The Howie Carr Radio Network
Toby Leary & Sen Peter Durant Join The Show | 7.31.24 - The Howie Carr Show Hour 4
(upbeat music) - Better strap yourself in. It's time for the Howie Car Show. (camera shutter) - She has some bad moments. Her moments are almost as bad as it is. I think his or worse, actually. - I don't feel no ways tired. - Way, way, way. - And you all helped us win in 2020, and we're gonna do it again in 2024. - It's weird. The whole thing is weird. This is not a president of the United States future. - Live from the Matthews Brothers Studios. - Rule that the way the Justice Department has been picking special counsels for decades is illegal. - Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? - Yes, you do. - Who's your captain, Howie Car? - Corporate need you to find the differences between this picture. - As my friend Quavo would say, he does not walk it like he talks it. - And this picture. - Created Pokemon Go, but I try to figure out how we get them to have Pokemon go-to the polls. - They're the same picture. - Rum swabs, hacks, and moon bats beware. - It's. (upbeat music) - Howie Car. - 844, 540, 242, one last thing on the electric vehicles, and we're talking about how much they're gonna have to have an over rights to buy the new batteries. One of our regular listeners, Arden, lives in Yarmouth. She said at the Yarmouth town meeting the spring when they announced that none of the new police cars would be electric. There was cheering and applause. Huge cheering and applause. That's 'cause the people that were at the meeting own houses, they don't want to get hit with an extra charge to buy some new batteries. All right, 844, 500, 4242, 844, 542, 442. Tomorrow or midnight tonight is when the new gun law goes into effect in Massachusetts, although I think the law goes into effect, but there's a 90 day period before it takes effect, I think. And we're gonna ask Toby Leary from Kid Gunworks about it, but this headline in the Herald really bugged me this morning. Bring it on, mass Dems welcome suit over gun law. You believe that? They're taking away people's constitutional rights and they're eager. And the speaker of the house, Ron Mariano, a close associate and a fellow made man in the meatball mafia in Quincy, he says he considers it a badge of honor to get sued. It's just, this is a one party state. This is why it's gotta be changed one way or another. Joining us now is Toby Leary. Toby, thanks for taking time out. I know it must be a bedlam down there at Cape Gunworks today, but tell us what's going on. Always a pleasure, Howard. Yeah, it is nonstop. I mean, everybody is trying to get what they won't be able to get in a few days. And I gotta just hand it to our customers. There've been some of the greatest customers ever. They're just so patient and they've supported us through this time. And it's gonna be an interesting few weeks because we got a lot going on. We have a bunch of inventory that we're gonna continue to sell until it's gone. And then hopefully our recall of this horrific abomination to the constitution will be temporarily stayed until election day. And a lot of people are worried that we're gonna lose on election day. And I don't have that same concern. I'm playing a win. I think we can swing for the fences and win. If we do lose though, guess what? We're right back where we started when we've been handed this blivit. And by the way, one thing no one's talking about is there's so much of this law that is so unconstitutional and unenforceable that if they task law enforcement with actually enforcing it and they do, guess what? We've seen it all throughout the country that people's qualified immunity can be stripped from them for basically depriving people of their right to keep and bear arms or their rights, their civil rights. So if law enforcement ends up enforcing this unconstitutional law, they are violating their oath of office but there's actually teeth to that, unlike the Congress. - Toby, what are the chances this is gonna be on the ballot as a referendum question? I mean, we're only a month away from the primary and we have one of the latest primaries in the country. I mean, can they really get this on to the November ballot? - Howie, you would not believe the response that we are getting, everybody's chomping at the bit, where do I sign, my friends, my neighbors, my relatives, my coworkers, I have restaurants saying they're gonna have the petitions at their restaurants, not to mention every gun store, every sportsman's club. There's 600,000 licensed gun owners in Massachusetts. We need 50,000 registered certified votes, signatures, excuse me, and so really we need to get 100,000. Let's not kid ourselves 'cause the state's gonna pull all kinds of shenanigans, throwin' stuff out. So if we get 100,000 signatures and if we don't get it by within 30 days of the election by, I guess that'd be October 5th, then it'll go on next year's ballot, which will give us a 15 month pause on this horrific bill, so I'm okay with that. I'd rather get it on the ballot this year than a year from now because I think momentum's on our side and there's so many people upset about this, but either way, the gun stores have a temporary pause to be able to breathe again and live under the status quo. - So even though the law goes into effect today, there's a 90 day waiting period, there always is unless they put the emergency rider on it, the governor signs the emergency rider. So is it business as usual tomorrow at Cape Gun Works and everywhere else or not? - It is with the inventory I have in stock. I'm not gonna bring in inventory after tomorrow for sale until this bill gets put on hold for the ballot recall, but if that doesn't happen, then yeah, business as usual has changed for a long period of time, but I think we're gonna be able to get it on the ballot and get the signatures raised in short order, and so if that happens, this whole thing gets put on pause, but if it doesn't happen, how it is the death rattle for a lot of small businesses in this state, that's one thing this state has never had a problem doing is running people out of jobs and out of business. They did it to Smith and Wesson, the very representative of Bud Williams and Carlos Gonzalez, it's unbelievable. - Yeah, Smith and Wesson have been around since before the Civil War and it's now in Tennessee. A state that has no state income taxes, by the way, so it's not such a bad thing to move down there for many of the people who work there. 339 says Harold article today said semi-auto restricted to 21 year olds, but must be more. Didn't mention restrictions of some guns, et cetera. Can you have Toby give summary to start your discussion? I don't think it's possible to give a summary of the whole bill, so it's so draconian and so far reaching, isn't it? - Yeah, and one thing that like my, I have relatives that are like, oh, we're not gonna help you on this petition and everything else because it's got common sense stuff. Well, here's some common sense for you, how we just like the texture said, if you're an 18 to 20 year old that currently has an FID card and under the law prior to a couple of weeks ago, you could own a semi-automatic shotgun or rifle as long as it wasn't quote unquote high capacity. And now you can't, so what does that person do? That leaves them in limbo where they a have a weapon that they can no longer own, and what are they supposed to do with it? Do they have to surrender it? Can they sell it to a friend? Do they give it to a FFL or do they have to put it in some sort of lock up until they turn 21? And even FID holders that are over 21, there's tons of hunters out there that just have an FID card, and they hunt docks with a three round semi-automatic shotgun. Guess what? They can't do that anymore, according to this law. It is so bad, and it is gonna jam up so many people if it's enforced. And I'm thankful I've heard a couple of chiefs already have said that they are not gonna enforce this, and I need those dominoes to continue to fall. We need that house of cards to come down and have chiefs of police start to recognize this for what it is and say, you know what? This is a violation of people's rights. And like Madison v. Marbury, any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is void. - What about ex post facto laws? I think those are prohibited under the 8th Amendment, or not under the Constitution. I mean, you can't criminalize past behavior. Isn't that what this is doing? - Yeah, and the Fifth Amendment says that you can't be deprived of property without due process. So you can't just change the law and retroactively make it effective like they're doing. And like you said, ex post facto is the same thing. You can't do that, and that's my hashtag on all my posts lately is, you can't do that. It's like, you're at the high school hockey game and some guy gets a penalty, and they're skating them over to the penalty box. The student section's yelling, you can't do that, you know? And that's exactly what is going on here. The legislature can't do that, there's nothing. There's not, to this day how we know and has been able to tell me where legislature gets the privilege to infringe any constitutional right, period. In fact, just the opposite is evident everywhere in federalist papers. It says that the legislature being the most important branch of government because they're from the people, and they are the guardians of the people's rights. But instead of being the guardians of our rights today, they break their oath of office, and they go against the Constitution, and they, in my opinion, commit malfeasance in the process, and they have violated their oath of office and technically resign their position. - Maybe this is just an urban myth, but somebody says that they're being told that you can now use EBT cards to buy ammo. Believe it or not, that is true. True story, how? You know, that's the equity part of this bill. They just wanna make sure that-- - I don't know what to say, my jaw is dropping. The VIPs can attest to that. - And maybe that'll work well with those new supermarket vending machines 'cause you could, you know, get the milk, the OJ, and a couple of boxes of defensive hollow points on the way out. - Yeah. - They're like two pounds of bologna, a six pack of beer, and 500 rounds of ammo. - And by the way, there's new ammo requirements that are gonna be burdened on the FFLs that we're supposed to now keep track of who buys ammo, what they buy, and how much they buy. - Not if they buy with an EBT card 'cause that would be a violation of the equity rules in the commonwealth. - That'd be a violation of privacy law, exactly. - Oh my God, can you stick around for one more segment and we'll try to take a few calls for Toby, but it'd be easier if you just text them in 617-213-1066. I can run through 'em faster with Toby. And I know, is there anybody that's answering these calls just on a, you know, is there any phone lines set up for this stuff right now, Toby? - Not to my knowledge. Gold is doing the yeoman's work of breaking this down as best they can so you can go to gold.org and they have summaries of it and they now have the official text of the bill that just came out today. It's now called, I think, Section 135. And so, long story short, we're all trying to figure out and go through the minutia, but we did get some notices from the state police today regarding future licensed to carry classes. And they're saying we gotta tell our students that this class you're taking today might not qualify you to get your license to carry. - You know, the joke in my mind right now, hoes long, can you still be doing gun training classes? (laughing) - Oh boy. - All right, well, we're gonna take a break and we'll be right back with Toby. The best way to get a question to him is to text Howie to 617-213-1066, but we'll take some more calls. We have another atrocity, depending at 630. You're not gonna believe this one coming up, but we'll do one more segment on guns. - I'm Howie Carr. - Howie Carr is back. - We'll do the poll question after the bottom of the hour. We'll just start taking some of these calls. You there, Toby? - Yes. - 413 says, "How are fixed mag lowers?" I think he means loaders, purchase prior to A1 going to be affected as a pistol bill, okay. - Yeah, no, he does mean a fixed mag lower. That's an AR-15 lower with a fixed magazine. Those are unaffected. This ban is specific to detachable magazine and semi-automatic, so he'll be good to go. You can build that out however you want. You've just got seven days to register it. You know, and eventually there'll be some portal, I'm sure. - Seven days from October or from tomorrow? - From when you build it. - Oh, I say, okay. Okay, let's see. Is Nick D, are any guns, I.e. semi-automatic that will now be restricted? What guns, if any, can't be bought in Massachusetts now? - That list is too long to talk about. The ones that you can buy is a much shorter list. It reduces it down to a half dozen guns or so or styles of guns, like a Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle from everything I can tell will still be able to be sold. The M1A, like a mini 30 or a mini, what's the one, the M1 carbine, which is a World War II weapon of war, howie. Yeah, those will still be legal because guess what? They don't have an evil pistol grip. They have a Monte Carlo stock and that makes it okay. They're not evil and silhouette. - Yeah, and they have a wood stock, so they don't look as scary. And they don't have a vertical four grip on them either. So, you know, the interesting thing is when you read through these enumerated the bands and the features that you gotta apply, for some reason, they want you to have to shoot your semi-automatic rifle one-handed because they don't let you have a shroud that protects your hand from being burned on the ground. - Oh, I say, okay, yeah, that's what we're talking about. - Crazy. - It's like one of those old westerns, you know, just people just fanning the guns and things like that. Let's see, here's the hunting license fees and other taxes from out of state hunters are no longer welcome under this law, apparently. Does Beacon Hill have a printing press to pay for all the illegal aliens? It's gonna cost the state money then, too, isn't it? - Oh, it's gonna cost, I predict well over $10 million to implement this law, and guess what? It's a completely unfunded mandate. There's no funding for it whatsoever in the bill. And they have cut off their nose despite their face because there are a lot of people that come here to hunt ducks in the winter and fall, late fall, 'cause we're one of the areas where you can complete the super slam for ducks, and like there's people that tore all around the country to basically hunt every species of duck, and Massachusetts, it's one of the hot beds for that, and they just banned out of state hunting for people who are under 18 years old, so they will not be able to hunt in the state anymore. And they also made it illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic shotgun if you're not a resident of the state. So no one's gonna come here to hunt anymore because they won't be able to use their shotgun. They'll have to go out there with some old, you know. - Do you sell burners? - Yeah, I think you do sell burners, right? Yes, that's not effective. Burners are not effective. - No. - Okay, good, that's good. Or you can buy at burner.com, or you can buy it at that Cape Gun Works. Please ask Toby if we can still buy ammo out of state, or will out of state not be allowed to ship to Massachusetts residents? - Well, technically out of state hasn't been able to ship to Massachusetts residents for a long time because of the law is that the license to carry must be presented in hand at the time of sale. And, but there's lots of companies out there that have said, yeah, okay, come and get me. And they ship to Massachusetts. Whether they change their policy now after this bill remains to be seen, I don't know. - Okay, let me take one question here, Toby, before we go. Bill, you're next with Howie Carr and Toby Leary from Cape Gun Works. Go ahead. - Hey Toby, quick question for you. Is this law gonna affect semi-automatic pistols at all? - Yes, it will mean that going forward, I won't be able to sell any semi-automatic pistol that has a threaded barrel. And there's a bunch that are on the mass-approved firearms roster right now, like the FN 509 tactical. The, there's a bunch of SIG ones. There's a bunch of HK tactical and whatnot. And so these, a lot of people put compensators on them for competition use. And now those guns won't be able to be sold. If you already own one, don't worry about it, but going forward. - Thank you Toby. - My pleasure, thanks Howie. - We'll be talking to you again very shortly. We'll be right back, I'm Howie Carr. (whooshing) (upbeat music) - Live from the Matthews Brothers Studios. - Today's poll question is brought to you by Eden Rafferty, attorneys of law. If you need advice on family law, check out my Meet the Experts podcast with attorney Joe Roach. Wherever you get your Howie Carr show podcast. Matt, what is the poll question? What are the results thus far? Hold on, you haven't got it on. - Sorry, technical difficulties. How do you feel about Trump's vow to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history? - Those are in quotes, that's his quotes. Go ahead. - Strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose. Strongly support. - Strongly support has 96%, somewhat support is 3%, and strongly oppose has 1%. - 99 to 1. It's outside the margin of error. 844, 500, 42, 42, 844, 500, 42, 42. So, I got a something this morning. You probably got it too. This is, it was on Libs of TikTok. It's a Senate bill, this is Massachusetts again. The hits just keep on common, as they used to say on this radio station. This is section, Senate bill 947, and it's basically political correctness, wokeness run amok. They're changing the language on birth certificates, changing the language. Father, section 17, father has changed to other parent. Section 19, mother, section 16, mother is stricken. It becomes person who gave birth. Section six, a man and a woman becomes persons. Section seven, his, the pronoun, becomes their. Section 19, mother if the mother, that's a phrase in there, I don't know what it's about, becomes person who gave birth, if that person. Oh mother, if the mother, person who gave birth, if that person. Mother of the child becomes person who gave birth. This has gone through the Senate. Like, you know what, through a goose, apparently. And joining us now to discuss this, this is gonna be a national story, I think, at least on the conservative media. I don't think you're gonna see too much on the CBS evening news, but then you haven't watched the CBS evening news for 30 years, nor have I. Senator Peter Durant, a Republican from Spencer, what is going on here, Senator? What happened? - All right, so how, you know, unfortunately, sometimes when an influencer goes crazy on TikTok or X or Twitter or whatever it is, you know, without doing the research, things kind of go awry. But let me give you an example so that we can understand how this, let me give you a real world example of why this needed to be changed. Let's say, for example, my wife and I wanna have a child, but I am not capable of producing a child. So she has to go and she has to, you know, get a sperm donor and she gets her ache fertilized, she carries a baby to birth. Once that child is born, I am not the parent of that child and I now have to adopt that child. So you're talking about a year's worth of work, take thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. So that's one of the things that this works to kind of correct. Now, if God forbid, my wife died in that year, I would have no parental rights whatsoever. - Why does his, Peter, why does his have to become there? - Well, okay, so let's talk about what good the bill does first. And so when we do things like-- - I don't see how many cases are there like this in a year, Peter, correct? - There's actually a fair amount. There's actually a fair amount. If you talk to the registrars or probate, they deal with this actually on a relatively consistent basis because we do a lot of in vitro fertilization and things of that nature. If you use a surrogate, you have to do the same thing because now, and that's why you would have birthing parents. Now, I'm gonna say the Democrats are very good at co-opting things and putting in stupid language to make a bill. - Well, I checked the sponsors. You seem to be the only Republican in the Senate who didn't co-sponsor this. - Well, I don't know about that. Honestly, I didn't look at the sponsors. So I can't tell you. - I can confirm my facts are correct. - Okay, but like I said, you know how it is a lot of, it's one of those situations where yes, there are bad parts of this bill. There were bad amendments, which we voted against. But at the end of the day, you kind of have to decide whether or not the goal of the bill and what the bill does outweighs some of the stupid crap that's in it. And for us, it did. In fact, I wouldn't say that. - So what is the difference between-- - Why do you have, why does the difference between a mother and the person who gives birth? - So let's say, for example, it's a surrogate, right? - So, you know, my wife uses her egg and I use my sperm, but she can't carry it, so we use a surrogate. My wife would not be the legal parent of that child. So the birth certificate would now say, the person who gives birth, which would be the surrogate and the mother would be my wife and the father would be-- - But it looks like the mother is struck from the law, though. Is it, where is this, does mother still remain in the bill anywhere or father? - It would be, as far as I am aware, it would be on the birth certificate as that. Now, again, like I say, here we are at the last day of session, which is ridiculous that we have to do all this stuff where they rush it through. So I reserve the right to be wrong on that part of it, but that's the general premise of this and I get it, but this bill really does try to fix some problems that really exist out there. - You know, excuse me for being cynical, but this was filed by Julian Cyr from Cape Cod. And, you know, I don't think that he has the best interests of the child or the persons who gave birth or the other, it's a father is now, other parent. - Well, and again, you know, the argument, and I'm not saying that these are great arguments, but the argument that would be there is if you had a same sex couple who was fertilized by in vitro fertilization, so you would have two mothers, for example. You don't have a father. So, if you tried to-- - So, wait, wait, somebody's gotta provide the sperm. I mean, I don't think we have, we don't have clones yet. - But you might not know who that person is if it was donated. - Why do you have to overturn the language that goes back to the dawn of human history to deal with this? - I'm not in favor of overturning. I think there are two genders. I believe that you're either a man or a woman, but I do think that some of these changes are necessary to prevent some of the situations that-- - I mean, I'm not trying to, I don't have a problem particularly, unlike some people with in vitro fertilization, and I'm not trying to be a bigot here or anything, but why do we have to bend over backwards and change the language? It seems like this is just another chipping away at traditional standards. - Well, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. You know, when we have to decide, and this was a unanimous vote from both houses, by the way, but one of the things I would say is that while I don't disagree with you, look, this is the way a bill works, right? We all know that you can take the best bill in the world and somebody wants to slip in something that is crap, you then have to decide as a legislature, do I just vote no and then-- - But I just voted, I just gave you six sections where they're just goofing around with, it's only, the thing is only 34 pages. It's not like this damn gun bill that runs hundreds of pages. - No, it's 66 sections, it's 66 sections, and I think the offending sections are about six of them. I got 'em right in front of 'em. - So I think you have to weigh it out, you have to weigh out whether or not the overall bill is good enough, because at the end of the day, how I could vote against every bill if there's a crappy section in it? - What would you, I mean, Peter, I'm not coming down on you, I appreciate you coming on to the show. But suppose when you came into the legislature like more than 10 years ago, right? - Yeah, I came in in 11. - Yeah, so suppose you'd come in in 2011 and someone had put a bill in front of you and said, "Peter, I want you to, you're in the house. "I want you to vote for this." And change the legal language in Massachusetts from mother of the child to person who gave birth. What would you have thought 10 years ago? - If that's all the bill said, I would say not a chance. A man and a woman becomes persons, his becomes there. - If the bill said, but if the bill said that we use person who gave birth because in a situation where you have a surrogate and you have a separate mother, you want the mother listed, and then how do you list the surrogate? - Biological mother. - Yeah, how about, yeah, one of the VIPs just said, how about biological mother? That's a possibility too. But the question you have to ask yourself in this bill looks to fix that is who is the legal mother? And under the current law, the person, the biological mother is the mother and the child has to be adopted, even if it was that woman's age. - Do you really, I mean, they're already these disputes with these, especially with lesbian couples. You know, they're arguing over who's kid it is. And I don't think this is gonna change anything. They're still going in the court. - Well, that may be the case, but I mean, I can't help it if they go get divorced and then they have custody battles to everybody has that every day. - I don't know, someone just says, you guys are turning into Massac Fournia. Is this on the books in California, do you know, Peter? - You know, to be honest with you, from what I understand, I don't wanna say it's every other state, but I will say that the majority of states have this. - What if you saw 617, it says, what if I want mother and father on the birth certificates? I mean, 99.9% of the births are not involving IVs or IVs, right? - Sure, sure. - So why are we changing it for maybe 1/10th of 1% of the population? - Well, I think it's, well, you know, honestly, I think it's an important, again, the concept is what's important, how do I agree with the naming conventions? No, I don't agree with the naming conventions, but it wasn't enough to say, I'm going to vote against this bill. The premise of the bill and the legal loopholes that it fixes are valid. - I think there must have been other ways to do it. - I just don't want to-- - But you know what, now you bring up a different point, and I will say this, this is part of the problem when you take up a language, when you take up bills at the last hour. Here we are in the last day, two days of session, and they push and rush things through. We're talking about a billion different things. I'm on three conference committees, and you're dealing with a lot of things that are going on. So I would say, overall, there's a much larger problem there. - Well, I think they pass, and I think this is why they pass everything at the end, because nobody has a chance to go through everything. It's like trying to catch all the ants coming out of an ant hill. - Right. - And this is a particularly large ant. This is a nuclear-enhanced ant that's thinking out, and I just don't understand it. You're changing the pronouns. I mean, can we all, I mean, Trump was laughing about the pronouns today in Chicago. But I mean, this is like you're putting it into law, state law. - Yeah. And like I say, the only thing I will say about it, how he is, you know, I'll speak for myself. I voted for the loopholes that it fixes. The downsides of this bill are there, but to me, it wasn't enough to not fix the problems that we have. And quite frankly, we have to deal with that on nearly every bill that we come up with. - Do you think calling someone a father and changing it to a other parent is a loophole? - I think that the loophole, well, the loophole comes in if you have a lesbian couple. - I think you wish it was kind of a lesbian. - But you know, the child, the egg has to be fertilized by sperm, which comes from a male. - Correct. Correct. - I think we can. - But that doesn't mean it, but that doesn't mean it. - So there is a father. There is a father involved in the process. - There is, but that father currently is not recorded. If that sperm is donated, then the child has no legal father, right there. Done, have a nice day. - But so he doesn't have a father now, he's gonna have a other parent. - And it's gonna cost him $10,000 in a year's worth of work to get that done. - I don't know. I appreciate you coming on, Peter, to try to explain this. - Well, you know, these are not easy issues. - I freely admit that. They're not easy issues. But they are real issues. Do they affect everybody? No, they don't affect everybody. You know, and-- - Well, it says 774 says can you ask him if my wife and I have a kid, will it say I'm the father? I don't think it will. It will no longer say you're the father. It will call you the other person, right? The other parent, excuse me. Right? - I think that's correct. - Yep, there you go. The father and mother are disappearing from birth certificates in Massachusetts. - It would appear that way. - You just gotta worry about birth certificates. - All right, Peter, I appreciate you coming on the show to discuss this with us. - Anytime, I'm happy to do it, you know that. - Okay, thank you. That's Senator Peter Durant. I mean, no one else would come on the show to discuss this. I appreciate that. I really do. I don't understand it though. I just, I can't believe it. I'm how we are. - The Howie Car Show will be right back. - The Howie Car Show is back. - I'm so old I could remember when they changed the law and required women to put on the parent, the father on the birth certificate so that the state could chase baby daddies for child support. Remember that? It wasn't that long ago. And now they're changing the law so there's gonna be, so I guess if there's two lesbians or gay couple, gay men, they're gonna put down the two men or the two women were the parents. So they're gonna be lying on the birth, it's gonna be law to lie on the birth certificates. I mean, is that what, am I right? David, very quickly, we don't have much time left. Go ahead, David. - Howie, what's it gonna be called? The donor on the birth certificate? You know how we do this study? There was a guy who had a genetic condition and he would spurn daughter, he had about 200 kids. - I read about him. - I mean, this irreversible disease. - Yeah, I know, it's horrible. It's just, this is crazy. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is a hair on the tail wagging the dog. We're the dog. Back tomorrow, I'm Howie Carr. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)
Toby Leary joins the show to discuss H.4885 before it goes into effect tomorrow. The State Senator Peter Durant joins the show to talk about a bill that was just passed, that would take the words Mother & Father from birth certificates.