Glenn Beck: More guns, less crime


John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime.

GLENN: Let's go to John Lott. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the actual facts if you want to talk about it. John, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

LOTT: Great to be back on, thanks.

GLENN: You bet. So tell me what happened yesterday in the Supreme Court and why everybody is so convinced that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gun owners.

LOTT: Well, it's an extremely important case. If the Supreme Court were to say that the D.C. gun ban doesn't infringe on people's right to be able to own a gun, essentially there would be no gun regulation that could ever be struck down and so a lot's at stake at this. And the two questions that the Supreme Court is basically looking at, one, is it an individual right or not. And if it is, is it the same -- should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights. And it seems pretty clear from the discussion yesterday that a majority of the justices think it is an individual right. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, should be interested to see how NPR, begin what you're just saying, would deal with that.

GLENN: She's hot.

LOTT: Seems to believe it's an individual right. Justice Kennedy came swinging right out at the beginning saying that this notion that somehow the Second Amendment was set up to go and guarantee government certain rights, you know, just didn't make any sense to him. And so someone who you might normally think of as the swing vote, a key swing vote there seemed to be very solidly in the camp of saying that this is an individual right.

GLENN: Explain the two -- explain the two things that are in front of -- okay. First, is it an individual right, I got. The second one, if it is, should it be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights?

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it be?

LOTT: Well, you know, you and I would think the same way on that, but the Justice Department kind of threw a monkey wrench into this when they put their brief in a couple of months ago. They were arguing that, you know, words can't really hurt people that much, guns can and so for example, just comparing the First and the Second Amendment, you shouldn't give the same deference to the Second Amendment as you would to the First because more's at risk there and you should be more willing to accept government regulation of guns because of that than regulation of free speech. And just so people understand, we're really given constitutional decisions these days. Nobody's really talking about not having regulations with guns. You take something like the First Amendment where it says congress shall make no laws. That seems pretty clear. But yet congress has -- or the Supreme Court has gotten to the point where it said that if -- what they are really saying is congress shall pass, make no laws unless it has a good reason for doing so and so we have things like campaign finance regulation. And the question is where do you set the bar in terms of saying how good do those reasons have to be. How compelling, how closely tied do you have to show that the regulation that you're having is connected to the outcome that you want to produce. And the Justice Department worried that it might affect some of the gun regulations that it enforces, that it wants to have a sufficiently low standard that maybe even the D.C. gun ban would be able to pass constitutional muster. And --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hang on, hang on. The DC gun ban.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: You cannot have a gun inside of your own home. You can't even have an assembled rifle inside of your home, correct?

LOTT: That's right.

GLENN: So I mean, it's effectively no guns.

LOTT: Right. I understand. I'm not trying to justify the Justice Department opinion on this and --

GLENN: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. This is the Bush Justice Department.

LOTT: Right. There's been so much strangeness that's going on here. I don't know if you know this but Vice President Cheney signed a brief essentially opposing the Bush Justice Department's position on this. He came out and said not only is this an individual right but it should be treated just as the rest of the Bill of Rights are treated and this is the first time in American history that a sitting vice president has signed an amicus brief and not only has he signed an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, he's come out against the Justice Department position on it. And last week there was a column by Robert Novak which I guess if it's true is quite remarkable because he was quoting people in the Bush administration saying that the solicitor general had taken a position that Bush didn't agree with but rather than going and telling the solicitor general to withdraw his brief on that, Bush had essentially signaled to Cheney to put in his own brief to indicate that the executive branch was not of one voice agreeing with what the Justice Department was going to be arguing yesterday.

GLENN: So how do you think this is going to come out, John?

LOTT: I think they are going to say it's an individual right and I think by at least a 6-3 vote but I have no clue where they're going to draw the line in terms of saying with standard what weight should be given to the Second Amendment compared to the rest of the Bill of Rights. There was enough doubt, Justice Roberts didn't even want to deal with that issue and there were some questions among some of the others. So on that who knows what's going through their mind right now.

GLENN: So this could actually, this could in one way be a win that it is an individual right but then at the same time we could lose because they could say, "And the Government can regulate it any way they want."

LOTT: Right. That's a possibility.

GLENN: That's fantastic. And what does it mean, John, to New York and Chicago if they just come out and say, no, the DC gun ban is wrong, you can't do that? Does that mean that --

LOTT: Well, there would be a few other cases. All this is would be a very narrow decision that said, look, having a gun ban is going too far. Where we're going to draw the line after that, you are going to have to have other cases to decide and my guess is some place like Chicago there would be a suit filed very quickly afterwards saying that their ban, which is almost as restrictive as DC's, is also unconstitutional.

GLENN: John, can you explain where the turn came and why we are looking at -- why our Supreme Court is looking at -- instead of the words of the founding fathers, instead of the intent of the founding fathers -- I mean, jeez, we'll look for the intent of a hanging chad voter but we won't look for the intent of the founding fathers, which is very clear.

LOTT: Right.

GLENN: Why we now look at evolutionary law, why we now look at the law and say, well, let's look at this last case and this last case. Why don't they look at what the founding fathers said and believed because it was clear.

LOTT: I agree with you. As you say, look at the First Amendment, says congress shall make no law. What would they have had to have written if they really meant that? Say congress will never, ever make any law with respect to this? But I think what's happened is that people like power and so if the Supreme Court were just to go and say, well, this is what the First Amendment means; if you want it to be something different, then amend the Constitution. Or with regard to the Second Amendment it seems pretty clear to me, also, then there wouldn't be these types of cases. What's happened is I think judges and justices like to be policy makers and so they like to introduce grayness in things and so rather than just taking absolute standards, which is what the Constitution tried to set up, they set up these balancing tests where you have to go in and go and argue: Well, I think there are good reasons that maybe we should get around the words that are in the Constitution and then the justices have, you know, policy information, data and empirical evidence that they can go in and weight the different classing benefits of changing these different things. I mean, it's just a natural evolution. In some sense we're lucky that it took 160 years or so before we began to see this change in our courts because truly the temptation was there earlier to go and get power that would have been -- belonged to other branches of government earlier.

GLENN: One last question. I don't know if you are a betting man at all. Odds that we significantly hurt the right to own and carry a gun in this country with this decision.

LOTT: I think -- I'm optimistic on this. I think that we'll win with regard to individual right clearly, and I'm pretty optimistic, though, you know -- I don't know. I would say 60% or something that we'll do well in terms of the standard.

GLENN: All right. John, thanks. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. If you want to get down to the facts of guns, which nobody wants to do, read that book. It's tremendous. John, thanks a lot for your time.

LOTT: Thank you very much.

Time after time, Americans have taken to the streets to defend our constitutional rights, whether it was our livelihood at stake -- or our lives. But, what was the point of all the civil rights movements that came before, if we're about to let the government take our rights away now?

On his Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck argued that Americans are tired of having our rights trampled by "tyrannical" leaders from state and local governments who are ignoring our unalienable rights during this pandemic.

"Our nanny state has gone too far. The men and women in office -- the ones closest to our communities, our towns, our cities -- are now taking advantage of our fear," Glenn said. "Like our brothers and sisters of the past, we need to start making the decisions that will put our destiny, and our children's destiny, back into our hands."

It took less than two months of the coronavirus tyranny to make America unrecognizable, but some Americans are fighting back, risking losing their jobs and businesses or even jail time, as they battle to take back our civil rights.

Here are just a few of their stories:

After New Jersey's Atilis Gym reopened in defiance of the governor's executive order, the Department of Health shut them down for "posing a threat to the public health." Co-owner Ian Smith says somebody sabotaged the gym's toilets with enire rolls of paper to create the public health "threat."

Oregon Salon owner, Lindsey Graham, was fined $14 thousand for reopening. She said she was visited by numerous government organizations, including Child Protective Services, in what she believes are bullying tactics straight from the governor's office.

77-year-old Michigan barber, Karl Manke, refused to close his shop even when facing arrest. "I couldn't go another 30 days without an income," he said. But when local police refused to arrest him, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's (D) office suspending his business license instead.

Port of Seattle police officer Greg Anderson was suspended after he spoke out against enforcing what he called "tyrannical orders" imposed amid coronavirus lockdowns.

Kentucky mother-of-seven, Mary Sabbatino, found herself under investigation for alleged child abuse after breaking social distancing rules at a bank. After a social worker from child protective services determined there was no sign of abuse, he still sought to investigate why the Sabbatino's are homeschooling, and how they can give "adequate attention to that many children."

Dallas salon owner Shelley Luther was sentenced to seven days in jail after she defied the state-mandated stay-at-home orders to reopen her business.

Watch the video clip from Glenn's special below:


Watch the full special on BlazeTV YouTube here.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

It took less than two months of the coronavirus tyranny to make America unrecognizable. Leaders from state and local governments across the U.S. have flattened the curve of some of our most basic constitutional rights, but some Americans are fighting back — and risking jail time or losing their businesses.

On Wednesday night's GBTV special, Glenn Beck argued that we're witnessing the birth of a new civil rights movement — and it's time to build a coalition of common sense to keep America as we know it free.

Watch the full special below:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below: