where things have gotten easier. think this year its been loss terms net the effect the states that have made much more difficult get guns versus the states that have had some marginal changes. mean, Texas, think lowering its length training from hours four hours could result couple hundred, maybe 300,000 more people getting permits each year than you would have otherwise.  But, you know  and there are some few other states that had changes.  But  but, you know, dont  this battle thats going all the time. dont  Im not super optimistic these things.  Over the long run, over the last few decades, the states, its become much easier, and sure got rid the federal assault weapons ban, which was good.  But, you know, this something Steve could talk about. think you look the Supreme Court, mean, had five-four decisions where the Supreme Court was willing say, complete ban goes too far. mean, for not willing say complete ban goes too far, then would have been completely meaningless, but you read the dissent McDonald.  You had four people essentially saying  four justices saying that they didnt believe that there was individual right self-defense, (let alone individual right have guns for self-defense.  And Kennedy and Scalia are going the next presidential election.  You know, you look actuarial tables.  Theres least reasonable chance these guys arent going make until then.  And you lose one them one the other three votes that are there, youre going have radical changes. want make one quick numbers question.  Steve brought the point  Steve brought the Maryland concealed carry case.  and read these things New Jersey and other places, New York cases, and just dont for the life understand why dont bring direct evidence, least appeals court level that responds these things. like theyll say, the concerns that they keep bringing its important that police have discretion these rulings ensure safety.  Well, there seems very simple piece evidence that could have been provided for that: look the revocation rates for permits the states with and without discretion. dont think its any lower. fact, think its probably little bit higher, from what Ive seen, the states that have discretion versus the ones that dont. seems like something like that 
would directly deal with them.  And Im not sure understand why that type evidence not ever brought those cases, why the lawyers those cases dont bring up. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Stephen, answer his legal question you care you want to.  Also, give your view the legal landscape terms the general positive negative trends. 
 
MR. HALBROOK: think lot brought cases that you never see the opinions because its against what the court wants say   
 
MR. LOTT:  No, no.  Im reading the briefs. 
 
MR. HALBROOK:  Yeah.  But anyway, back California, like why did the governor veto the semi-auto ban, for example?  First all, California already had some the most draconian gun bans any state the country.  They went  they passed the first so-called assault weapon ban 1989.  They kept ratcheting and changing the definition encompass more and more guns.  And think had they  had the governor signed this bill, which would have banned all semi-autos with detachable magazine, that would have been many more guns and many more constituents who would have been affected and who would potential felons that was unacceptable.   
 
But you look what did sign, its ban magazines that hold more than rounds.  They havent been  possession hasnt been banned before now.  Transfer, manufacture, import into the state had been banned California for magazine holding more than rounds.  But theres hundreds and hundreds thousands, maybe even millions existence, maybe even California itself, where law-abiding people possess them, because nobody ever said magazines were evil, wicked, mean and nasty until  well, until 1994, the federal ban.  So, you know, dont know how many favors was doing signing what did and vetoing what did.   
 
The ban use led hunting major, major.  Its huge.  Then you try force industry walk the line between finding other metals that are heavy and that are effective game and violating the armor piercing ammo bans.   
 
But then, for all the publicity these states, you look around, its always the same usual suspects.  Most states the country, John pointed out, have shall issue carry licenses, the overwhelming number.  And even Illinois, after Posners decision Moore vs. Madigan invalidate their law unconstitutional, even though gave the legislature six months fix it.  Thats kind weird constitutional right that its violate for six more months.  And they got extensions.  And now theyre saying its still going take nine months get set up.   
 
But believe not, they passed the law and they defeated the magazine and the assault weapon ban proposals Illinois, still have the same states, the usual suspects  New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and very few others who have passed this kind draconian legislation, which tells you lot about the American 
people and also the way many Democrats are rural states, like Colorado example but with the recall election that was successful. Im optimistic about the political process. know  dont think its idle threat that the sub-title Emilys book, Obama Wants Take Your Guns, really would like that, but hasnt had the power it. what does do? has these presidential initiatives, like the big  what was  them few months ago, its like why dont figure out what illegal under the Gun Control Act, felons and all that?  Well, thats been the law since 1968.  Why dont nominate ATF director?  Well, theyve had power that all these years.  And then they come with month two ago, lets keep military grade weapons off the streets.  And that was ban importation Garand rifles that are this big and weigh lot and shoot only eight times.  And probably none have ever been used hold 7/11 U.S. history. these are his initiatives.  And theyre kind puny, yet would like lot more.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Emily, you know, President Obama has changed politics lot here, and issues that used  used think not worked for the left, hes been able make work more directed appeals, think some would argue.  You know, Im always surprised when get e-mails, get e-mails from Obama for America, Organizing for America, whatever the latest iteration is, and how even despite the failures Congress, hes still continuing push the gun control message.   
 
Whats  mean, they see  are you seeing from your vantage here Washington any political benefit for his political coalition here? 
 
MS. MILLER:  Yeah.  Well, Obama  obviously, you did not hear the word gun come out Obamas mouth the first term was office.  And thats because you cant win national election being anti-gun.  You just cant this country.  Over about half the families this country have gun their home.   
 
But Obama made lot promises his constituents and his far left base. mean, weve heard reports that said Sarah Brady his first term, patient.  Ill take care this.  Ill get gun control but not until after the election.  And know that Dianne Feinstein had her staff out ATF just week before the reelect start drafting her new assault weapons ban. was all along plan appease his far left base because, John said earlier, mean, nothing appeals them more than gun control, the ultimate control, and thats our liberal philosophy. mean, you can control everybodys arms, the government the only one that can control populous.   
 
And waited until his second term. waited until was elected.  And, sadly, think horrifically, just exploited this tragedy Newtown for his own benefit, but think always planned this.  And does appeal his base. mean, the Nancy Pelosis the party like this.  And think that this payback for being patient with him the first term.   
 
And long-term political philosophy.  When you back 1996, when first ran for the Illinois House, filled out questionnaire that asked whether supports the complete ban handguns, Obama said, yes.  Now, later, said didnt actually write and didnt actually see and maybe somebody elses handwriting.  But even four years later, the same questionnaire, only wrote would support the complete ban handguns except for just wasnt logistically possible. its long-term political philosophy and desire.  And now that never has run again for national office, hes able to, one, pursue it, and two, push back his enemies, opposite  help his constituents.   
 
And think the biggest factor  and said this earlier  the biggest factor you have think about this gun control thats changed dramatically everything Bloombergs money. has spent  wrote personal check for $325,000 for the Colorado recall, plus supporting all these gun groups. 
 
MR. LOTT:  The first check. 
 
MS. MILLER: mean, Im saying was 3.5 million (dollars) later. 
 
MR. LOTT:  Thats his first check.  Yeah.  Right. 
 
MS. MILLER:  But the personal, not through the groups, from his  mean, can you imagine having check that would clear?  But must see his bank account.  But you just cant underestimate because still running ads and hes going continue still running ads   
 
MR. LOTT:  Twenty-seven million dollars. 
 
MS. MILLER:  Right, $27 million far.  Its nothing him.  And they believe that they keep running ads against these, what they consider weaker Republicans Democrats the Senate, that they can push their agenda through the Senate.  And very difficult politically for people, senators who are facing these kind ads because then they have spend lot money defend themselves.  Yes, Im for background checks.  Yes, dont want prohibit people from getting guns. the Bloomberg factor think the biggest one that empowers Obama continue this agenda. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Well, were running little bit over time.  And Id like have you all conclude perhaps with look forward, you know, what are the things should looking the gun debate from your perspectives and things looking the courts, from politics the general debate.  And will start with John.  
 
MR. LOTT:  OK.  Im trying think what havent talked about far. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Obviously, youve been talking about the impact the Bloomberg group debate.  Are they getting traction? mean, weve often seen the left spend lot money issues that nowhere for them. this something that theyre getting traction terms changing debate?  How successful have they been?  Will they   
 
MR. LOTT:  Well, think, was trying say, think this long-term strategy. mean, Bloomberg has $27 billion least. dont know.  Im sure stock value changes somewhat over time, but least six months ago, thats about what had.  And, you know, the $250 million hes putting into the Bloomberg School Public Health, Hopkins just part what hes doing.  You know, Emilys mentioned Mayors against the Legal Guns couple times. mean, theyre putting out reports, she mentioned, and theyre funding other things that are going on.  And so, you know, you look the NRA budget whatever and Im sure theyre spending lot more. mean, cant imagine.   
 
And the thing its given credibility the press.  And  you know, they may have this bus tour that goes around which basically have 10, 15, people show up, but yet, still gets coverage these areas when they occur.   
 
And, you know, just  think youre going see  prediction youre going see  just like with the health care.  You back and youre looking  you saw these foundations, Kaiser, Wellness, whatever, putting out these studies month after month, week after week sometimes.  And youre going see the same onslaught.  Its going more terms gun studies that are going come out. mean, personally, look these things and they put them together afternoon. mean, you look  you have like states, spend couple hours getting few variables together, running regressions particular way. question them, well, you get tired after getting the data together after few hours and decide write up? mean, cant even imagine doing research this tiny scale and not trying account for lots important factors and not dealing with panel data and things like that.  But, you know, they keep variations theme with the same data.   
 
But the press going report it.  And Im worried that its going affect the courts, because even dont put data our side these court cases usually, they dont have it.  You read their briefs any these concealed carry cases.  They spend like half their briefs  Im not just looking the opinions.  You look the briefs  they spend half public safety claims.  And Im not saying need lot those things, but even just sentence two many times say, and the reverse true, would useful.  But, anyway, think its long-term battle. think its going get tougher rather than easier. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Steven, any predictions things should looking for?   
 
MR. HALBROOK:  Well, like look this with long-term perspective human history.  They were having the same debates ancient Greece.  You had Aristotle wanting the polity with balance the commonwealth and the armed citizen and all that.  And you had Plato with his philosopher kings the top and auxiliaries armed bodies men the middle, and all the stupid people the bottom.  And its the same pendulum that goes back and forth history. win sometimes, they win sometimes.  And you just have keep fighting. didnt know whether there would ever Supreme Court decision our favor lifetime. wrote the first academic book the Second Amendment 1984.  And had idea. mean, was sitting the oral argument and filing when Kennedy said, well, werent the original settlers hunters and didnt they have have their own guns because there werent police, and protect themselves from grizzly bears?  And didnt know that grizzly bears are not eastern Mississippi but everybody knew that point had Kennedys vote and knew that was necessary win. get these two wonderful opinions and then have courts try negate them.   
 
But had the same thing before those opinions. had courts saying that what was clearly the text the Second Amendment, the right the people keep and bear arms shall not infringed and that ruling meant only states and they had only powers, not rights maintain militias, and the modern militia the National Guard, and blah, blah, blah. weve had this battle  mean, were better position than ever before the state level for those minority the states that have total disrespect for Second Amendment rights.  Were probably the worst level weve ever been just terms California  did you know, used crime register long gun California you were public official and wanted try register long guns, and now have total registration long guns that state?  There are many felonies.  You can prison for long period least have all your civil rights taken away because exercise constitutional right. theres the good, the bad and the ugly about this story, and including about the future, think its pretty incredible.  Dianne Feinstein tried her stuff, tried exploit one the horriblest (sp), worst tragedies weve had U.S. history long time.  And then just  dissolved.   
 
And you had Ted Cruz holding plastic pistol grip, like this really dangerous, isnt it?  You know, like its four inches long about and its about two inches wide and its piece plastic, and youre telling that that transforms rifle into some kind murderous killing machine that its only purpose kill many people quickly possible. were beyond lot that debate. mean, succeeded even preventing the Manchin bill from passing about trying make federal crime trade guns without background check. Im optimistic and Im pessimistic. depends which state were and whats happening guess.  But think for most states, can look and for that smaller number states that are very important that the people are really suffering terms lack recognition their constitutional rights. 
 
MR. FITTON: guess the NRA should change the  remove the eagle from its logo and put the grizzly bear there instead, given Justice Kennedys comments. 
 
MR. HALBROOK: would honor Justice Kennedy.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Right.  Right.  Emily, what you think going and what should looking for? 
 
MS. MILLER: agree that  mean, the future right now going the courts because  you just look the state laws that have passed this year, Colorado, New Jersey, not yet Massachusetts but they will, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, all them are being challenged court.  Some these plaintiffs are amazing. mean, youve got almost all the sheriffs Colorado.  And its just really some powerful ones.   
 
But whats unfortunate, and was Colorado recently and met with the recall organizers lot them, and its amazing what they did.  Against all the money, theyre the first statewide, first time Colorado history, they recalled state office holder, two them  one them was the Democratic Senate leader. top that, theyre Democratic districts and they had Republicans elected. mean, its against  and theyre outspent five one. mean, was against all odds.  And just proves you where the American people are the right keep and bear arms. mean, this what feel strongly about.  This our culture and this is, you know, our constitution.   
 
That being said, the unfortunate thing constitutional rights are very easy lose.  They happen like that.  Weve had five months this year, five states lost their constitutional rights, and very hard get back. takes years.  Like Steve said, the Heller decision, which got the right own gun and McDonald, mean, theres 30-year gun ban D.C. before the Supreme Court finally overturned it.  Thats long time. dont think the states will that long, but, eventually, the Supreme Court has got take two things all talked about: the right  whether the right bear arms absolute and whether these may issue states can keep deciding who can carry gun, and what common use, and can you ban guns that have over rounds ban guns that have the scary pistol grips weve all talked about.  And, John said, were all little worried about the health say Scalia particular.   
 
And went him  put this book  went him, met him the White House Correspondents Dinner. had never met him before.  And was like super fan.  And said, you know, thank you much.  You gave the right have gun and thank you much for writing Heller and its favorite decision, Ive read like lot decisions, only decision.  But was like  but its readable.  Its actually  would say people, all laws were like that, all could understand it.  But said, 
just hope youre staying healthy, sir, because youve really got take these cases soon because want the right bears arms and lot other states do.  And Maryland has these crazy laws and all these other states.  And, jokingly  and friend, Shannon Bream, Fox correspondent who covers the Supreme Court for Fox News, went along  and introduced him, went along with this and was like, hope youre, you know, eating well and exercising regularly.  And then  and was laughing. was like, am, am.  And then Shannon points his tuxedo pocket the cigar sitting there.  And shes like, whats this, your honor?  And hes like, only special occasion. think its all going come down the courts. mean, dont think well see that many more states, probably just Massachusetts, pass more gun control this year, post-California.  And, you know, the Senate, just depends how much money Mike Bloomberg spends get other votes on. 
 
MR. FITTON:  Well, you know what? strikes from Judicial Watchs perspective that lot public policy debates are rackets and that the law doesnt matter those participating the public policy debates. think were going see that with Obamacare and backdoor national registries through gathering information about gun ownership through doctors and then transferred into federal government records.   
 
You see that with President Bloomberg  guess Im getting ahead myself.  But, you know, his having all that money wasnt good enough.  He, seems us, that wants use taxpayer money fund his lobbying effort.  And weve been suing and investigating over that.  And weve actually confirmed that going down Orlando. there corruption associated with, said, this disingenuous absurd effort regulate guns has been proposed the liberal left.  And thats something should pay attention to, especially given the presidents propensity rule fiat opposed following the rules and following the law.   
 
Weve been very lucky have the guests that weve had here the panel, John Lott, Steve Halbrook, and Emily Miller.  You can find out more about their respective activities the Internet.  And Emily Miller WashingtonTimes.com.  Her book Emily Gets Her Gun Amazon.   
 
Steven, how can folks learn more about what youre to?  Whats your website? 
 
MR. HALBROOK:  Oh, its StephenHalbrook.com.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Oh, thats easy remember. 
 
MR. MILLER: need get Steve Twitter.  John Lott and have been trying get him Twitter. 
 
MR. FITTON:  And you can read about his legal work obviously newspapers decisions come down New York and Connecticut.   
 
And, John, how can folks learn more about you and get your information and books and such? 
 
MR. LOTT:  Well, johnrlott.com, and also CrimePreventionResearchCenter.org are two places.  And books, just like Emilys Steves are Amazon Barnes and Noble.  You know, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias against Guns.   
 
MR. FITTON:  Well, great stuff all.  And, again, appreciate your time and your sharing your expertise with here and the Internet.  And those you the Internet will gathering this video and posting and well have written materials follow this issue well. contact through our website JudicialWatch.org.   
 
Thank you every one very much.  Have great afternoon.  (Applause.) 
 
(END)