Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:00]
Mint Mobile Announcer
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [00:20]
Amy Swearer
50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for.
- [00:25]
Shopify Announcer
A 12 month plan taxes and fees.
- [00:27]
Amy Swearer
Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy see terms.
- [00:35]
1-800-Flowers Announcer
Following the fatal shooting of anti ice protester Alex Preddy in Minneapolis, the gun debate is raging once again in the US Amid some head turning reversals from the left on the right to bear arms, the pro second Amendment Trump administration has tightened up its messaging on the tragic case.
- [00:51]
John Bickley
In this episode, we talk to Second Amendment expert Amy Swerer about the legal and political implications of the shooting. I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley with Georgia is a weekend edition of Morning Wire.
- [01:07]
Good Ranchers Sponsor
This year America turns 250. And while everyone's going to be talking about the country and its big accomplishments, I also want to talk about the people here at home who don't get enough credit. American Ranchers. These are the folks who've been feeding families like mine and yours for generations. And that's exactly why I'm a Good Rancher subscriber. Our sponsor, Good Ranchers is the only meat company I've found that's 100% committed to America at every single step. And with every order, they donate a portion of their profits to Paralyzed Veterans of America. I love my cowboy box that I get from Good Ranchers every month. It's got everything I need. Ground beef, ribeyes, plus I personally got to add some bacon on the side. If you're feeding a family like I am, you got to know where your food comes from. And when you subscribe to Good Ranchers, you're saving up to $500 a year. Plus you get free shipping and a free gift in every order for life. Right now, if you go to good ranchers.com and use our code wire, you'll get an additional $25 off your first order. That's wire for $25 off on top of the $500 annual savings when you subscribe. Good Ranch American Meat delivered.
- [02:07]
John Bickley
In light of recent events in Minnesota, the Second Amendment has become a big topic of debate once again Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and joins us now. Amy, thank you so much for coming on.
- [02:20]
Amy Swearer
Hey, thank you for having me.
- [02:21]
John Bickley
So let's start with the incidents that have sparked this heightened anti ICE campaign from the left. The shootings in Minneapolis. There are attempts now from the left to sort of turn the tables on the Second Amendment advocates using these incidents. What exactly is their argument and do they have a point?
- [02:39]
Amy Swearer
Yeah. So you're really seeing almost this weird upside down world, right, where you have members of the Trump administration, which has objectively been one of the most pro Second Amendment administrations in many, many decades, who have come out with what I would argue are pretty in artfully worded statements surrounding issues of public carry a firearm despite their record right as being pro Second Amendment. And then on the other hand, you have just some of the world's biggest gun control advocates, people like Gavin Newsom, groups like Giffords and other gun control advocacy groups that suddenly are just staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, Right. And so it's this weird upside down world that we're living in. And I think at the end of the day, this is all a bunch of PR stunts from the gun control advocacy groups. They're not really interested in, in any way, shape or form in defending Second Amendment rights. And I think that's unfortunate for the Trump administration because again, they have so many Second Amendment victories that they could be celebrating. And I think what most average Americans are seeing right now is language coming out of the Trump administration that puts them in the same category as the language often used by gun control groups. And so it puts them in a bit of a quagmire. And it's unfortunate because it doesn't reflect the reality of actions.
- [04:02]
John Bickley
Now, did some of those regrettable comments you've mentioned in response to the Preddy situation come from Kash Patel?
- [04:08]
Amy Swearer
Yes. So Kash Patel was one of those, certainly not the only one that has come out basically between Kash Patel and a couple of other members of the administration. There was this general sense in their immediate comments of rushing to the fact that the individual who was shot, Alex Preddy, was carrying a firearm at. You could characterize it as a protest. I would characterize it as, frankly, illegal, non First Amendment protected activity. And I think what was difficult for these members of the administration, including Kash Patel, was trying to find a way to articulate what the problem was. And what actually came out of their mouths was essentially saying, well, the problem was that Alex Preddy was carrying a firearm in public or around Law enforcement or he was carrying a type of firearm with particular types of magazines. And I'm not sure that that's actually what they meant to convey. It certainly is not what the actual problem was. The problem was what Alex Preddy was doing while he was carrying that firearm and the manner in which he approached law enforcement with that firearm.
- [05:23]
John Bickley
Right. And we've since seen video of him allegedly kicking in the taillight of an ICE vehicle. So some violent inclinations in the past interactions. But it does seem from initial investigations that this might have been just a really tragic sequence of events in how the firearm in particular prompted lethal response. In some ways this does beg the question then, are citizens safer when they aren't allowed to carry a weapon in certain situations, or is the argument that they're always safer if they do feel like they're going to be in a situation where they're threatened?
- [05:52]
Amy Swearer
I think when you look at your average ordinary, law abiding gun owner, absolutely, they are safer when they are carrying that firearm. When they have the ability to respond to criminal violence with. You often hear firearms called death at a distance. Right. That they're able to remove themselves from that violent confrontation and still defend themselves. Obviously that changes when you have someone who is prone to criminal activity, when you have someone who is mentally unstable and they have that firearm. Right. But that's not what we're talking about with your average ordinary law abiding gun owner. Certainly when you are that ordinary gun owner and you find yourself going into confrontational circumstances, that again, that changes the reality. If you are going out of your way to confront law enforcement, to confront anybody, and you're going in armed, the presence of that firearm is going to change that dynamic fundamentally, for better or for worse. And in this case, I think you are correct that it fundamentally changed it for worse. I don't think that was ever necessarily Alex Preddy's intent. I don't get the sense that he intended to, and he certainly did not ever draw that firearm to threaten law enforcement. But its presence in that confrontational manner, as soon as law enforcement became aware of that, well, now you've got a fundamentally different dynamic where law enforcement doesn't know his intent. You've got multiple officers trying to figure out where that gun is, what to do with it. And I truly think you have a tragic misinterpretation of the circumstances by the officer who ultimately shot him. But it's a complicated dynamic and I don't think that undermines the Second Amendment reality. I think some of this is incumbent upon Alex Preddy and the circumstances he intentionally went into and fostered while lawfully carrying that firearm.
- [07:44]
1-800-Flowers Announcer
Looking for a Valentine's gift she'll truly love. 1-800-Flowers.com knows what she wants. For 50 years, 1-800-Flowers.Com has helped guys get it right, delivering millions of fresh Valentine's roses to nationwide with high quality bouquets guaranteed to last. Right now, when you buy one dozen premium roses, they'll double your bouquet to two dozen for free. Valentine's is coming fast, so don't wait until the last minute. Double your blooms today at 1-800-flowers.com dailywire. That's 1-800-flowers. Com dailywire.
- [08:14]
John Bickley
I think a lot of people have looked at this incident and the situation with Renee Goode and they both come down to split second decisions that have to be made by these officers. A perceived threat, whether or not it's a real threat, comes into play. When we're talking about the legal arguments in these cases. What are the arguments that are at play on both sides here in terms of both good and pretty for both of them?
- [08:37]
Amy Swearer
For the law enforcement officer who used lethal force, that analysis, that legal analysis is going to be the same. So in order for that use of force to be justified, that officer had to reasonably believe, have a reasonable fear that he was about to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Right. So he doesn't have to actually have already had that harm inflicted. And he can't just wildly guess. There needs to be some reasonable component as to why he feared that he was at imminent risk of that. So in the case of Renee Good, that he was imminently about to be hit by a vehicle which is a deadly object. Right. That is certainly something that can inflict serious bodily harm. And in the case of Alex Preddy, you're looking at, did that officer reasonably believe that Alex Preddy had access to that firearm, was about to use that firearm. So that's going to be the same for both of these scenarios. I think one of the biggest distinguishing factors is that we now know from the Alex Preddy video. Right. We can slow that down. We can analyze it from all these different angles. And we know that as a matter of objective fact, at the moment Alex Preddy was shot, he didn't have possession of that firearm. Right. It had been taken away from him. And so I think a lot of people are struggling with this next concept of could the officer have been objectively wrong but still reasonable in his interpretation of what was happening because he just didn't know. Right. Did he see Alex Freddie's phone in his hand and believe that was the firearm. So you've got this sort of complicating factor here of something being objectively wrong, but still potentially reasonable.
- [10:28]
John Bickley
One other question related to both of these cases, we see the battle now going on between the state and local investigators versus federal investigators into these situations where you might have had maybe misconduct by law enforcement, questions about the proper use of force, etc. Where are the lines drawn? Can the federal government just say no, the local and state officials cannot intervene and cannot investigate?
- [10:52]
Amy Swearer
Yeah, well, so it's certainly difficult because you have potentially crimes or civil actions at both a state and a federal level. Certainly there's nothing that the federal government can do to definitively stop a state investigation. There's going to be that tension and it's not always clear sort of who has, at the end of the day, the authority to tell who to do what. But I do think again, that's part of the tension of federalism. You have potentially charges under state law and state investigation charges. And I understand from the administration's viewpoint, you have a state in Minnesota that you have officials that have been wildly non compliant and unhelpful in terms of enforcing federal immigration law who have been bombastic and really fanning the flames of a lot of this community tension. And so they don't necessarily trust local police, local officials to do this investigation in a thorough way. But at the end of the day, that tension is always going to be there when you have both state and federal charges potentially.
- [12:06]
John Bickley
So in that case, we might see federal officials simply refuse to cooperate with local and state investigations.
- [12:11]
Amy Swearer
Well, I think that's certainly a possibility and I think that is most likely what will happen. I don't think, given the relationship or lack thereof that has developed between state and federal officials that the administration is really wanting to, to cooperate or be helpful in as much as the state of Minnesota is not wanting to be helpful in enforcing immigration law. And I don't know that there's a good answer to that. And in fact, I think the best scenario would be the salvaging of that relationship. I think so much of this tension would resolve itself if state and local officials would be more cooperative or at least not actively hindering federal enforcement of those immigration laws.
- [12:58]
John Bickley
Right. And that's clearly Tom Homan's main goal right now, trying to encourage more cooperation from the state and local officials. Final question. Pretty broad for you, but is there a Second Amendment case you're following that we should be more aware of?
- [13:12]
Amy Swearer
Well, I'LL give you two things. So at the Supreme Court level, we've now heard oral argument in the follow up to the Bruin case. So it's a case called Wilford B. Lopez. So the short version of this is Hawaii, after the Supreme Court told them and a bunch of other states, hey, you actually do have to give ordinary citizens some method of carrying in public. You do have to issue them public carry permits. Hawaii said, fine, we'll give you the permits, but we are going to make them utterly worthless outside the home. So it's a case involving some of those restrictions that Hawaii has put on those permits. We should have a decision in that by the middle of the summer. And it's all indications seem to be that the Supreme Court is gearing up to, and this is a very, very official technical term, head bop Hawaii over this. So look out for that. And I'd say one of the bigger things that's sort of flying under the radar for those who are not living in Virginia is what Democrats are doing in Virginia in terms of gun laws. Almost immediately we've seen a slew of legislation threatening to turn Virginia basically into the east of post equivalent of California in terms of gun laws. So keep an eye out for what's going on there because I think ultimately that will end up bigger national news flying under the radar right now.
- [14:31]
John Bickley
We've been tracking the very aggressive leftward turn of Virginia and a lot of legislation going on there with the new leadership. Meanwhile, I'll look up in my legal dictionary what head bop means so that I'm fully versed on your argument. Amy, thank you so much for joining us.
- [14:45]
Amy Swearer
Thank you for having me.
- [14:46]
John Bickley
That was Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom. And this has been a weekend edition of MORNING wire.
- [14:57]
Shopify Announcer
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com special offer.