The Howie Carr Radio Network
2A Tuesday Rapid Fire | 4.16.24 - The Howie Carr Show Hour 4
Today's podcast is brought to you by Howie's new book Paperboy. To order today, go to HowieCarShow.com and click on "Store." ♪♪♪ Better strap yourself in. It's time for the Howie Car Show. In class resentment... She's not bitter! ...is a lot what anti-intellectualism and elitism... Who says I'm not bitter? ...is what is driving many of these... ...an anti-establishment... Which are Trump voters? ...an anti-establishment voters? This maybe not as bitter as I'm going to be ten years from now, but... Live from the Matthews Brothers Studios! As you know, Iran launched another person out of the area attacking against Israel... ...and we mounted unprecedented military effort to defend Israel. John, is President Biden considered maybe beefing up the public Iran posture to be more than just one word? You're referring to "don't." We'll say "don't." Ah! Do we at worst? Very well! If you will not assist us voluntarily... Don't. No! Never! No trouble! Rum swabs, hacks, and moon bats beware. It's... ♪♪♪ Howie Car... ♪♪♪ Welcome back to The Howie Car Show. I'm Toby Leary. Howie will be back with you tomorrow. 844-542-42 is the number if you want to give us a call. You can also give us a text at Howie to 617-213-1066. That's 617-213-1066 and text the name Howie. Alright, so I noticed on the breaking news in front of me that Janet Yellen is going to... be looking at another round of sanctions against Iran for their unprecedented attacks, as Joe Biden called them, "unprecedented attacks," and we had an unprecedented response, and so, you know, sometimes you need the closed captioning at the bottom to decode what he's saying, but yesterday we got into this quite a bit, and, you know, I would say... the anti-Semitism that is on full display, we saw the whole A15, you know, April 15 groups that shut down lots of airports and roads to the bridges and bridges themselves and weapons factories and all that yesterday are, you know, clamoring for Israel to be pushed from the river to the sea. They get all excited when Iran attacks Israel, they cheer and applause and celebrate. They basically say they have no right to occupy the country that they're in, and it goes even further than that, that they're not only anti-Semitic or want to see them pushed to the sea, but I believe they want to see them, they're demise, they're outright demise, and we saw this with a girl in Bakersfield, Riddie Patel, so let's hear how her remarks went to the town council cut 21, Matt. My name is Riddie Patel, I'm here to speak in support of the City Council introducing a ceasefire resolution, specifically the one United Liberation Front has drafted. I don't have faith that you'll do this, you guys are all horrible human beings and Jesus probably would have killed you himself. And the thing is though, it's very clear to me as in someone who's been an organizer for the past couple years that none of you care because you guys don't care about anything happening in Palestine or any other country where oppression occurs because you don't care about the oppression occurring here. Sounds like a lovely person to have some dinner with, but plate cut 22 real quick too. And I understand that you guys are all horrible people, but the thing is, 2,300 people being evicted in the last year, those are votes, and you guys, those are votes to win here in Bakersfield, and while you guys parade Gandhi around as a Hindu holiday called Chaitre Nubrathri hits starts off this week, I remind you that these holidays that we practice that other people in the global self practice believe in violent revolution against their oppressors. And I hope, one day, somebody brings the guillotine and kills all of you, motherf- Yeah, hey, that went, that went pretty well. And last but not least, cut 23. The increased criminalization for no need other than you don't like when people come and hold you guys accountable for introducing ceasefire resolutions, because the only escalation in violence has been by you all. And so there's no need to continue in the last five years I have attended city council meetings. There's never been metal detectors, there's never been more cops. The only reason you're doing it is because people actually don't care if you guys don't like them, and they're actually resisting so you want to criminalize them. So regardless of whether you elect people in the office, they'll backstab you, they'll let you die. And for that reason, you guys want to criminalize us with metal detectors, but we'll see you at your house. We'll murder you. Well, that didn't go so well for Riddy Patel. She ended up sitting before a judge and is facing sentencing for threatening public officials. And, you know, that's one of the things I saw on full display yesterday, the people that are rallying for the destruction of Israel are doing it in a place that the First Amendment allows them to say what they're saying. And if they had their druthers and the destruction of Israel happened and they went there, they wouldn't be welcome is what I see. But anyway, let's go back to the phones. Steve, you're next up on the Howie car show. Go ahead, Steve. Toby, I am a little bit troubled by what Professor Mark Smith said when he accused Supreme Court justices of not caring at all about the Constitution, just trying to forward a political stance. Anytime the Supreme Court makes a decision that conservatives don't like or anytime the Supreme Court makes a decision that liberals don't like, they immediately start accusing the Supreme Court of being just political. And I'll give you just one example. The Supreme Court decided nine to zero that Donald Trump's name could not be removed from any state ballot. And those were the liberal justices as well as the conservative justices. So I think we should be a little bit more temperant in our language when we disagree with a Supreme Court decision. I understand what you're saying, Steve. And I think the point he was trying to make was looking at the Constitution as a living document instead of a strict constructionist, or somebody who's going to look at the Constitution from a strict scrutiny perspective, because the members he was talking about do look at it through tiers of scrutiny. And if you listen to any of the oral arguments in the Cargill case, which is the bump stock case that just happened a couple of weeks ago, I think that shined through in glaring form. When you heard, you know, the six Supreme Court justices asking questions about single function of the trigger, etc, etc. And then you heard the other three asking the question about, well, what's the net result? You know, what is the intent of the shooter? Like that's a that's a play on words to get around what the definition under the law is. So I think that's what he's referring to there. And, you know, maybe it's politically motivated, maybe it's not, maybe it's maybe it's their own truth of how they feel they should be interpreting law. But the net result is the same. And I agree with you, I applauded their decision for the nine oh, you know, to say it was pretty obvious it was a weak case anyway. But I agree that certain people whenever they get a ruling that they don't agree with, they complain about the people who make the ruling. Just to give you another example, Toby, there was a what do you call it a buffer zone set up around abortion centers here in Massachusetts, which I believe the Supreme Court struck down nine to zero. I think a lot of the Supreme Court justices favor abortion, but they agreed with their conservative colleagues that this was an imposition on the first amendment. So I mean, listen, I like the originalist justices much over the other interpretation, but I don't think we should impune their character by saying their playing games are completely ignoring the constitution when they make a decision we don't like. Yeah, and I'm not so sure he was making that connection with those three justices as much as we were talking about Merrick Garland, who I do believe would have been a political hack on the Supreme Court based on everything he's carrying the water for the Biden administration as the Attorney General right now. And it is a political witch on full display. And I don't know that from what I've seen there that he could have been an impartial justice. But thanks for the call. Steve is, you know, good conversation. I appreciate it. And Charlie, you're next up on the Howie car show. Go ahead, Charlie. Hi, so years ago, you brought up the gate. The other guy brought up the gay marriage. And I believe that was, I believe that that was the way the Supreme Court did it was they said that because of the license issued by one state had to be honored to the others through the full-facing credit act on the constitution. I want to know why we haven't brought that as a way to make licenses to carry, have a property. Right. Well, that's an excellent question, Charlie. I wish Mark was here to answer it still. However, it's funny. I've asked a lot of lawyers why we don't challenge certain laws based on other constitutionally enumerated rights. And they have almost always told me Mark Smith, I would say is the exception of this rule. But most of them have told me because it's not a Second Amendment case. It's not a, you know, whatever fill in the blank. So in other words, like we had a First Amendment landmark ruling in 1943 that was Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, you can look it up. It was about a Jehovah's Witness who was going door to door selling the Watchtower magazine. And they didn't like that. So they, they came up with a licensing scheme for to make him like a licensed vendor or victular that had to go around and, you know, sell his wares. So he had to get a business license or whatever to do that. And he said, no, this is the First Amendment. I have a right to free speech. I have a right to freedom of religion, took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. And in the majority decision, they wrote that no one can impose a fee or a fine sell a license or a permit for the enjoyment of a constitutionally protected right. And yet here we are in Massachusetts every five years, I got to go down with another $100 bill in my hand, get my fingerprints and photographs taken and, you know, get another background check and to see if I can continue to exercise my right to keep in bear arms. Like that's the perfect example to me of, Hey, just point to Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 1943. And the licensing scheme goes away. Period. We're all become a constitutional carry state. And me as a layperson. And I was honored that Mark said I should go to law school because I don't feel I'm that smart. On the other hand, I think that as a layperson, I can look at stuff like that and go why can't we use this to our advantage in the fight against the government who wants to take away our right to keep in bear arms. So it's a great question. Obviously, there's smarter people than I who could give a better answer, but we don't have them on the line right now. You're stuck with me. Thanks for the call, Charlie. This is the Howie Car Show. I'm Toby Larry. And we will be right back. Howie Car is back. Welcome back. I love my pillows products. I sleep with their pillows. I wear their slippers. I dry off with their towels. Now you can enjoy all of their products with great discounts by using the code Howie at my pillow.com from pillows, towels, slippers, and even their giza dream sheets. Go to my pillow.com and use code Howie for amazing discounts. Matt, what is the poll question again? And what are the results thus far? What should happen to the protesters that shut down bridges and airports? Nothing. Same as Jan sixers. People should be allowed to remove them. They should be charged with a felony or they should be held financially responsible for any damage. I want to clear the streets. 9% agree with you. 14% say should be financially responsible for any damage caused. 34% say they should be charged with a felony and 42% say they should be same as the Jan sixers and is nothing at zero still? It's at 1%. 1%. Wow. Okay. Well, I guess we know what this crowd thinks. 844-542. 42 is the number. What the heck? Let's go to the phones and round off the bottom of the hour. Round off the whole show with calls. Let's do it. Jim, you're next on the Howie car show. Hello. Hi. Hi, Toby. How are you? Doing great. Thank you. My call. I want to share a situation with you and get your insight, your comments on it. I have a dear friend that is a police officer. He's a young man. He's been a police officer for about seven years. Prior to becoming a police officer, he got his LTC, he hunched and whatnot. But recently he applied for his LTC and he was denied. So he can no longer carry an LTC. So when he's on duty, he of course carries a duty weapon. But once he's off duty by law, he's not allowed to carry a weapon, which is I find to be absolutely ridiculous and unsafe actually. Just wonder what you think about that. Yeah. So in this state, you can carry under the badge. You know, when you're working, you can carry as part of your job, if you're a sworn police officer, but it sounds to me like, A, he has a really good civil case on his hand because if he's not a prohibited person, which it doesn't sound like he is or else he wouldn't be able to do his job and wouldn't be able to carry a gun on the on the under the badge, then he's being deprived his right to keep him bare arms. He would have a great case on his hands. Or B, he actually has done something that makes him a prohibited person. And the police department is still allowing him to carry, which I find incredibly problematic and probably unethical and maybe illegal. I don't know 100% on that, but that's that's a very interesting case. And you know, because really those are the only two scenarios and maybe he applied before the Bruin case came down and before the state of Massachusetts updated its laws to try to abide by or come in line with the Bruin case. In other words, we still are clinging to this suitability thing. So if they're the issuing authority or, you know, the chief of whatever town he lives in won't issue him a permit because he feels he's unsuitable. They're saying there's still some sort of discernment by the issuing authority, which is exactly what the Bruin case dealt with and said, no, you can't do that. But Massachusetts is clinging to that. And I don't know if it's been tried yet, but I would tell him if he really feels strongly about it, if he's a gun person and that's important to him, that he should be suing whatever town has denied him is right to keep him bare arms. Well, is it the town? Is it the town though, or is it the body that approves it? It could be at the town level where they can deny it. It can also be at the state if he doesn't pass the background check. But so, but ultimately it would probably be the town that you'd sue. You'd probably sue both, you know, the town and the state together. But again, I'm no, I'm no lawyer as we found out in the prior segment, but tell him good luck with that, Jim. And maybe he just doesn't want to rock the boat because he's afraid to upset the apple cart where he works. So I'm Toby Larry and we will be back after this listening to the Howie partial. Live from the Matthews Brothers Studios. Welcome back to the Howie car show. We'll be Larry here with you for another half an hour or so. Looking forward to taking your calls and talking all things guns, freedom, second amendment, and self-defense, like I do on rapid fire to round out the hour. So let's go to the phones. Paul, you had a question. Go ahead, Paul. Hey, Toby. I can't believe it. That's great. I'm on, right? Yes, you're on. Okay, great. My question was, I remember listening to you a few weeks or maybe a month or so ago, and it was about someone called in, it was on braces show. And they had mentioned something about the second, the Supreme Court in 1941 deciding that it is unconstitutional to charge anybody for a constitutional right, like, you know, licenses and things like that. And you had said you were going to look into it. I don't know if it ever happened with that. It was Murdoch v. Pennsylvania in 1943 is the name of the case, and it was the Supreme Court case. It was a First Amendment case, but as I mentioned before, it was the outcome. The majority decision was written and they said it is unconstitutional or illegal for any public official to charge a fee or issue a license or a tax or impose a permit for the enjoyment of a constitutionally protected right. And, you know, again, I'm like, how has this never been brought up? And I've done a deep dive on this. Paul, I've asked a lot of lawyers about it, and I've also asked the Google about it and tried to come up with any court case that has ever referenced Murdoch v. Pennsylvania in a two a case. I have, I think recently found some something with amicus briefs, but not as a actual like defense to a law. So I'm hoping, you know, someone can explain why, but it's it's never been explained to me other than, well, that was a First Amendment case, which if they make a statement that it says any constitutionally enumerated right, then why wouldn't that apply to the Second Amendment? Again, I'm a lay person. I'm not a legal scholar. So, but that's the case in question. Well, that's pretty cool. You know, a lot more than most of us. So, that's the Murdoch versus Pennsylvania, you know, Murdoch's an easier name to remember. So I'll remember that in '43. And I did want to do one quick thing. If you haven't written it, my brother, 74 years old, when he was 40 years old, he adopted or actually he, yeah, when he was like 35, 40 years old, he went to adopt someone and they said, no, you have a criminal record. He says, what? When he was 19, he had a five. Oh darn it. We lost Paul. Sorry about that, Paul. Call back sometime next time I'm here. Eric, your next step on the Howie car. So go ahead, Eric. All right, Toby, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to comment that I'm the gentleman we were just talking to that buddy that police officer there in Massachusetts, not authorized to carry off duty. Back in, it's HR 218, the law enforcement officer safety act, covers that officer to carry off duty, whether or not the state of Massachusetts says he cannot. Right. Let me find it. I just had to stop and look at it. No, you're right. I know exactly what you're talking about. Okay. Yeah, I just had to stop to making sure. But so if that gentleman's still listening, you can tell his friend there that he can absolutely carry off duty does not make a difference with the state of Massachusetts says there are limitations as to where he can and cannot carry, but he can carry off duty whether or not that state of Massachusetts says he can't. I just wanted to let him know that the law enforcement officer safety act does cover him and does supersede whatever the wonderful state of Massachusetts. Yeah, you know, it's an, that's a great point, Eric. I actually wouldn't wasn't even thinking about that, but you're right that HP 218 does allow even retired cops to carry throughout the, throughout the country, almost like a reciprocity type of situation where retired officers and active officers have protection in all 50 states, which I think is incredibly poignant because when you look at the Massachusetts frequently asked questions about the assault weapons ban, the enforcement notice from 2016, what we call the day that will live in infamy, seven, 20, 2016, when Maura Healy decided to interpret our assault weapons ban differently than all other 49 states did under the 10 years, it was the law, the land of the law of the country. She came up with this new way of enforcing it, which was different than all others, you know, anyone else had ever thought of. But when you read the frequently asked questions, like the third question down on the list is, I'm a law enforcement officer. Does this affect me? It says, no, your rights are still intact. But so what does that infer? It means we're stripping the rights of everyone else, but your rights are still intact. Read the language. It's actually pretty interesting. And so yeah, you're right, they could. But I guess the argument still, like I've read other stuff that law enforcement officers are required to get a license to carry. But and maybe that's what I was referring to because I knew they could carry under the badge, but I didn't know if that was a mass law or that HP 218. So yeah, very good observation there, Eric. And thanks for the call. I appreciate it. 844 542 42 is the number. I'm Toby Leary. Oh, text line is also 617-213-1066, text howie to 617-213-1066. And go to the text line real quick. I got one here from 508 that says Toby, I recently filled out and submitted the paperwork to renew my LTC. That is up in June. I left the references blank and the police said no problem. My question for you is why does the form ask for your place of work and contact info? Does the state contact my employer? I don't know. That's a that's a good question. There's a lot of stuff they ask that frankly is unconstitutional. They ask for references. I don't know if they've done away with the reference line on there. That's unconstitutional. They ask why you want your license to carry. That's obviously unconstitutional. Maybe, I don't know, they do want to figure out if you're gainfully employed or whatever. But one thing's interesting if this is something probably people don't know, but they do take that information and put it into account because when I on the other side of the counter am transferring a firearm to somebody when I register it with the state of Massachusetts under the Merck's, the Massachusetts Instant Criminals Justice System, it as you're going through all the steps, one of the questions is employer or employment. And like so a lot of times it says teacher or police officer or plumber or whatever. If that's blank, I can't proceed on that form. So they actually make me fill that in. So sometimes it's blank on the form and I have to ask what do you do? Oh, I'm retired. Okay. So I have to type in retired. And it's like, you know, why is that on the registration form? It doesn't make any sense. But yet they ask it anyway. And all the while, they tell you, they do a certain bodily function on your leg and tell you it's raining, because the whole thing is, oh, this isn't a registration. You know, this is just record keeping or whatever. And registration has been ruled unconstitutional federally. And yet here we are in Massachusetts having to register every gun purchase. So it's it's an unbelievable double standard. And you know, we see the Second Amendment treated differently than every other enumerated right. And as Clarence Thomas pointed out, it has become a disfavored right. And so anyway, eight, four, four, five hundred, forty two, forty two. Let's go to Judy, your next up on the Howie car show. Go ahead, Judy. Hi, Toby. I was just wondering, how come Nancy Pelosi didn't get charged with a felony for ripping up Donald Trump's state of the union address? I mean, she did it on national TV. Everybody saw it. And you know, she acted like a child when she did it, you know, uh-huh, you know, it's like, what are you doing? That's just ridiculous. But they I mean, they tried to throw the book at Trump for nothing. Right. And everything that they're charging Trump went, Biden has already done and committed. Yeah. Well, you stole my thunder. I was going to say that it's a rhetorical question, Judy, because why hasn't Hunter Biden had his day in court? You know, why hasn't the Biden family had to come testify before, um, the, you know, committee, either the House or the Senate committees that an invest, investigate such such a thing when, when Hunter Biden was before the House committee, he didn't even say a word. He was just sitting there almost as an affront or a statement, a political statement, basically saying I came, but you're not going to get anything out of me. And frankly, uh, I forget who it was. It might have been like, uh, Lauren Boebert or or Marjorie Taylor Greene, somebody was like, you should be arrested right here sitting and taken out for contempt. And, uh, I think, you know, obviously that was never going to happen to a sitting president's son, but the intent or the, uh, the spirit of what she said, I think, is right. You know, someone who is, if you're going to arrest Steve Bannon and Roger Stone and haul them off the court with CNN cameras rolling in a big staged, uh, SWAT team coming to, you know, arrest a elderly man in the wee hours of the morning with cameras rolling, then, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but I think you bring up a good point, Judy, but we all know the answer. There's a two-tier justice system out there, and that's the, that is the answer. Thanks for the call, Judy. Uh, Frank, you're next up on Howie Carr. Go ahead, Frank. Yes, Harry. I mean, uh, Toby, uh, just one thing I wanted to mention for your folks that are listening about two, eighteen, the law enforcement officer, Carrie Bill. Yes. It's important that they understand that it isn't just because you were a law enforcement officer. You must qualify annually by a state-approved course of fire so that you have that certification with you. So, if you're stopped, you show your retired ID, and you show that you qualified, in some states, you would qualify with a specific weapon. I'm a retired main officer. I shoot the course of fire every year, and I shoot a revolver and semi-automatic so that whatever I'm carrying, I'm covered, but it's not, you just can't, you don't get that right by just being a retired officer. You must qualify annually by a course of fire. The state of Maine requires you to fire the same course of fire that the cadets do with the police academy. So, it's, there is a standard that must be met, and you must be able to prove it in order to be honored with that, uh, allowed to carry on the two, eighteen. Yeah, and, but I would, I would also argue that you don't have to do anything other than be a gainfully employed police officer who does in the course of their annual, you know, requirements re-qualify each and every year. So, what you're talking about is simply a continuation of the annual qualifications that are required under the badge when they're gainfully employed by whatever department. So, um, it is a continuation of it, but they don't have to do something extra or special while they're employed in order to carry in other states. No, that isn't, that isn't it, but the point is most people don't take, you know, there's only like, when I do it every year, there's only about 30 people that come and do it. It's, it's too much to do in many instances, but if you want to have that protection, and matter of fact, I'll be honest with you, it's not that well known in the law enforcement community. So, I not only carry my certification and my retired ID, I can't be a cop, carry a copy of the law. I can show it to the guy that, look, this is the law or the land and you need to respect, because some of the states, I agree with you, you always give the advice. I don't stop in New York or New Jersey on my way to Virginia. I run the gauntlet, run the gauntlet, right, Frank? That's good. Yeah, thanks for the call, Frank. New Jersey actually charged police officers once, because they didn't like that to 18, and they charged police officers for carrying hollow points in their state. It was, it was, I think charges were eventually dropped, but all right, we'll be back after this. This is the Howie Car Show. I'm Toby Leary. The Howie Car Show returns after this. The Howie Car Show is back. Welcome back to the Howie Car Show. I'm Toby Leary. I had a great two days with you guys. It was awesome talking with you. And Brian, I'm going to make you the last caller of the day. So go ahead, Brian. Thanks, Toby. No problem. I was curious what you thought the best answer is to put on your license to carry for the reason for that license. Because I can. I'm being facetious, but frankly, they can't ask the question anymore. But if you don't want to rock the boat, which I totally understand, I would put for any lawful purpose. That's exactly right. That's what a clap told me back when I was 20 years old, and I got my license to carry, so don't put anything but that reason for all lawful purposes, and nothing else. Or you'll never get it. Well, you'll get it now because they, like I said, they can't ask the question why you. It's like saying, why do you want to go to church on Sunday? Like, well, why do I have to give you a reason why I want to go to church on Sunday? It's my right. It's an enumerated right. It's a constitutionally protected right. And so, but we've let the government encroach on that right. Ironically, the one that says shall not be infringed to the point where it's unrecognizable, especially in states like Massachusetts or Maryland or New York or New Jersey or Washington and California. There's a handful of mouth there. And so, as a result of allowing politicians to do that, which they don't have the constitutional authority to do, we're sitting here given reasons for why we want to exercise those rights. Thank you for the call, Brian. Real quick, I'd like to invite everybody to the top shot invitational that we have done. It's our sixth annual top shot invitational. You can go to topshot invitational.com. It is a shooting contest and golf tournament back-to-back supporting some great local charities on Cape Cod. I'd love it. I'd love to see everybody there. This is going to be prizes. Give away is a good time. You don't need any prior experience at golf or shooting in order to participate. You'll have a ball. We're going to have a great time. It's May 16th and 17th. So, look forward to that. And I want to urge everyone to keep Israel in your prayers. It's very biblical to say, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem." And I think that we should all do that no matter what faith you are. There's a lot going on there. And I tell you, I've been there twice and both times I was welcomed with open arms. The first time when I got off the plane, I got into the tour bus. And my tour guide said, "Welcome home." And I found that to be very interesting. And I felt that when he said it. And when I walked around and went around to all these different places, it became apparent that it's a very special place on earth. And they're fighting over it for a reason. And I would urge everyone to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, pray for the peace of Israel. Like the Bible says, there's a time for peace and a time for war. Hopefully, we can avoid a war and see peace. But I'm Toby Leary. I'll see you next time on the Howie Car Show. Take care. Bye.