Glenn Beck: Chicago gun ruling



Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: Okay, Alan Gura is on the phone. Yesterday they announced — Alan, are you there?

GURA: Yes, I am. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. You argued this case in front of the Supreme Court.

GURA: Yes.

GLENN: So you won the D.C. gun ban overturning and then you went and you took on Chicago. Now, we know what D.C., what happened in D.C. But out of Chicago this was, of course, a big white monopolistic sort of company that wanted to make sure that they kept minorities down and wanted to put a whole bunch of guns into the city. That's basically what happened, right? (Sniffing).

GURA: What we were doing is we were making sure that people like Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov, people who live in the City of Chicago, a city that does have some amount of crime in it, are able to exercise their right of self‑defense.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Tell me who Otis is. I thought it was a big corporation or some special interest group. Who's Otis?

GURA: Otis McDonald is a 76‑year‑old gentleman living in a fairly rough neighborhood in Chicago who just wants to have a handgun with which he can defend himself in his own home. His home has been broken into any number of times. The neighborhood is truly not the greatest and he simply wants to have the ability to defend himself and his family.

GLENN: Okay. But Alan, that again you are leaving out key details here. He obviously lives in a minority neighborhood and he's only afraid of the minorities because he's the, if I may quote the president, a typical bitter white person.

GURA: Well, Otis is not white and he's not bitter. I wouldn't say he's even typical because he's truly one of the most charming and magnetic people that you might ever have the pleasure to meet. But Otis is a hero and what he's done for people, not just of Chicago but of the United States is profound. I mean, this is a case that tells state and local officials, your local neighborhood politician that they do need to watch out for the Second Amendment, that you need to obey it, it is something that's going to impact their lives if they ignore it.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me exactly what is going to change in, you know, for instance, New York City. How is this going to change New York City?

GURA: Well, New York City, for example, we've already seen some changes recently in anticipation of this ruling. We saw Mayor Bloomberg announce that he was revisiting some of the gun laws trying to streamline the process, trying to reduce the fees. I think there's an understanding now that it's no longer acceptable to have gun laws that exist for the sole purpose of interfering with people's right of self‑defense. I understand, we all understand that some people don't think the Second Amendment is a good idea, but that's just too bad. They have to accommodate themselves to the fact that this is a part of the Constitution. And laws that don't serve any public purpose and merely exist to interfere with people's right to self‑defense are going to be struck down. So I would hope that Mayor Bloomberg and New York City and other places where there are very tight gun laws will read this opinion, reflect on it, take it seriously and try to comply with the Constitution before a judge forces them to comply.

GLENN: What — I mean, we have a city of Chicago that is so out of control that they are actually considering or were considering bringing in the National Guard. When a reporter brought it up and said, I mean, the gun laws aren't working, obviously the gun laws aren't working because people are murdering each other with guns and you banned guns. I believe the mayor of Chicago responded something about putting that gun or those gun laws up an orifice of that reporter. While we don't necessarily think that was a good idea, what are some of the other ideas now that the mayor is going to have to deal with? Do you know? Do you have any idea? The actual tangible changes coming?

GURA: The tangible, the first tangible change is the mayor has conceded that handguns are going to be permitted in Chicago. They know that they lost this case and at the very least the absolutely most popular weapon for self‑defense that people use is going to be allowed into the City of Chicago. Beyond that it's not clear what they are cooking up. We have other things that we're challenging in this law. For example, we believe that it's no longer going to be acceptable to impose an annual tax on the possession of guns in Chicago. Chicago has a registration scheme that requires people to re‑register constantly all the time. We think that, for example, is something that's going to go away. The mayor has talked about, we haven't seen it, but he's talked about this concept of requiring people to get an insurance policy in order to buy a handgun. The theory is that if you have a gun, you will magically become a violent, dangerous person, imposing costs on society and you must be able to purchase an insurance policy. That's going to get struck down. If he's actually serious about this, he is going to find himself on the losing end of another judgment. We, for example, have right of free speech in this country, but we don't require reporters or radio hosts to go buy libel and slander insurance before they go on the air. If you do something bad with your speech, if you incite a riot or slander someone or commit perjury then, of course, you are going to be held to an account. But generally the idea that you have a right to do something, you live in a state of freedom means that the government cannot put roadblocks in your path as you try to exercise that right.

GLENN: Okay.

GURA: And all these road blocks that are being thought of are going to get struck down.

GLENN: Alan, one more question because this is something that bothers me. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, as the president likes to say. It says what the federal government cannot do. The federal government cannot do.

GURA: That's right.

GLENN: There were religious — there were state religions in almost all of the original 13 states. Massachusetts had a state, you had to be a member of a certain church to be able to serve, et cetera, et cetera. That's just the way it was. What they were trying to avoid was the federal government telling the states what to do. For instance, if you want to have healthcare, universal healthcare like Massachusetts does, do it. Do it. The federal government doesn't have a right to do that, but the state does. Doesn't this conflict with the idea now that the Constitution is telling the states what they must do? Isn't it up to the state to choose?

GURA: No. The state is limited by the Constitution and that's because while what you're describing was perhaps the way things were until the Civil War, in 1868 following the Civil War and the disaster that we experienced in Reconstruction, we made a change. And the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and the Fourteenth Amendment is a part of our Constitution and it changed the relationship. And the Fourteenth Amendment starts out by saying that everyone who's born here is a citizen of the United States and no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Then it demands states to respect due process, equal protection, a whole bunch of other restrictions. And so what that means is that starting in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, states were held to national civil rights standards and so they cannot take your guns away or ban newspapers or force you to follow a religion that conflicts with your values.

GLENN: All right. Wouldn't it be a better way to argue this case rather than going back to the — I'm not saying this particular case because you've already won two of them. But I mean, wouldn't it be better to argue on the states' rights issue that this is a natural right, to defend yourself in a natural right. You know, you can do healthcare because then all of a sudden, why can't you just make healthcare a right and you got a — the federal government has every right to do it.

GURA: We don't have —

GLENN: This is a natural right.

GURA: We don't have any positive rights, any rights to entitlements for goodies from the government. You are right, we do have certain natural rights, negative liberties, the idea that the government can't force us to do things or interfere in our daily lives. And what makes this lawsuit and lawsuits like that possible is that the Constitution tells states they have to respect individual freedoms in certain areas and one of those areas is the right to keep buying and use guns.

Another area, of course, which the Courts don't respect enough but we hope that they will in the future is there is recognition that you have the right to make use of your property, to pursue a livelihood of your choosing without excessive regulation. You have the right to live generally is a state of freedom. If the state wants to infringe on that, then they have to find some positive source of authority to enact those laws. They can't simply go ahead and deprive you of your basic liberty.

GLENN: All right, thank you very much, Alan Gura who has now won the — I mean, this guy is a gun legend.

GURA: Thank you.

GLENN: He has now won both the D.C. and the Chicago cases with the Supreme Court. Alan, there is a reason for everybody being born. I think we found yours. God bless you.

GURA: Oh, thank you so much.

GLENN: God bless you. Thank you very much.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details:

Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, 8 p.m. CT, Glenn Beck goes straight to the source of the biggest story in the country with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who takes us directly into Hunter Biden's alleged laptop.

Despite Big Tech's attempts to squash this story, there should be a mad scramble in the media to get to the bottom of major corruption allegations, but they're willfully ignoring it. However, this is not just a story about Hunter Biden. This is all about Joe Biden. It's a story Glenn has been investigating for over a year that traces back to Ukraine and China. It goes directly to the root of corruption within our political system: How politicians use their family members to enrich the entire clan and sell out their country. While the media looks the other way, Glenn asks Mayor Giuliani to show us the evidence. Giuliani details the chain of possession of the laptop and reveals news that he only had possession of the laptop days before the New York Post story broke. He says, "I reported this the day after I saw it."

He also drops a major bombshell on the show and says Big Tech doesn't want you to see evidence that "establishes with texts, documents, contracts" that "Joe Biden was a 10% partner with a Chinese communist … and there are witnesses that will come forward and testify to it."

Big Tech censorship is out of control. So to watch tonight's explosive episode of Glenn TV, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Because Big Tech is doing whatever it can to limit free speech, we're offering our most important discount on BlazeTV ever. Use promo code GLENN to get $30 off a one-year subscription, so you'll have 24/7 access to news and entertainment completely free of biased "fact-checks" and censorship.

Watch a preview of the show below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on subpoenas to compel Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on alleged censorship and bias across their platforms. But that all changed when Republican committee members "expressed reservation about the maneuver," Politico reports.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, was definitely not one of the committee members with cold feet. On the radio program Tuesday, he told Glenn Beck that he's fighting "vociferously" to ensure Dorsey and others testify before the November 3rd election.

"Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are both going to testify. They're are going to testify in person. They're going to testify before Election Day. That's what I think should happen," Cruz said. "That's what I'm fighting vociferously to happen. Right now, the companies are negotiating with the chairman's office to discuss terms to come voluntarily. I don't give a damn whether they come voluntarily or under subpoena. They need to testify in person and answer questions for the American people about why they are trying to steal this election, to suppress the free speech, and to censor the press."

The subpoenas would require Big Tech leaders to testify on the alleged "suppression and/or censorship" of two consecutive blockbuster stories from the New York Post. The first story was about emails that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's computer which are currently being investigated by the FBI, and the second was based on additional emails that allegedly showed communist China directly offering millions of dollars to then-Vice President Joe Biden.

"Big Tech stepped in, and they've done something they've never done before," Cruz explained. "We know that Big Tech has been censoring individual conservatives, trying to suppress conservative speech. But the step they took here is, they blocked if any individual user tried to share either of the New York Post stories, [they] were blocked ... Sharing a news story, from a major media outlet is part of democracy, part of free speech. And not only that, they blocked the New York Post itself. Right now, today, the New York Post is not being allowed to post its own damn stories on corruption. This is ridiculous. It's a threshold that's never been crossed before, of Silicon Valley oligarchs declaring the authority to determine what the press is allowed to report, and who is allowed to see it."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.