The Second Amendment Explained and Why Crossing State Lines Can Make You a Criminal

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: people will say to me, we have a national guard now. You don't need a state militia. well, no, that's the very point. Once the state militia's gone, and now we have something other that we have no control of as citizens, we've lost the plot. We we don't we don't have any control anymore. Welcome to More to Consider. Jack Moore here with James Porfido We have been on a few shows together. He is an attorney licensed in the state, the great state of New Jersey. And we've had fun talking about legal things before. Today we want to talk about the Second Amendment. And off the top of my hand, I think it's a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think that's the words. It's 27 words. And it has created Quite a bit of mess through 200 and some odd years. Well, really, I I say that, but it really isn't until the 20th century that Supreme Court really even starts to discuss it. I think the view of the founders, and probably within the first hundred years of the new nation, there's really not a lot of discussion about it. It's really into the 20th century. It's really in World War One, in post World War One, that it really becomes an issue. James, how are you doing, sir?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: I'm doing great. Thanks so much, Jack, for having me on. Appreciate it. Look forward to the opportunity and good discussion.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I have a friend of mine. He's got a PhD from the University of Virginia in foreign affairs. He's one the smartest men I've ever known. But his his field was was foreign affairs and he gets a PhD and he was also an ordained Baptist pastor. Very, very smart guy. And we would have all these great discussions. And he made a point to me one time and I was like, Wow, it makes it really makes a lot of sense. He said, think about what the British were doing in it's in New England, basically in the New England region. New York, of course, one of the states as well. They're going house to house and taking people's weapons. They're basically trying to disarm the colonial militias. Now, at that time, they're also sleeping in their beds. They're coming by. They're breaking into homes without probable cause, et cetera. Well, look at the there were a hundred, I think, the argument was there, a hundred proposals for amendments. It made it to 12. The 12 were voted on, 10 were ratified, became the Bill of Rights. One of them that didn't make the vote 202 years later, that was the one that Congress could not take a pay raise until another congressional election cycle had gone. That passed 202 years later. The other one that didn't pass was Madison's view on how to increase the number of members of the House. It was a lot of math. It was a lot of formulas, and then it just didn't pass. But then he said, look, First Amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, religion, all that we know. But then the Second Amendment was about firearms. The Third Amendment was Quartering Act. Don't come in the House with and unless in times of war and under certain certain legal procedures as it would be determined by Congress. Fourth Amendment, we're lawyers. That's the biggie, you know, about probable cause, arrest, search and seizure. And he said, well, think about it. They're a group of people who are of basically a race and religion and region of the world. Great Britain or the United Kingdom, England, and they're now putting people in charge who are of the same background, and they had to be thinking at a certain level. How do we know you won't do the same thing the king did? So we want these safeguards because they were concerned about the new nation doing the same thing the British did, which were like again, come around and take their weapons. So I always thought that was a big part of the Second Amendment. And then I'll throw this out because this is where I want the discussion to go. The other thing I believe, after doing a lot of reading 10, 15 years ago, I am convinced that Madison, who pretty much wrote the Constitution and was behind the wording of the Second Amendment, he had written a great deal about the fear of standing armies, that they wanted the armies. To be raised from the citizens' citizenry, and that they would be raised from the states. And if you look at Article 1, Section 8, that lays out the powers of Congress, it says six words about the Navy. And it's basically six words saying provide for. They wanted a standing Navy. That's clear. Then when it says armies, Raise the armies only in times of military need, never for more than two years, so you could vote out the members of Congress if it's an unpopular war, et cetera, et cetera. But it would be raised from the state militias under discipline and other aspects that were to be prescribed by Congress. Congress would write how the U.S. forces would be trained. But then the other point is you look at early Jefferson, who was very much a constitutionalist, when he got in trouble with the Barbary Pirates, who did he send to the shores of Tripoli? The Marine Corps. The Marines are not militia. In effect, they're federal troops because they're an aspect of the Navy. The Navy that we asked to be standing has ground forces and we call them the Marine Corps. But really, what they wanted from armies was the citizen to be with his own firearm or firearms provided by well, that's and that's where I want to go with this and ask you the question. If we accept that without the 20th century view, Of the incorporation doctrine and beginning to after the the the 14th amendment in 1868 and this view in the 20th century of applying certain, as it called them, fundamental rights as against the states, would you not agree that the Second Amendment did nothing more than assure that the federal government wouldn't be involved in writing laws to regulate firearms? But the states were up to them to do whatever the hell they want.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Yeah, I I think that's accurate. And I think ultimately the authority lies with the federal government. So it would be a safeguard to come back to so the states were free to legislate in that area and come up with, and they have devised their own set of laws pertaining to firearms and guns. And but ultimately the authority r lies with the federal government. That's the you know, when when challenges happen, generally there's there's the You exhaust your state remedies and then you're looking for federal remedies through the the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court making a decision and relying on federal authority.

Jack Moore: Well, see, I think where so much gets messy. We're both attorneys. And we and I know you would agree with this without question. We go through law school. We have sometimes law professors with axes to grind. They teach, you know, certain positions as it relates to things. One of the things we learned, like as a prosecutor, I learned, you know, gotta you gotta prove the jurisdiction of the court. You have to prove the elements of the crime. You got to prove the venue that it happened where you say it happened. It happened within. So there's jurisdictional issues. I don't care if you've got a 100% slam dunk as to Jimmy doing X. If he didn't do it where you're prosecuting, it doesn't make any difference. So one of the things you have to prove, and that was one of those questions as a prosecutor, you always finish with that all these events occur in the city of? Did all these events occur in the county of? Whatever. You you established that it happened. I say that to say or or to go down this road. I agree with you. We have a position today, and I think it's fair, that sort of last lane of of redress or something that we can cover or to maybe get some remedy is to go to the federal government. But I want to read you something along this line. I find it really fascinating. I had another gentleman on and he made the point. As the war ends, as the American Revolution ends, the peace is brought about. You know, the the old story we were we learned in grade school is they go to further amend the Articles of Federation, then they kind of shut the doors and secretly start working on a constitution. So now September 17th, 1880 or 1787, that's Constitution Day, they come out with this. In the meantime, as they come to this victory over England, they start, many of the states either write a constitution, tear up what they've had, and create new constitutions. I love Pennsylvania. it's a Commonwealth, you know, Commonwealth Virginia, Commonwealth, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky. So I I've always been a big fan, have lots and lots of friends from Pennsylvania. And of course, when you think about the big players, it is New England, the Adams generally, you think of them, you think of Ben Franklin. And then I come from the state, father of the country, George Washington, pretty much the guy that wrote the Constitution, Madison, and the guy that wrote the declaration, Jefferson. So Virginia's a big player. We know that. First 36 years of our country's existence, 32, it's a Virginian as president. So Virginia was a big power player. But con but when it comes to the documents and the formation of how the country was set up, Pennsylvania's huge. Listen to what they write. July 15th. 1776, days following the signing of the declaration, they write their new constitution. And they wrote in this section 13 that the people have a right. This is a Pennsylvania constitution, that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. And then they say, as standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. So I think the way they would have viewed it at that time, and this is where it all gets kind of murky today, is they would have looked at it as Pennsylvania has an authority as it relates to firearms. And raising the militia and maybe arming the people or keeping arsenals, whatever they wanted to do, to as long as they're ready to field the militia when it comes time has called. And all the federal constitution was saying is: we're out of the confiscation of weapons game. We're out. And then states, that's how they would have recognized it in 1791. States knock yourself out. But now with 20th century views. including, well, 21st century, including Heller. And they was a case out of Chicago when they when they then said under the incorporation doctrine, now we're going to apply this to the states. Now we have this view that it's one of these fundamental rights. And for the listener, the f what I'm saying about the incorporation doctrine, after the American Civil War in the 14th Amendment, there's a due process clause in the 14th Amendment. And of course, this came up in all the immigration arguments about what was it really talking about when people are born or naturalized on the soil. there is a due process clause. And then in the 20th century, the United States Supreme Court begins to take what they consider fundamental rights, many of them as outlined in the Bill of Rights, and have started to apply them to the states through the 14th Amendment. So that Second Amendment thing was kind of the last to the table on that. But I guess what I'm saying is I still think the states can regulate firearms however they want. And I'm not so sure about some of these Supreme Court decisions as it relates to the incorporation doctrine and applying it to the states. I run my mouth here for 20 minutes. So I'm gonna ask you, what do you think about that whole jurisdictional thing? What do you think about where where do you think the line would be drawn, I guess, for the states as it as it relates to regulating firearms?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Well, you have to establish, as you said, jurisdiction is number one in any prosecution case. So you have to establish

Jack Moore: Uh-huh.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: that you're in the right place, the right venue, the right jurisdiction, you're applying the right laws. so that's first and foremost. I I think if you look back to the historical you know, origins of the Second Amendment, you look at the times then versus the times now very different. You know, we didn't have

Jack Moore: Right. Right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: an organized army, so when you we talk about the right to keep and bear arms and arm a militia, you're talking about the citizenry at the time and and and you have England that's still, you know, even though we we won the American Revolution, they were still involved and invested in the United States and didn't just go

Jack Moore: Yes.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: away. It's not like they just packed up and left. They were still a presence. And so there was always the fear that perhaps they would try to once again resurrect the resur the the revolution and that it was never really over. Like I don't think that they were breathing easy that the that the the revolutionary war was over, that they had won and achieved victory. They always felt there was a threat. So the the the Second Amendment was a safeguard for the citizens to be armed and prepared and ready because there wasn't an organized militia. It was really the citizens and that's how we won the war. against the the British historically is that th these were people that just decided that they wanted to be free and they wanted an independent nation. And so if you look at that, I mean then versus now, very, very different. I mean, now we have an army where you're you're no longer a volunteer, you're paid. You know, you you make a a choice to go into the military and that may be your career. And you are compensated for that by the government. So it's a paid position. We have a navy, we have an air force, we have the marines. So we have separate branches of the the military, which are organized now. how many years later? And it took years for that to happen. Of course, it was inherent that we were going to have the Marines as a as a a a branch of the military because it was something that that Jefferson even relied upon in calling out the Marines. And but but it wasn't like it is today. Very different, very, very different. The so when you go to the states, it's obviously each state has their own independent laws and they vary from states to states. And that's where things get a little bit complicated. You know, I I I think the the idea would be to have one uniform gun law and apply that throughout this the country and that would mirror the federal law, but it doesn't. And it gets very dicey because states some states are gun friendly and other states are not. some states do not want guns. And I'm talking specifically about New Jersey.

Jack Moore: That's clear.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: New Jersey is a state that has been resistant to guns and ownership of guns, and it has made it extremely difficult and challenging to acquire or possess firearms or handguns or long long arms, rifles, shotguns. It's not that easy, and other states are not so much so. you can show a driver's license and get a gun in some states, and that's all that's required. And there may not be a real background investigation. And and that's something that could happen very easily and probably should happen where we're doing some background checks and it, making it a little bit more challenging to I don't want to say challenging in the sense that you can't get it. challenging in the sense that we we have the proper safeguards in place to make sure that those people that are trying to acquire a gun are capable of of possessing a firearm. they don't have mental health issues or, they're not, suffering from some delusional you know problems or or or mental health ish issues. And we would all be in favor of that. I think everybody, but it gets really challenging when you look at individual state rights and individual state laws and you go state to state and see how they differ or vary. And I speak from experience of this because, over the years as prosecutor and defense attorney handled g gun cases and and in New Jersey, I I represented a lot of people that were driving from one state to another, the truckers, for instance, where they have a gun in their their in their glove box. And They get pulled over and you know, all of a sudden they they disclose to the officer like they're like they would do in their own state. Hey, I have a firearm. Well, do are you licensed to possess that here in the state of New Jersey? No, I'm not. But I am licensed in Alabama. But that doesn't that that doesn't mean that you're licensed in New Jersey. So automatically you're charged with a criminal offense. Now are these people criminals? No, they're not. And and so I handled a number of cases like that where you had to fight very hard. And we had something called a diversion program where people would be able to be in this program for a period of one year to three years called PTI or pretrial intervention, but they were still charged criminally, and some of them were arrested and held in custody. So, we we made criminals out of people that weren't criminals because our laws were very, very strict. And even when the Supreme Court ruled in the Bruin case in 2022, which allowed states to have carry permits and allowed people to carry firearms. New Jersey still has been resistant to that. They put in place several criteria upon which you would be have to go through in order to carry or get a carry permit. So they made it, they added to the federal they the federal government said in the Bruin decision that, you know, you cannot stop someone from carrying a firearm because it is their inherent right to do so. it goes into great detail on other aspects, but New Jersey was not ready to accept that decision and and they fought very hard not to, but they couldn't. so they made certain restrictions or put in place several factors that people had to satisfy gun safety courses, which are all logical th things. I mean that there's nothing wrong with having a take a gun safety course, you want to make sure the people that are possessing firearms know how to use them. You know, you don't want people, you know, in a situation where they have a gun and they don't know how to use it, obviously. So that was fine. But there were several other factors that they they added to it. But you know, that's that's where it goes. I mean you can see the dichotomy between the federal and state governments and how there's always conflicts along the way because every state is different.

Jack Moore: Yeah, it's a mess. It's a mess. And sometimes when I when I read this and think about it, it's like you don't even really know where to start because once again, I think that what Madison was addressing, and it's clear in what Pennsylvania said. So to go back to that, Pennsylvania is saying you have a right to to home protection, for example, you know, right to hunt Bambi. I've had some NRA types on before. And they'll get into all of these rights. And I'm like, that's not what the Second Amendment's about. I don't think the Second Amendment is at all about home protection. And I don't think it's about the right to hunt. But the states that wrote the constitutions that they wrote, that they drafted at the time of the founding, were cle were clear on all that. Like I said, Pennsylvania covers everything and throws in, we don't want standing armies. So they they echoed, I think, what Madison was saying. But as you mentioned, we go through. Close to 200 years of this interpretation of this. And I I remember one of the greatest eye-openers to me about the government and how it operates. A guy named Eugene Jurecki in 2004 did a documentary called Why We Fight. And it was really about what had happened post-9-11, where we were halfway around the world. And one of these guys that was on there said, and I actually heard it today, talked about it in Congress, that there is some aspect. Of the military, if you want to call it the military military industrial complex, something's being made that makes some something to do with arms or or airplanes or whatever that could be used militarily in every district in the United States. So every member of Congress has an incentive when running to support the war machine because his constituents work at the plant, you know. They're talking about all these different obscure areas throughout the country where we make these things. And the point this guy was making on this Eugene Jurecki Why We Fight documentary is he said at that time, 2005 or so, when he came out, 2004, when he came out with this, he said that we had 700 and some odd military installations in 110 countries in the world. That's the very thing the framers would not have wanted. That we are militarily Setting up bases throughout the world with a standing army and standing military. that's the very thing they would have been against. So, where we made the separation from what Article One Section was again, we don't follow Article One, Section 8 as to Congress voting for declarations of war anymore. Last time we did that was December 8th, 41, following Pearl Harbor. Since that time, we've committed troops all over the world. After Vietnam in 1973, Congress tries to rein it in with the War Powers Act. They try to put a limitation on the president just willy-nilly sending and look where we are right now. So I say all that to say the Second Amendment is so much about protection of the people from their own government and protection of a government out of control as it relates to military power. That's that ship sailed. So

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: people will say to me, we have a national guard now. You don't need a state militia. I'm like, well, no, that's the very point. Once the state militia's gone, and now we have something other that we have no control of as citizens, we've we've lost the plot. We we don't we don't have any control anymore. So now that's all one thing. But then of course comes up then the other big aspect of it. What do we mean by firearm? Now I have a friend of mine, love and the death, went to a major university of law. to a law school, very, very smart guy. And he said, Well, the Second Amendment was clear. All anyone could own is a muzzle loading musket of the period. And I'm like, where do you get that from? Well, that's when it was written. And I said, they said firearm. They were repeating firearms already at that time. They had already gone to cartridges and they would had the ability. It was very expensive and it doesn't really show up until the American Civil War that it becomes practical on the battlefield. to have something res resembling a repeating rifle or something of the nature of a cartridge type of, of of a firearm. But it wasn't it didn't exist. The people that wrote the Second Amendment, it wasn't if they didn't know that was coming was a different grade of firearm. So this friend of mine's led, well, you can have a a a muzzle loading musket. That's all you can have, according to the Second Amendment. I'm like, I don't read it that way. But man, it is the

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Yeah.

Jack Moore: most difficult, it's the most difficult thing Really to discuss because I think some of the Supreme Court cases are probably out of whack. But let me let me go with this real quick. All right. Supreme Court challenges. There are disputes about state restrictions on semi-automatic rifles. And I know you've seen this, I've seen this, I've seen moments on the floor of the House of Representatives. You get a couple of people going, I've seen it happen in state legislatures. You'll hear somebody, generally with more of a military background, throw up to some member of a legislature. Well, what do you mean by that? And it's you'll get these responses. Well, it's those guns that scare me, the ones that look scary. Like, what is a s you know, like what is an assault rifle? Like they thought the AR-15 armor light, that AR stood for assault rifle, and it was the armor light that eventually I think Colt bought out and that became the sixteen. It started as the was, I think it was the AR ten was the first, and then they went to the 15 and They went through these gyrations of making that weapon that be began to or eventually became the field weapon after they scrapped the fourteen. So there's all this history, but you'll have a person in the legislature who really doesn't know what they're saying. they're all willing to to write legislation as it relates to firearms, and they really they don't even really know what semi automatic means. So I I remember,

James M. Porfido, Esq.: They don't, they don't. That's the problem.

Jack Moore: I remember A member of the press said he went out on a firing range and he began to describe he went out with an AR 15 and he went out on a firing range and then he reported, Man, this thing is really scary. And when pressed by somebody else on this panel, he said, Well, how does that thing work? And he said, Well, I pulled the trigger and all these rounds went off. And he goes, No, it didn't. For the AR 15, which is a semi automatic rifle. You must have a trigger pull for each round. And he goes, Well, you know what I mean. you know what I mean. So he's equating a semi-automatic firearm that looks scary. And it's on the same platform as what eventually became the M16, which in was select fire in Vietnam. So it looks the same. It's not the same weapon in the sense of how it operates. But this guy is making the argument, but it looks real scary, and it looks like that other thing. And he didn't what I'm saying is. He really didn't understand the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic. But he'd be, like many legislators, he'd be all for saying you can't have that because it looks scary or it has a magazine capacity. That's another big one that's come out, the magazine capacity. And of course, the

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right, right. New Jersey has restrictions pertaining to magazine capacity.

Jack Moore: And what is that if you know? Is it ten? Probably ten rounds? Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Ten, ten, yeah, ten rounds. Anything more is considered illegal, a cartridge that contains more than ten rounds.

Jack Moore: Well, I think is sad too? I know you've read these too. I read recently the the number of the massive shooting cases that we can think of, not to go into too much detail about each particular one, but they usually end with a self-inflicted gunshot wound when they know they can't go any further, or someone armed take them out. I mean, that's that's the reality. That's that's what often happens. And I remember the case. In Texas, I want to say I'm I'm I'm guessing here was about 10 to 15 years ago. There was a gentleman who lived in Texas and he was across the street. You may remember this from the church, and this guy showed up at a church and killed 26 people. The pastor was actually on vacation in a way, so him and his family weren't there at that this happened. But the guy goes in, he starts firing in the church. The guy across the street. Who has an arsenal of weapons and an AR-15 was one of his weapons, starts to hear it. And he said, because he was following the law, he lost a few minutes. He said to his daughter, Go unlock the firearm. she's 18 years old. Go get the firearm. I'm going to start feeding magazines. So he's sitting there individually popping all these into a magazine to load the weapon because he's following the law, not having it ready. Is supposed to

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right.

Jack Moore: be following the law. Then he pops it in, he goes across the street, runs the guy down, gets into a firefight. The guy jumps in the car, takes off running. He gr he jumps into the car with the guy that was going down the street. They chase him. I think the guy wrecks, the cops show up, et cetera. My point in all that is everyone was pretty clear he saved lives because he had that type of weapon. And he was willing to risk his life to run across the street. But he said that my only regret I felt bad about was I wasn't ready to fire immediately because I had to load the weapon. I had to go to all these things. I didn't have it fire ready because I'm not supposed to. And it cost him some time. He goes, in every pop of that that rifle from the guy that's shooting up the church, I kept thinking that's another life down, baby. That's another I feel terrible, but I'm I'm I'm pumping as many rounds as I can into this magazine so I can cross the street and go over there and try to help. And That case was barely ever reported. It wasn't like the alphabet news agencies are out there hey, heroic guy with rifle saves more lives. that's that story never makes it. But I I I bring up that to say, why should I not, if I have no right if you even get into the whole background check thing, if I want to have a rifle that has a 20 round capacity, let's say that type of weapon. Why should I not have, yeah, have it locked away from kids, I get it. But should I not be able to turnkey, pop, bam, grab that rifle, throw in the magazine and be ready to go? Should I have to load the magazines because of some or that just seems ridiculous, especially in a case like that when it was life or death? I if it's in my home to the degree should I face potential civil andor criminal liability or some jeopardy of criminal or or civil because I have a firearm in the house and some kid gets killed because I didn't have it secured. I get it. Now but what's but what's crazy too, and you have to grow up, I I made a comment one time about gun culture on here. And somebody in the comments was like, they literally well, I'll tell you what I said. as an attorney, I did a I used to work with a friend of mine doing player representation. And we went over to meet a kid in his house. That ended up pitching in Pro Ball. He went the college route, but he's high school. He's scouts are on him. He's probably gonna get drafted. He lives in a rural part of Virginia. We pull into the backyard of his house, and it's a choir of dogs bark. I've never heard anything like it. It's just like they're just all going crazy. So we go in the house, I'm like, hey, how many hunting dogs are we working with? There he goes, 27. They got 27 hunting dogs. That's what these people do. And I'm looking around the walls. And I said, Hey, how many firearms are we working with here? And he goes, fifty-five. So they have fifty-five, they get them on the wall, shotguns, rifles, you name it, they got And I said on the show, believe me, these are the people you want with firearms. These are salt of the earth, good country folk that hunt all the time. They're not a danger to you at all. This is what they do. They have hunting dogs and they go hunting. So somebody wrote in the comments, all I heard was blah, blah, blah, you're in favor of school shootings and Trump's a tyrant. that's literally what the person wrote when I said that. But my point was: if you grow up in certain areas, I grew up with the dad, like I've said, military and law enforcement. There were guns all over the house. He would come home from work and take his service belt with all the rounds and his 38 caliber revolver and hang it over the chair. on the dining room table, at the dining room table. I knew where rifles were, I knew where other firearms were, and I would not have thought of touching any of them because I was scared to death of him. You know what I'm saying? So I saw guns. I'm scared to death of guns because I know what guns can do. First time he took me out to shoot, I was nine and it was military and law enforcement. You will hold it in this direction. You will not do this. You know that's he's yelling at me at nine like you, you will But that's a culture. He was hunting when he was nine, on his own in the country with the twenty-two-caliber rifle out shooting squirrels when he was nine years old. He grew up in the country in Virginia. I say that to say if you grow up in certain parts of the world, you're all around firearms and you don't think of them as a danger. You think of them as a tool, and you think of the people that you knew growing up that had them were not dangerous to you. They weren't a menace to you. So I grew up in that guns all over the house and they didn't scare me. So I say all that to say I think some of these legislators, they know in the streets what guns do and the dangers they present, but I don't think they have any history of actually having any knowledge of them. So you you you you yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right. Right. You well, you raise a lot of points there. There's many points that you're raising about gun culture and familiarity and and background and experience and, you know, comfort level. You know, whether someone has them in their home and they're used to having them around and they respect them and they know how to use them properly. Yes, there's a culture in in different states, you know, certainly the southern states, I think that they have a lot looser gun laws and restrictions

Jack Moore: Yes.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: and and and for reason, you know, because it is part of the upbringing or the culture, the background. And what we have with legislators, is as you pointed out, is many of it is not knowing. Not knowing and having familiarity. And a lot of times and just about every time that legislation is passed, it's reactive. It's not proactive. It's they're reacting to a situation and now they need to legislate that behavior. w you grew up in a in a culture where your dad put his gun belt on the back of a chair. Well, now you can't do that, because there

Jack Moore: No.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: are protections and safeguards for children, because we had a number of kids that got into their dad's firearms and and shot somebody. And so I understand that. That you know, because perhaps there wasn't that upbringing. There wasn't that n I don't want to say nurturing, but certainly that education about guns and the danger that they present and that you don't touch them and you have to respect them. Maybe that and and then when you think of legislators in some of the states like up north, what do they think about when they think of guns? They think of criminal activity. They think very differently.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: And they think that the criminals are the ones that possess the guns. You know, and when you pass all

Jack Moore: Right. Right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: the legislation in the world, to legislate guns and ownership and restrictions providing as to ownership, what are you doing? You're really you're legislating against common people, like you say, the salt of the earth, perhaps, the people that should have guns. And you can't say that a citizen can't have a gun or bear a firearm unless there's a disqualifying factor. And then that's what states have been very, very adamant about. most states, I'll say. making sure that you're qualified. Certainly in New Jersey, very extensive background as whether or not you have any criminal activity, whether or not you have any mental health history. That's part of the qualifications and and the application process.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I do think though too When you know one of the things I heard about World War II, and I heard this from an historian of the war, just a general historian, United States historian, and and it it made a lot of sense. He said that two things, and I've mentioned this on other shows, two things showed up in World War II. The German army, according to this historian, had a distaste for things that fell apart or weren't working, so they just leave them in the field. Americans would happen upon, American soldiers would often happen upon equipment left in the field. And because they had worked on Daddy's tractor or the Ford Model T, they could get in there and jump under the hood and fix it. And they would. Or they would often find ways to bring about some change in the in the the structure of some equipment to make it work. that was one of the f famous things in the Battle of the Bulge. They came up with on the front of the tanks, they were able to put together these sort of devices that were able to clear out brush and and and small limbs of trees and things so they could actually move the tanks. And that was just, you know, some buck sergeant from somewhere in America that came up with the idea of how to, you know, to mount this device. I watched that one time on the History Channel. So that was the one thing the American kids had all grown up with the tractor. And learned how to work under the hood. And number two is when they first started training for World War II, they were literally doing the training with broomsticks. They didn't have the firearms yet. But once they started handering the handling the firearms, and of course it was the grand M1 at the time that they used in the war, these kids could shoot the lights out. They could hit anything. Why? Because many of them had grown up on a farm and they had granddaddy's rifle from the time they were a kid. And one thing all the American kids were good at. were firing rifles. So that kind I I bring that up because when my dad, who was born in 28, all of his cousins, all of the people in his neck of the woods, they all hunted, they all did this thing. And many of those people, when he went into state police school, all the guys he went into the state police with in the mid-50s were World War II and Korean War veterans. He was drafted during Korea. So it was it was men were like that. 90%

James M. Porfido, Esq.: And

Jack Moore: of had served in the military and 90% of them had had have high levels of training with firearms. And they didn't let their kids run around. And the kids weren't on the same level of drugs that we all are, you know, so many kids are on today, too. So when you bring up I I agree, I could see a world where somebody's like, Wait a minute, your dad just took a thirty-eight caliber firearm and just stuck it on the back of the chair. Yeah. Yeah, he did. And my my mother's father was a federal agent and my grandmother was packing. Because she he was gone a lot and she knew where the firearm was because he set up with a firearm she could handle and she did the home protection if she had to. So everyone had guns. And I'm just saying they did. And I could see where people would look at it today and I can't believe you had guns all over the house. That's so dangerous. Well, it's dangerous in a world where people are more likely now to pick them up and do bad things. Cause I it's it was a different era. I d I just think it was. I think we have so much more. Mental health issues, so many more people on certain types of drugs. You see that link all the time too. We see these bad shootings, and then we find out about the shooter, and there's all kinds of, red flags about mental health issues and white, and then it's accessibility to the firearm, which again brings up the question always is it eliminate the firearm or do we have other things going on? And the last thing I'll say on that, yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: the answer the quick answer is eliminate the firearm, right? That because that's the most logical thing that that that legislators would think of is like we we don't look at the individual that committed the shooting, we look at the instrumentality. Yeah.

Jack Moore: And that would be like somebody riding down the road. I've used this and people say it fails, but I still don't see where it fails. What if we find that a person is driving a large SUV, intoxicated or not, but they have a or they're on their cell phone. They're on their cell phone, have a bad moment, take out a family at three. Would you then ban SUVs? Even if it's intentional, they decide they want to ride into somebody. They run up on the sidewalk and they want to hit people. You wouldn't think of banning the the the vehicle. You would say the behavior, the the the the way that the person handled said vehicle was the problem, not that the vehicle exists, but firearms are neutral. I I remember that one time in an argument on a podcast I did, somebody said, Well, they're designed to kill. I'm like, no, what they're designed to do is send a round down range of where you're pointing it. I mean, that's that's What it's designed to do is to fire projectiles. it's what it's designed to do. And that could be to be the good guy and save a life, or it could be to take a life, or it could be to shoot a Bambi. It could be to shoot whatever. It could be shoot a target. But it's not designed to kill any more than a weapon than a than a motor vehicle. But if you take the motor vehicle and you run over somebody, you've used that choice of its utility to take a human life. But it's not the a vehicle's not designed to kill people. It can kill people.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Sure.

Jack Moore: I know it's a bad example for a lot of people, but it it really comes down to the intent of the user. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: That's right. Depends whose hands it's in, for sure. if someone has evil or bad intent, then that's that's how the gun is gonna that's the instrumentality of of bad intent right there, of of criminal acts. but if someone's

Jack Moore: Well and don't get and don't get me well, don't get me wrong, too. If you were to say which one's more associated with causing death, motor vehicles are firearms, I would say from the instrumentality how it's designed, you would probably say the firearm. However, when you look at motor vehicle deaths every year, although they're not designed, many, many people

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: do die in using motor vehicles. And and again,

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Yeah, I agree.

Jack Moore: that's that's not. That's not its design, but all right, so let's just do this real quick and we got about about about 10 or 15 more minutes we'll go here. Let's look real quick at what the Supreme Court said. Of course, one of the most famous cases in recent memory, it's now coming up on 20 years. District of Columbia versus Heller, it recognized an individual constitutional right to possession of firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense. And in my rememory, my memory is correct on that. Heller is a gentleman in the Washington, D.C. area, or in Washington, D.C., who has a firearm and they can't have a firearm in D.C. And he argues that I have a Second Amendment right to home protection. And the court agrees. Now, that being the District of Columbia not being anything other than a federal city, it doesn't yet apply to the state. So we come back to McDonald versus City of Chicago 2010. It applied the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to state and local governments, again using the incorporation doctrine. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin established the historic the historical tradition test. Modern firearm restrictions must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Then there's been a case in 2024. Actually, one of these cases I saw was in 2026. And this is Rahimi. United States versus Rahimi clarified that the historical tradition test does not require an exact historical twin for every modern firearm restriction. All right. So the questions that have come up, and the things we want to discuss here real quickly is what is an assault weapon? Is this a technical firearm classification? Is it a legal category, or is it just a political description? Let me ask you that first. What do you think assault weapon is? Do you think anybody like in the firearm industry or otherwise historians really have an answer for that? Or is it just a creation of the legislature or f politicians in general?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: I do think that. I think it is a creation of politicians and and legislatures to come up with a a definition because New Jersey specifically does not have an assault weapon. They call it an assault firearm. So,

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: each state varies, and I think it's just a nuance. And what does it mean to to be an assault firearm? Is it an automatic? It is a semi-automatic, and there's a lot of distinctions along the way. And it varies from state to state. Again, we get into definitional. aspects from one state differing very much from another state. So I I do think

Jack Moore: Yeah. Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: it's a creation, it gives a a little bit of a category, a nuance, something that can be legislated. So if you put it in that box, it fits neatly to say it's an assault weapon.

Jack Moore: All right, many firearms covered by the laws, which states have loosely defined as assault weapons, are semi automatic, meaning one round is fired per trigger pull. How should that distinction factor into constitutional arguments? Well, let me say this about fully automatic. My memory from history class, if I'm not mistaken, is as The prohibition style mob, the Capones in Chicago and others throughout the country, were really into the Thompson one machine gun, I think, for one, and there were some other automatic firearms. So they use what they often do, the Interstate Commerce Clause to say, okay, we're gonna regulate far am firearms among the several states that cross state lines and say no more automatic weapons can be owned by citizens without a bunch of federal hoops to go through. You you could own them potentially, but they're they're basically supposed to be military and law enforcement only. But that's where the federal government has its window into the regulation of s fully automatic weapons. Now what's gotten hairy is like I've mentioned all along during this show, you got a lot of firearms out there that look very similar. They do. Again, the AR fifteen against what became The M16 that was used in the Vietnam era in the mid 60s, they looked the same. But once Select Fire, it, it, it had, you could you could go to a semi automatic, you could go to burst, and you could go to fully automatic versus the AR 15, which is totally semi automatic, one round per trigger pull. But to some people, they're like, it still looks scary to me. It still looks scary. Now, I think, am I not right, if you had a Let's say a six round revolver, a thirty eight caliber firearm, a pistol. Is that not a semi automatic weapon?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: You could argue that, but it's it requires one pull per shot. So one trigger pull, one

Jack Moore: Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: trigger pull, one trigger pull. So I think, you know, people get confused by that. They think if if

Jack Moore: Right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: it if it doesn't if your if your finger is one trigger one pull and it continues to fire, you know, rounds after that one pull, to that's inherently bad for some people to to hear that.

Jack Moore: Well, but I think but what I'm saying is this has been argued. If I take the sixth round, in a cylinder, a six round revolver, and I can do trigger pull per round, it's semi-automatic in the sense I don't have to reload it. It's just gonna be a cylinder turn, but I have

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Correct.

Jack Moore: up to emptying that cylinder. Once I've gone six rounds, now I've got to do some type of a loading. But how is that different? In a 20 round magazine in an AR-15, I'm gonna get 20 rounds versus six. But it's still gonna be now in that there's it's it's gas and it's also going to have in the base of the magazine it has a spring which basically loads now it's working off of gas, how it ejects and and and loads the next round. To my knowledge, that's exactly how it works, but as it does in many fully automatic weapons. But it's still, I've got to pull trigger to get round. So this gets brought up sometimes. Like I've seen legislatures backed up on, okay, you're saying that you want to get rid of these semi-automatic weapons like an AR-15. What about a revolver, a 38 caliber? No, well, that's different. That's a pistol. But how is it different? You know, you can still get six rounds off pretty fast. You know, and some, of course, some firearms like that could be eight rounds. I think there's even 10 round revolvers. They're usually lower caliber because you got to fit them all within that cylinder, but and then it becomes a hodgepodge of my likes and dislikes as to really how the the rifle appears. That that's what

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Correct.

Jack Moore: so much of it is comes down to.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right, that it looks it looks dangerous. It looks dangerous. That's not

Jack Moore: Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: the test.

Jack Moore: Yeah. here's a question. Should the government have to prove that a particular firearm is unusually dangerous before banning it?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Well, you get into what is

Jack Moore: And and and how do you do that?

James M. Porfido, Esq.: what what is unreasonably dangerous and and how do you define that? And then once you get

Jack Moore: Exactly.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: the government involved in in making that determination, it becomes a very slippery slope and they're making determinations on many other things. So I I I tend to say they can't make that decision and shouldn't make that decision.

Jack Moore: Yeah. as we kind of close on this, I just think some things, as I've mentioned from the start, are just lost. I I really believe that the framers and when I say framers, those that wrote the founding documents at the time of the end of the American Revolution and where they stood. And you made a great point too about part of this protection and having militias. You're right. The American Revolution was not over. Look to 1812. Look to the burning down of the White House and with the other actions that the that Britain did until they finally kind of it was like. Many people have said that was the last shots of the American Revolution came several decades later, when after all these tensions for 30 plus years, they finally got it all out of their system. And then the two countries began to be more of an ally, especially after World War One in into the 20th century. But I really think at the time they wrote this, they were concerned. I think the mindset of people at that time is we have taken together. 13 little countries. I think that's how they really thought of it. You were from New Jersey, I'm from Virginia, we were from our states. And there was, with all this disparity in econom in economy and culture, and region and climate, they were only coming together for a common defense. So I think when they wrote the Constitution, it's pretty clear. These are the narrow few things the federal government's going to have its hands in or can even regulate. States knock yourself out. So I really do think they were saying as it came to the federal government, we're not going to run around and have standing armies and do a lot of mess where they're going state to state. They're going to say, you guys handle the firearms, you handle putting together the soldiers. If we have a need for the common defense, we'll call up the troops. We'll call up the troops from the in in look at Article 1, Section 8. Again, it says, call them up only in times of need. But again, They have a 13 now states. The colonies have now formed the states. And they got a big shoreline. And where's their greatest concern? The Atlantic Ocean. So have a standing Navy. And I've mentioned the Marine Corps thing. Another example in history, I've asked people this when they have the raid at Harper's Ferry, which was still Virginia, just before the Civil War, John Brown. Has raided the arsenal at Harper's Ferry and they got to send in somebody to put him down. Who did they send? They sent the Marine Corps. And who was in charge? Army Colonel Robert E. Lee. Who else showed up? Some of the bands of state militia from the surrounding areas, but it was still Virginia. There's John Brown. They have this uprising on a federal arsenal. And who did they send? They sent the Marines. They didn't, they didn't send the army and they State militias did come in support, but isn't it interesting? You see all these times, and that's what I've always argued. You need something done with federal troops, you send the Marines. I may be wrong. Historians may rip that apart, but the Marine Corps was there in 1775, and there was an aspect of the Navy. And it's ground troops for the Navy. think about it mechanically. That's what it is. It's the ground troops of the Navy. And they're not state militias. So you do have an arm. At the federal level to put down certain things or handle certain things militarily. But when it comes to raising armies, and now you're thinking about declarations of war and the like, so I think the states were absolutely in a position to regulate firearms any way they wanted. They could have said, Hey, we're gonna keep all the firearms in Richmond, Commonwealth, Virginia. We're gonna have a big arsenal in Richmond. And we'll send out the arms the rest of the time, take broomsticks and train. But you've got responsibilities in your localities to train and muster. But when it comes time to give out the firearms, we'll give out the firearms. I think Virginia could have done that if they'd wanted to. But Pennsylvania,

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Sure.

Jack Moore: and this is a key thing, when they wrote in their constitution, you have a right to a firearm, they meant that. So that's Pennsylvania. You don't like it in Virginia, go move to Pennsylvania. But I think most of the state constitutions at the time. Would have recognized the same language. But again, brother, now it's all a free-for-all because we've so far moved away from what the Constitution says about anything, especially

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Mm.

Jack Moore: this kind of thing. It's it's unmanageable now. But I don't think constitutionally, New Jersey doesn't have the authority to regulate firearms. But now with this 20th century Heller and then Chicago, the Chicago case, I think they've muddied the water. by now imposing this fundamental right to gun ownership or firearm ownership to the people, to the states. I don't know that that's the right decision. I'm not opposed to it. Yeah. Yeah, it's it is.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Well, and it's unclear. And it's unclear one state to the next. I I might be complying with the laws of my state, but am I complying with the laws

Jack Moore: Yes.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: of the adjoining state, like New York or or Connecticut or or Pennsylvania? so people are confused generally when it comes to guns and and gun laws. And they believe, you know, rightly or wrongly that if they properly possess it in their state that they're allowed to bring it into another state and they're not. And that's where I I get to the point of we're making people that are not criminals criminals simply because they came into your state. That's your welcome to New Jersey is your

Jack Moore: Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: charge with the gr a gun offense because you don't have authority to have that gun in this state.

Jack Moore: Yeah, another really bad example. I'll just say it as as vaguely as I can. In my relationship to baseball, I knew a young man years ago. we played ball together, you know, summer ball and things. Really good player. And he wo and the story I heard, we were we were going to a tournament one time, and I asked the question, where is that guy? One of the guys like, he's serving some time in prison. And he's like, The most benign, sweet guy. He could play. He played professionally for a while. he's the last guy on earth that you'd say you'd think bad guy at all. He's just not a bad guy. And I'm like, what the hell happened to him? And he goes, Well, you know, he's a low-level weed dealer. And that's what he was. He's selling marijuana at his back door. Like he's getting it from a guy and he's selling twenty dollars here and there, whatever. And he decides his he's in a neighborhood in a particular part of Virginia, I say was probably not the nicest neighborhood to be in. So his fiancee at the time, mother of his children, was like, Let's get a firearm. So he's got a firearm. So he's got a firearm in like the nightstand. So he's so he's literally and I get it, Virginia's come up with mandatory time at this time. Drugs plus gun, you're going away for a while. And somebody tattles on him, I guess. And it's in a particular jurisdiction that likes to do a lot of busting of people. it's it's it's it's not gun it's not drug friendly. And they get a search warrant, they in and bust him, and he's got, just enough distribution level marijuana, plus I don't know, he's got a scale, the whole indicia of drug trade,

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right, sure.

Jack Moore: he's got a couple of twenty dollar bills in a in a in a in a wad or something, with the rubber band or he's got some of that. And then boom, they find the gun. He gets three years. He gets three years. And Virginia had put this in gun drugs three years. Now that was marijuana at the time.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: I we have something similar in New Jersey to that. Yeah. And I handled one of those cases. Very similar. Very similar to that situation.

Jack Moore: But it's it's easy for me to say, I know this guy, James. He is not a danger to anyone. You know what I'm saying? Kind of a little surfer dude kind of guy could play baseball a little bit, you know, but kind of that guy, nice enough guy, selling a little weed who happens to have a gun in the house. And I mean happens to have a gun. He's not a drug dealer in the sense he's out shooting up the town. He's not that guy. He's a low level putting. And I know I sound defensive of him, but I thought, wow, if he can get three years for being that guy, having a little pot in the house for sale, but he happens to have a gun in the house, they're saying gun drugs equals three years. It just seemed but I understand the people that were for that were like, We're gonna bring down the drug dealers, we're gonna put them all and I'm like, Yeah, but you got this guy. And I and I know I sound defensive of him, and I know I am being, but I'm telling you, he was not a danger to the community. He just wasn't. You know what I mean? you you could

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Yeah. Well neither neither was the kid that I represent. He was nineteen years old and it wasn't even a it was a firearm under the definition of the the law in New Jersey. It was a BB gun. It was a BB gun. So yeah.

Jack Moore: wow wow really

James M. Porfido, Esq.: So we get into a whole nother area because what's the definition of a firearm and the and it's the projectile that it emits, whether it's gas combustion or whether it's so there's so many different

Jack Moore: Wow.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: things, nuances, and and the best thing we

Jack Moore: Yeah.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: could do is try to fight the the search of the bedroom where they found the gun. And and this happens often, sadly enough, in domestic violence cases where they have the authority once there's a a restraining order issued, a temporary restraining order, they can go in and do a search and sometimes they find guns and people don't have the proper paperwork to possess them and they become criminals by virtue of the fact that the gun is in the house. and it may be in their home and it may be there for for for home protection, but the simple fact of the matter is it's seized by the police, there's no paperwork to support the ownership of the gun or the possession of the gun, and they become they f they get charged with a a gun offense in New Jersey. So and that's happened very often.

Jack Moore: Yeah. Well, and for listeners, what James and I both are saying, New Jersey and Virginia, and the Virginia thing I'm talking about was 20 years ago. But when I was a prosecutor, we went through the same thing. And it was from it was from politicians. And I I get it. but it's a good line. I used when I was teaching criminal justice years ago, I used to say, Do you ever listen to politicians? When they get into the emotional rant, it's like, I'm for people being safe, rah, I'm for getting the guns off the street. it all sounds good, and I'm not I'm not trying to totally

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Sure.

Jack Moore: mock it, but but when you say that, then somebody's like, Here's here it is. Drugs and guns are bad. People, yeah, yeah, good drugs and guns are bad. So then they're like, Here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna pass a law because we're so strict on crime. We're gonna pass law. Hey, you got some drugs in the house and the gun shows up, you're going to prison. And again, when I use that example of the guy, the guy's not using the gun as part of the drug trade. He's not. He's got a gun in the house because he lives in a rough neighborhood. And from what I understood, the fiance was like, hey, Timmy, you might want to get a gun in the house. Where we might be a little bit, things that go bump in the night. So there's no connection between him being a drug dealer and the only thing he's doing is moving a little bit of pot to his friends. That's what he's doing. I'm using that example to say three years is a pretty good portion of his life to have a gun in the house when he's a low level pot dealer. That and you're talking about the same th yep.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right. And if you go to the statute, you go to the statute, you'll find what's what they call the legislative intent. What was the intent

Jack Moore: Yes.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: of the legislature in enacting this particular law? And many times you look at it, you say, This has nothing at all to do with that. the legislative intent may be to stop the use of guns in gangs, that gangs possess

Jack Moore: Yes.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: guns typically and they use it to intimidate their victims or they extort money

Jack Moore: Right. Right, right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: or or com engage in drug related activity with guns. And you don't have that at all in the case that you're dealing with and you're saying, wait a minute, this is not at all. You went so far astray. The legisl legislative intent was one thing, but the the law is now written and it's just being interpreted very differently.

Jack Moore: Well, it's it's an we could say it's an unintended consequence, but one of the things we learned in law school, I think we would both agree, that there used to there there needed to be in some aspects of enhanced punishment, there had to be a nexus. There had to be like, okay, it's this

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Sure.

Jack Moore: plus this. But the plus actually made logical connection to what's going to be the enhanced punishment. So once again. You're right. They can write in legislative purpose. What we have found is drugs have been used by members of street gangs, whatever. And what they do is they use the guns as an aspect of their drug trade to intimidate, to do nasty things, et cetera. So we gotta, we gotta make this. We're gonna make a nexus in the enhanced punishment of gun versus guns plus drugs. But it doesn't mean in every case. the drug and the gun have any connection at all. And then these people fall

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Right.

Jack Moore: prey. So you got a guy with a, like you say, with the BB gun, basically. That's not what the legislature contemplated at all. But now they go to some narrow

James M. Porfido, Esq.: Not at all.

Jack Moore: definition of what a firearm is, something that can propel some type of a round out of it, you know, by gas, air or whatever. And then all of a sudden, like, are you kidding me? A 19-year-old's going to get this kind of punishment because he had a BB gun and some drugs? And it could have been a minimal amount of drugs. that could even be in question. Now, in Virginia, my memory was it had to be distribution. You had to prove the distribution part. I don't think you could you could right, right, right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: The int or the intent to distribute. The intent to distribute or distribution. Yeah, and you got into another point you talked about earlier and and this mandatory sentencing where where it's required that they serve mandatory sentences of state prison for a gun offense.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: You've now taken a a a category of offenses and you've required the courts to impose a very strict sentence that's mandatory. They can't deviate from

Jack Moore: Right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: that. And that

Jack Moore: Right.

James M. Porfido, Esq.: that is a challenge in and of itself because then now you've got people that are going to have to serve state prison sentences for a gun offense. And that may not at all fit the criteria, but because the judges have it in front of them, they are required to enforce that and and they and I'm not in favor of mandatory sentencing at all. I mean the judges should have ultimate discretion.

Jack Moore: No, I'm not either. No, I remember twenty five years ago when I was a prosecutor. I wish I could remember the facts on this. I cannot at all. I just remember the kid and I remember the defense attorney. And it was a three year one. It was a three year because there was a firearm. But if you can imagine on a scale of one to a hundred, he might have been point five in like the wrong. it's just he it was technically there. He was in possession of a firearm. I I remember that. And it was very questionable as to other parts of his culpability. I just remember it was bad. And I remember his defense attorney stopped me in the hallway. I was prosecutor. And she goes, Jack, he's gonna get three years. And I'm like, I'm with you, but technically it's this. And you know, I kind of went to my supervisor, and the supervisor was The law is what it is. The guy's dead to rights. You gotta follow through. And I did. And I did. I I I did my job in that situation. Cause I don't think I was really in a position ethically to just punt away because I didn't like the law. I I get that part of it, but I was highly disturbed. I'm like, wow, this kid's gonna get this penalty. Now technically he met it. And I that's what I can't remember the exact gradation of his culpability, but I remember thinking like this is ridiculous. it was like he was involved in something and he had a gun on him and the gun had nothing to do with it. I think that's what it was. I think he had a gun in his pocket. my gosh. And he was with two kids that I don't know, it wasn't like shoplifting, but it was something on the on the on the the order of. He didn't do much, but he had a gun there, and then the gun came into play. I just remember that part of it. and his defense attorney in the home was like, Jack, he's gonna go to prison for three years on this. And I'm like, I I get it. and I just remember thinking there, this is where a judge should have some latitude to go, this is ridiculous. Okay. Or hold the three years over his head. You son, do you do one thing the next thirty six months, your ass is in prison for three years? Okay, fine. If that, that might rein in his activity or his behavior for a while. But it just seemed disproportional. But that I think is one of those law laws of unintended consequences. These people get in and they they pass legislation. Sounds sexy, sounds good, sounds anti crime, and then there's some blowback. But man, I appreciate you, brother. You're a great guest. And let's keep doing that. This is more to consider. Please like and subscribe. James Porfido a real attorney. Does real attorney stuff that I think the world of. And again, we're in that legally trained things where we see things a certain way. We're trained to see things in a way of jurisdiction, elements of a crime, et cetera. We talked a lot today about unintended consequences when the legislature passes law. Sometimes it's a little bit too much encompassing and it takes people down and does some grave things to them. That's probably a little bit more than the law would ask for. And there's confusion on what is a firearm, what's a dangerous firearm. Which one should be regulated? Should any of them be regulated? We'll keep having these questions and a or we'll keep trying to answer these questions and further shows. Please in your comments, ask questions that you think it relates to the Second Amendment. James, God bless you, brother. Thank you so much. Always. Thank you, brother.