The Howie Carr Radio Network
Cellphone Expert in Karen Read Case Takes Stand | 6.14.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 1
Today's podcast is brought to you by Howie's new book Paperboy. To order today, go to HowieCarShow.com and click on store. Live from the Aviva Trattria Studio, it's The Grace Curly Show. We've got to bring in a new voice, a young voice, a rising voice, Grace Curly. You can read Grace's work in the Boston Herald and the spectator. Especially Grace, Grace, stand up. Here's the millennial with the mic, Grace Curly. Hello everyone. Welcome back to The Grace Curly Show. Thank you all so much for tuning in today. We have a wonderful program prepared for you and Happy Friday. HowieCar is not in studio today, Jared. He's probably arrived at this point at Jake Rooney's, I would assume. He left pretty early today. And he's going to be doing a remote from there, so make sure if you're in the area, swing by. We are here. We are going to deliver the best show possible. And there's big happenings right around the corner in Dedham. Another day in the Karen Reed trial, actually day 25, if you can believe it. Now, before the court even got started, before the trial even got started, there was a mix up. There was a mistake made. Someone put the camera feed up, hit the go button, before the jurors were seated, before the panel was ready. And accidentally showed one of the jurors faces, which you are not supposed to do. They're supposed to remain anonymous for safety reasons. And they showed the jurors on one of the jurors on the live feed. Thankfully, it was just one because I don't know what would happen if it was all 12. But that's a big no, no. So they had to stop filming. And then it ended up going up late, but they did send that juror home, Jared. Yeah, that juror dismissed from the case because of obvious concerns. Now, we don't know for certain whether the cameraman had the shot too wide, or we don't know if they weren't notified that that jurors were coming in for sidebars. So we don't know who is to blame here, but a juror was mistakenly shown. Yes, someone is. I don't want to just turn the boy thinks the judge is to blame. This is one of the times actually mean I don't want to disparage this person's character. I don't want to disparage the character of the cameraman because I don't know. Or the camera person. I don't know if they then was informed that a juror was coming in. So we don't know. But you know what? Like a captain on a ship. Auntie Bev is in charge of that whole thing. So she takes responsibility for the conduct of the crew under her command, as they say. You're absolutely right. The fish rots from the head. The buck stops here. All of those things that Joe Biden doesn't abide by. Auntie Bev, Judge Kanone. This is her problem. And so now my question for you, Jared, because first of all, happy early birthday. Thank you very much. Before any of the listeners get upset with me. I did wish Jared a happy early birthday. We will at some point play Joe Biden singing to you. Yes, Jared, you get that treatment as well. If you're going to play it four times during my birthday, we're going to play it two years. But my question for you as the lawyer of the group, Jared DiGlio Esquire. If you're the juror, the rural juror, and you get the boot because of the wide lens camera shot. I'm angry if I'm that juror, right? Like I just wasted 25 and it's probably more right because they do an extra week of the juror selection. Right. I just wasted like 30 something days of my life. On this case, and now I don't even get to see it to the end. I don't even get to finish what I started and it had nothing to do with me. I would be really mad. I just wasted. I just missed work for 20 something days for what? And yeah, maybe the person's gone. Yeah, I got out of work for 25 days. But I don't know. It's a pain in the ass to be sitting there day and day out and have to listen all these people. Guarantee, this was a more entertaining cast of characters than a typical trial would have. But am I crazy to think that if I'm that juror, I'm very upset. No, you would not be. Although there is another wrinkle, I guess Taylor is saying he's another wrinkle. Seeing some stuff that apparently there may have also been an issue with the juror to begin with, which is why that juror was brought to sidebar because there may have been an issue with the juror, which led to the sidebar, in which case that juror may have already been kind of on the way out. Not compromised, but sort of needing to exit so we don't know all of the details. Okay. Okay. So we'll just move on from it, but the juror has been dismissed. Now, the crux of today, if you're curious what's going on today in the trial, it's not Michael Proctor. It's not Lieutenant. I wear shorts all year long, Tully. Today is focused on Jessica Hyde and she's a cell phone expert. And she's trying to explain to the jury how the 2 27 a.m. She's trying to explain how that Google search could have actually been time stamped based off an old tab, what she called a suspended state tab. Now, my first note on Jessica Hyde is that she is speaking incredibly fast. I listened to a podcast with two women who talk about pop culture and they talk so fast, but I'm used to it at this point. It doesn't even it doesn't even phase me. This woman talks faster than that podcast. I thought she was on two times. The speed that you can like, you can speed up a video. I thought that I was watching it the wrong way. She's speaking so fast. And she's trying to explain this very complicated subject matter. And I want to play a little bit of this. And then we are going to talk Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani and all that, but give me please cut to. So this first one that you're going to see is and I'm just going to reference my paper because of the size is 2 27 2 0 2 27 and 40 a.m. So that's 2 o'clock in the morning, 27 minutes and 40 seconds. And it is a search for the term HOS long to die in cold. All right, so that's the first one. She's actually speaking at a pretty normal pace there. She got faster as the day went on. Let me have cut three, please. I die in cold. We cannot tell by this particular artifact what time that search occurred. That is a high likelihood that that tab was opened at this time because there was another search that occurred at 2 27 in the morning. It was a sports site. I cannot pronounce it. It began with an age hunk hunk a muck. Okay, thank you very much for the pronunciation. Hock a muck sports. There were a couple of searches pertaining to that done immediately after. But it appears that that's when the this tab was opened and the first search done there. Okay, now I have some thoughts on this and we could play the whole thing, but I don't really see the point. I think from what I've seen of trials that you can bring in an expert, especially one that's involved with something to do with tech and who can confuse the jurors into thinking a different scenario as possible. I'm not saying that's what she's trying to do, but when you start talking to these tech people and they can go down all these different roads about these things that most people don't understand, especially these jurors. I don't unless there's one of them who happens to be like a cell phone expert. If they're like the rest of us, they're sitting there going, what are we talking about? Suspended tabs, timestamps, all these things. And sometimes I think that's the point is you bring in these experts, they can spin a narrative that you want. And it reminds me of the quote about three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics. It's like Fauci or any of these medical experts, they start talking in this different language that very few people understand or can translate. And then they confuse people and that goes to their advantage. Now, the other part of this that is more important, because I don't fault this lady, she's just explaining, you know, the cell phone data and I'm sure Jackson is going to have plenty of questions that might poke some holes in this. But the big picture here is that they are still totally focused on essentially defending their witnesses. That's what the state is focused on right now. Lally is focused on trying to clear the names of the people who were supposed to be witnesses testifying against the defendant Karen Reed. And so all that to say, Alan Jackson's case seems very strong. His case was based on this third party culprit defense. And that is what they're spending all of this time on. That's what they're bringing experts in to talk about. As the third party are all of these theories about what else could have happened besides Karen Reed, you would think if you had no idea what was going on and you were just watching this and you sat down in that courtroom, you might think that Jen McCabe or one of these McCabe's or Albert's or Procter's that they were on trial because they're not talking about Karen Reed for the most part. All of the focus has been on everyone else but the defendant in the case. Yeah, I told you this when we were watching the, I was watching the feed this morning and there's a chat on the YouTube channel that we watch it on. And somebody who said, yep, day 25 in the Commonwealth has yet to show us that a crime was committed. Yeah, they're spending so much time on defense that they haven't spent any time on offense. They, there's not really a case to be had here. So I think all of this is good news. Even this today with a cell phone expert, I think it just once again is going to remind these jurors that she's really not a focal point of the murder case and she's the defendant and there's something weird about that. Now Turtleboy today was talking about this as well on his. He was tweeting about it. He didn't go into court today. He said, I chose a bad day not to be in court with all this craziness of the cameras. We will continue with this. Taylor's watching it live. So we will have sound cuts for you back to regular camera feed now. I guess is what's going on. Taylor said. So, oh, because there was like a zoom conference camera that they were working off of. So that's why the sound was a little tinny. Got it. We are back to normal operations. We are back to normal operations. This is Friday. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. And we have so much playing. We've got Libby Evans joining us in the two o'clock. We've got Ben Wine. We've got Ben Winegarten, one of my favorites, joining us in the one o'clock to talk all about Hamas and Israel and Joe Biden and Ukraine and the G7. So we're going to be covering a wide range of topics today. Plus Trump is making gains in Virginia and Maine. I mentioned Maine yesterday because it started popping up on social media. This, this poll that came out and a Republican hasn't won Maine since 1988. It was H.W. versus Dukakis. Now, interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal has a story out today about how the polls coming out of Virginia, which a Republican hasn't won since George W. Bush in 2004, are also giving Trump a really good shot at, no, no, I wouldn't say a really good shot, but there, you have to think of it like this. If they're head to head somewhere from what we know of the polls from what we learned in 2016, if it looks like they're head to head, then it's more likely that Trump is doing even better than they're saying because they're always trying to depress people in the polls. You know, the polls are like when, when Trump would get a report out on the economy, they would always, they would always be revising up with Donald Trump. And then it was like nobody cared at that point with Joe Biden, they always end up revising down. It's just the way these things work, that if they're showing you two people and they're saying, "Oh, Biden's at 40 and, you know, Trump's pulling at this," you can always add a couple more to Trump because it's, it's, it's painting these pollsters to even admit that it's as close as it is, especially in a place like Virginia that was not supposed to be in play. That's the theme lately. A lot of these places that weren't supposed to be in play, they are indeed. We'll be right back. We've got tons of sound to get to. We'll take your calls 844-542-42, and here's something I haven't said in a really long time. We've got a major victory for Rudy Giuliani, somebody who's been having a tough go over the last couple of years. He had a win today, and we're going to talk about it when we come back. The Grace Curly Show will be right back. This is the Grace Curly Show. It's amazing. I was just on Twitter during the break, and one of the McAlberts friends or family members on Twitter is tweeting at Howie and I and saying how, you know, we're monsters for defaming Jen McCabe. I didn't defame anybody. Neither did Howie. We're just, we're just trying to understand more about the story. Everybody gets very cocky when they get one witness that they think clears their name. Did you say anything about Michael Proctor? Did any of the Jen McCabe fan club have anything to say about those texts or any of these other things that are coming out? They want to keep painting Jen McCabe and Julie Albert and all the women involved as these massive victims. Oh, everyone's being so mean to them. How about Karen Reed? Did you hear the stuff that was read about her the other day? That was kind of mean. That was defamatory. Would you like people talking about your medical conditioner saying you have no ass or making fun of your accent? I think the whole let's be nice to each other. Ship has sailed a little bit here. So I'm not going to be made to feel bad for talking about a case that everyone is concerned with and everyone is talking about. Wow. A bunch of babies. Like they want to be the bullies, but they also want to be the victims. It's amazing. Oh, everyone's being so mean to me. Everyone's being so mean to me. Well, you don't seem to be that nice to everybody else. So maybe position heal thyself. Today's poll question is brought to you by the Eden Pure Thunderstorm 3-pack special. Everyone loves the thunderstorm. It doesn't take up any floor space. There are no filters to replace and it's only one-third the cost of those bulky air purifiers. Take advantage of the Thunderstorm 3-pack special at edimpuredeals.com and use promo code GRACE3 to get that discount. Jared, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com, is how much do you tip? 10%, 15%, 20%, or 25%. 20%. 69% of the audience is 20%. Very well in the lead. 19% say they tip 15, 8%, say 25, 4%, say 10. There was a poll out by YouGov. They do a lot of great polls and it was talking about how the younger the generations go, the worst tippers they are, which actually surprised me. Only because Gen Zers have really been brought up in the age of over tipping. With like you go to a store, you buy a pack of gum, they turn the iPad towards you and say, "Do you want to tip all these Gen Zers, at least from what I've seen on social media?" They feel obligated to because the iPad staring at them and the person holding the iPad staring at them. It just surprises me that younger people are considered worst tippers. It says social norms for restaurant dining in the US generally call for a tip of 15, 20% of the bill. A new YouGov survey asked Americans about their tipping habits at restaurants. While most Americans tip between 15 and 20%, there are plenty who will tip above this threshold for service they consider to be excellent, or who will reduce or withhold the tip entirely if they feel the service is poor. Here's what I will say. The one place I will tip above 20% is if I'm at breakfast because food is less expensive and breakfast waitresses. I've been one, they work their asses off and waiters as well. But as far as giving less because the service is bad and I'm not saying this is a point of pride. I'm saying this is actually kind of a character flaw. I just don't have that in me. Even if the service isn't great, I just can't bring myself to end the interaction with me giving less of a tip. And I don't follow people who do. The tip should be based on the service, but for me it's like 20% and then I walk out of there and I never think about it again. What about you? I generally tip 20%. Will you move it down if the service is bad? I will take a little off if the service is not great, but for the most part I don't tip at coffee shops where I just go in and get a cup of coffee or fast food places. Like you're picking it up. Right. Now there are some mom and pop places that I go to. There's an ice cream shop that I go to that I like and I want them to stay in business so I will tip there. There's a pizza place I go to that I like. So I'll tip there even if I'm picking up just to kind of make sure they stay in business. But otherwise if I'm picking up the food, I don't tip. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think you're doing the delivery service for yourself. So that's the tip. 844-542-42. Just as Gen Ziers are the worst tippers. Just another bad, bad reputational asset for the Gen Ziers. Not only are you politically crazy, but now you're bad tippers too? We'll be right back. [Music] Live from the Aviva Trattria studio. My undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering Technologies. I was on active duty in the Marine Corps at the time, so I went to several schools. My final graduation was from E-C. I'm going to ask you to slow down your feet a little bit. If you can. Absolutely. [Music] Welcome back everyone to The Grace Curly Show. That was Jennifer Hyde, the cell phone expert in the Karen Retrial. Now I see that the anti-Karen Reed Pro McAlber group on social media is getting very, very confident. They've been kind of quiet the last couple days. They've been quiet the last 25 days of this trial, but now they feel as though the house long to die in cold Google search suspended tab theory is vindicating everything else that we've heard for the last 25 days. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. You know what I certainly wouldn't do if I was this group of people from Kitten? I wouldn't be overconfident. I think that overconfidence, somebody even call it arrogance, has not served you well thus far in your lives. I would say eat a nice slice of humble pie and we'll just wait till the end of this. We'll just wait and see what happens. 844-500-42-42. I did want to mention here and I just reached out to Toby Larry from Cape Gun Works because there was a big ruling today. We're going to bring him on Jared after this segment for the last segment of this hour to talk about how the Supreme Court ruled today that a ban on bump stocks was unconstitutional. Now this is something we've talked to Toby at length about because this ban was implemented by former President Donald Trump in 2017. Toby, who's a big fan of Trump, always took criticism or always took issue with this decision by Donald Trump. And the ban on bump stocks, which are attachments that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly, has now been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Toby will join us. It was a 6-3 ruling. We're going to get his take on it right away and figure out what he thinks. I also wanted to mention Jared. Before we get into Joe Biden, he's at the G7 Summit and he's been making waves. Just killing it. Just killing it, apparently. If you listen to everybody, you know, all those leaders, Jared. Everyone who's a poor leader over there. And when they all get together and they talk about Joe, you know what they say? They go, "America's back. America's back. Have you seen this guy?" And they say, "Have a halo for halo for halo for halo for halo for halo." Yeah, so yesterday, a video went viral, which by the way, we have on the site, go to greyscurlyshow.com. I'm very surprised at how viral this went, only because he does things like this every single day. But Joe Biden and the rest of the G7 leaders were, they were watching a skydiving demonstration. Well, some of them were watching a skydiving demonstration. Joe was turned around, and so they watched the skydiving. Turned around saluting the troops. Have you seen what people are saying now on Twitter? They're like, "This was taken out of context. The video was taken out of context." So I watched the full video because I'm all about the context. Give me more context. I can never have enough. I watched the full video, zoomed out, "Widelens," as the Karen Reed jurors might say, "Widelens." And there's a guy who was also a skydiver who was like putting his tent or his parachute back in the bag or working on something. He was not looking at Joe Biden. He was doing his own thing. And that's the guy where Joe Biden wandered and kind of stood over him for a little bit. It does not make Joe Biden look better. Again, everyone needs to take it easy with these vindication tours. Like, "See? See? We're proven right." No, I would actually argue the longer video was more concerning. Here's 10 more seconds of him meandering that way, but there's somebody there, so boom. There's someone there. It's so fact, though. Who was not looking at him, was not making eye contact, and who he was just staring at. I want to mention, though, that the leaders impressed me, like Maloney and these other people, especially Macron, too. They're going out of their way to cover for him and to make it clear that they have his back. Like, if you watched that video, which you should watch the full thing, he wanders. And then one of the women looks at Maloney to say, like, "Oh, there he's going." And then she takes it upon herself to come over and kind of grab his arm and make it kind of seem like, "Oh, we're all just camaraderie getting together. Come look over here. Look what's happening." Macron did that enormity. Like, when Joe Biden was looking off in the wrong direction, Macron and his wife both turned to face the direction he was facing to cover for the fact that he was looking the wrong way. So it's like everyone is going along with the emperor, even though he has no clothes, and we're all just pretending. It's this giant game of make-believe. And so Joe is at the G7, and that's not the only thing. He has this press conference, and it's not very often that Joe takes any sort of questions. But when he does, they're usually pre-approved. They're from a list of people, a short list of people that he likes. And he was very upset, Jared, that somebody had the audacity, one of these reporters, to actually do their jobs and ask a different question. I wanted to play cut one. About what more, if anything, the U.S. can do to drive towards a peace agreement. Thank you. I wish you guys was a little played by the Rose a little bit. I'm here to talk about a critical situation in Ukraine, you're asking another subject. I'll be happy to answer in detail later. But the bottom line is that we've made an agreement, I've laid out an approach that has been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, by the G7, by the Israelis. And the biggest hang-up so far is Hamas refusing to sign on, even though they have submitted something similar. Whether it had not or comes to fruition remains to be seen. We're going to continue to push. I don't have a fine answer for you. I have a few things to say. One, no president goes to a press conference and thinks that they're only going to get asked questions about the topic of the day or the reason that they're there. The only person who would ever assume that is Joe Biden. Trump used to go to these press conferences and they would ask him about everything from COVID to China to Tiger King to Kim Kardashian. Like there was nothing off limits when Trump was behind a podium talking to these people. And now if you ask a very, very reasonable professional question, you get dressed down by the commander in chief for not playing by the rules. I have a question. If I'm the next reporter that gets called on Jared, you know what my question is? Sir, what are the rules? Could you explain them to us? What goes into these? What are we supposed to be adhering to? Now, according to the White House press, and this was actually the White House Correspondents Association put out a statement and they said, the White House Correspondents Association believes it is in the public interest to make clear that at a presidential press conference at home or abroad, there are no preconditions regarding question topics. Me thinks the WHCA doth protest too much. While the White House does determine the number of reporters the President will recognize, it is up to professional journalists to decide what to ask. Any leader may prefer that reporters ask only one question or ask about a topic that is of the most interest to the President, but a free press functions independently. The WHCA would welcome more opportunities to pose a range of questions to the President in a press conference setting. That was NBC's Kelly O'Donnell. Well, Kelly, when the phone rings, sister, that's Joe Biden calling you to set up a press conference. But he says, I wish you guys would play by the rules a little bit. Like, how much more can they play by the rules? They've been playing by the rules for your entire presidency, and it hasn't really helped them much. And it hasn't honestly helped you much either. As much as they try to give you these, like, wet kisses and this fawning coverage, you still manage to fumble the bag. They're trying to pull you over the finish line, but you're making it nearly impossible. Now, speaking of the dog, we do have to get to what I think is one of the bigger stories of today. Obviously, the bump stock is a big story. Obviously, we've got news on the border. We've got news about Hamas. We're going to get into the series stuff in just a little bit, but it is Friday, and I thought it would be nice if we could look back on the dog days of the Biden White House. There's a story today in the Daily Mail. Biden watched his dog commander bite Secret Service agents multiple times as bombshell new records reveal more than three dozen attacks. President Joe Biden watched multiple times as his misbehaved German Shepherd commander attacked Secret Service members. The document suggests that commander along with Major Biden were responsible for 36 attacks on security personnel. How many attacks do you think if you're just a regular dog owner, if you're not, you know, the president of the United States, if you're not one of the beautiful people like Joe and Jill, how many attacks can your dog have? Before everyone finds out about it and you have to rehome said dog, like the Major and commander. Everyone now says, "Where's Chloe? Where's Chloe?" And I get that. That's an interesting question as far as the Karen Rees goes. But Major and commander walked so that the Chloe story could run. They were the first dogs, the first German shepherds we all had our eyes on. We were all saying, "Where are they going? What farm are they headed to?" "Dogs, man. Help chill cats." What happened to the dogs? This was one of my favorite parts of the story, though. It says, "One workplace safety monitor pushed the White House to consider muzzling the dogs as a tack after a tack occurred. They only got these dogs for the image. Like they only have these dogs so that they can say, "We are restoring normalcy to the White House. Look at we have puppies." I put up, this was a while ago, but there were several different tweets where Joe Biden took a victory lap over the fact that he was bringing dogs back to the White House and Trump didn't have dogs because orange man hates dogs. And look how great I am. Me and my wife, we love our dogs." And then the dog started biting everyone. And that narrative kind of fell apart. But the entire point of it was the image. So imagine being that person who you're like, "Can we put a couple of muzzles on these things?" Uh, no. We can't. He has to walk outside with those dogs every day and walk past the reporters and make some funny quip about how he'll buy him a cup of coffee with the dogs. If he doesn't have the dogs, if they have muzzles on, that defeats the whole purpose. We might as well get rid of them. Oh, they did. Document shared by judicial watch via a FOIA claimed that the oxygenarian president was present for at least three attacks involving commander. Biden also reportedly accused a member of the detail of lying about being attacked by Major early during his presidency. One of them occurred in September of last year when commander bit through the suit of a Secret Service agent while the president was taking him for a walk in the Kennedy Garden. Here's here's the quote. Okay. It says, "POTUS opened the bookseller door and said redacted. As I started to walk toward him to see if he needed help, commander ran through his legs and bit my left arm through the front of my jacket. I pulled my arm away and yelled no. POTUS also yelled redacted to commander." Wonder what he. "POTUS then redacted. I obliged and commander let me pet him." What do you think? Wait, that to me is very curious. Do you think Joe that that second redacted where it says, "POTUS also yelled redacted to commander." So he probably yelled, "Stop," or sit down. "POTUS then redacted. I obliged and commander let me pet him." Do you think Joe told the guy like, "Come here and pet him." That'll make it easier. Oh, when it said, "POTUS then redacted," I assume that like he kicked the dog or tried to hurt the dog so they had to redact that. We do know he has a penchant for kicking the dog. He usually prefers to do that when he's in the shower, but maybe he decided. But he was playfully chasing a tail when he was in the shower. Oh, right, right, right, right, right, right. I got my Biden. But yeah, I'll bet you I'll bet you Biden either kicked or smacked the dog and they had to redact that. Whoo, these dogs, man. That was a great time to be alive, just watching the White House slowly come out with all this information about how both the dogs are trouble. Following a different commander attack, a sergeant with a Secret Service flag to a colleague. FYI, there was a dog bite in the office may need to go to the hospital. The officer may need to go to the hospital. On a separate occasion, the poorly trained first pup bit a female agent. The attack resulted in a severe, deep wound. And there was a loss of a significant amount of blood. Ruff, ruff. Hope you write back. We'll take your calls. Oh, we're going to talk to Toby after the break. Do you use scented candles, cover up sprays or air fresheners for bad odors in your home? We'll stop masking the smells with more odors. That is lame. You know, your heart's in the right place. You want the house to smell nice. You want your car to smell nice. But you're not fooling anyone. You need to get rid of the odors. And then if you want to add something in, Jared, to make it smell nice, that's fine. But masking odors with more odors is creating a concoction of misery. You want to get rid of that smell and the thunderstorm can do just that. It uses oxy technology to send out O three molecules into your home that destroy bad odors rather than just covering them up. So candles and cover up sprays must be bought over and over and over again because they're not dealing with the actual problem. The thunderstorm can save you money. It can save you time. It doesn't require any air filters and it works like a charm. Place a thunderstorm. Well, you can really place them anywhere in your bedroom, in your office, in your kitchen, in your basement, in your car. The possibilities are endless and there's always a reason why you'll want to have your thunderstorm running. Whether it's because you just cook something in the kitchen and you want to get rid of that smell or maybe it's allergy season and you want to eliminate those pollutants in the air. There's so many great reasons to get your hands on a thunderstorm. And right now, you can get $200 off the three-pack special for whole home protection. Visit edimpuredeals.com. Use discount code GRACE3. That's edimpuredeals.com. Use discount code GRACE3. We'll be right back. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. This is The Grace Curly Show. We conclude that semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a machine gun. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. The news today broke. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a ban on bump stocks is unconstitutional. Joining us now to discuss is Toby Leary. Toby, give us your reaction to this news. Thanks, Grace, for having me on. I'm really excited today because it's a great day for the Second Amendment. It's a great day for freedom in America and it's a great day for Michael Cargill who took this all the way to the Supreme Court, which really challenged the executive branch of government's authority to change the rules as it sees fit. This is huge. There's also some massive news about the dissenting opinion on this case, Grace. That is Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown, who wrote the dissenting opinion on this, conceded a huge point. That is that AR-15s are in common and ordinary use. That is something that I think they did without realizing they did it or they just finally put it out in the open and said, "Some of the automatic weapons that are in common and ordinary use are protected arms." That's basically what they're doing by admitting that the AR-15 rifle, which is banned in a lot of states like Massachusetts, is in common in ordinary use. Therefore, it can't be banned according to the court in the Heller decision. I don't know if they unwittingly did this or if they just tripped over their words or what, but regardless, it's a massive concession. I think that it is a victory for the Second Amendment. Arms ban cases are going to have a hard time overcoming that in the future. It should put Massachusetts squarely at the top of the line for challenging all of the arms ban cases. Like we have right now, there's one challenging AR-15 ban in the magazine capacity ban. That's a huge win. There's also a lot of talk about Justice Alito, who basically said, "Hey, look, we regretfully say that, yes, the net result is the same as firing a machine gun, but we are stuck with the language in the plain text of the law that bans machine guns or that defines a machine gun." If Congress wants to ban bump stocks, then Congress can ban bump stocks. There's a lot of people in the Second Amendment community that are all nervous about that. Why is he saying that? That shouldn't be done at all, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's basically almost challenging them to do that, but under the definition of arms ban cases, it would be next to impossible to do that for a bump stock. But regardless, it's a big win for the Second Amendment and for Michael Cargill and for freedom. And I'm really happy about it. Thank you, Toby, for giving us the update. Big win for Toby, too. We'll be right back.