After an initially tame reaction the Supreme Court’s ruling that said states cannot prohibit citizens from obtaining a concealed carry permit for self-defense provided they pass all the other criteria, MSNBC went off the rails in the 11:00 hour by warning of more shootings and dead children.
After playing a clip of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul blasting the Court’s decision, host Chris Jansing asked former New York and federal prosecutor Tali Farhadian Weinstein “when aren't we dealing with a mass shooting? They happen week after week, day after day. You worked in law enforcement in New York. What do you think the real world implications are of this from that perspective?”
Weinstein agreed that “the implications are just huge.” While the case was about concealed carry handgun regulations, she was worried about the precedent the opinion sets, “States now have to offer a historic analysis, and I think that is going to be challenging and I think that it is inevitable to say that the consequences of this opinion are that across the board, by and large, it is going to be more difficult to regulate in the space of gun rights.”
In the real world, this means “if it's harder to regulate, that means more guns. And I will tell you as a prosecutor, that means to me more violence.”
Later, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi also expressed his concern, “As someone who has carried a badge and a gun for 25 years, I—I-- get very concerned about anything that may result in more guns being on the street without state oversight.”
He then contradicted himself by acknowledging Justice Thomas’s opinion allows background checks to continue. Figliuzzi then argued that people who are applauding this ruling better be careful what they wish for, “the end result here, and the irony here is that the very people in the state of New York who say, ‘I—I-- have a threat against me’ or ‘I'm a small business owner and I carry a lot of cash,’ those people may ultimately be more – excuse me, be less safe today because there's going to be more guns on the street.”
Turning the meaning of the word “militia,” Figliuzzi proclaimed “we had a militia, it's called the National Guard. And there's nothing about our gun problem that is well regulated. And I think today makes the issue less regulated than ever and this issue of sensitive circumstances, you can see this litigated well into the future.”
A few moments later, Jansing turned to Parkland gun control activist David Hogg, “We just got a statement, David, from March for Our Lives. And the very first sentence of it says this, “young people will die as a result of the Court's decision.” Do you believe that?”
Hogg agreed, “Yes. I—I—I-- do believe that that's true,” and then did his best Sheldon Whitehouse impression, “The unfortunate reality is here that this is the product, again, of a 50 plus year chess game that conservatives and especially the gun industry has been playing through the organizations like the Federal Society, the Heritage Foundation, and a well-orchestrated effort, where essentially conservatives have been investing with time in the market with a well diverse set of assets like the Federalist Society and others.”
All of this because New York and seven other states will now have similar laws to the rest of the country.
This segment was sponsored by Verizon.
Here is a transcript for the June 23 show:
MSNBC Reports
6/23/2022
11:06 AM ET
CHRIS JANSING: You could also make the argument, Tali, and the facts bear it out, when aren't we dealing with a mass shooting? They happen week after week, day after day. You worked in law enforcement in New York. What do you think the real world implications are of this from that perspective?
TALI FARHADIAN WEINSTEIN: Chris, the implications are just huge. And, you know, I want to pick up where Pete left off, because I think that’s a really important point. You know, you're asking about mass shootings. This decision was, on its face, just about concealed carry regulations, and laws like New York’s that say you have to show proper cause in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
But the jurisprudence of this opinion, the legal analysis of this opinion, applies to much more. What it says is that when there is a right that is protected by the Second Amendment and it says that the right to carry outside the home is protected by the Second Amendment, just as a right to carry or to keep a gun inside the home is regulated by the Second Amendment.
When there is a right, it says that what states now have to show is that the regulation is consistent with how guns were regulated historically. It's not enough for the states to say, what Justice Thomas describes as “means-ends scrutiny”, as saying, well listen, right now in the situation we find ourselves in, we need this kind of gun regulation.
Because we're seeing that having lots of ammunition or access to certain kinds of assault weapons or other, you know, gun regulations are rooted in problems that we're trying to address now as state legislatures.
Instead, states now have to offer a historic analysis, and I think that is going to be challenging and I think that it is inevitable to say that the consequences of this opinion are that across the board, by and large, it is going to be more difficult to regulate in the space of gun rights, not impossible, everyone agrees there could be some regulations and we’ve heard from everybody else about some of the places where that might happen, like in sensitive places or the identity of a person who is getting a gun, but overall, it will be harder and if it's harder to regulate, that means more guns. And I will tell you as a prosecutor, that means to me more violence.
…
11:11
FRANK FIGLIUZZI: Yeah. As someone who has carried a badge and a gun for 25 years, I—I-- get very concerned about anything that may result in more guns being on the street without state oversight. So it's great news that background investigations can continue, and they should. But the end result here, and the irony here is that the very people in the state of New York who say, “I—I-- have a threat against me” or “I'm a small business owner and I carry a lot of cash,” those people may ultimately be more – excuse me, be less safe today because there's going to be more guns on the street.
And it—and it-- also strikes me that the Supreme Court, and I've not read through this entire opinion, but we're all focused on the phrase "Bear arms" which surprise no one, that you should be able, constitutionally, to bear arms in some regulated manner. But rather the part, to establish a well-regulated militia, right? So we--we-- had a militia, it's called the National Guard. And there's nothing about our gun problem that is well regulated. And I think today makes the issue less regulated than ever and this issue of sensitive circumstances, you can see this litigated well into the future. So, if New York says well, school zones, no—no—no-- guns. Well, people are going to say we have school shootings, we need guns there. Churches, those are sacred spaces, no guns. No, we have church shootings. We—we-- need guns there. So, this is going be litigated and litigated and litigated.
…
11:14
JANSING: We just got a statement, David, from March for Our Lives. And the very first sentence of it says this, “young people will die as a result of the Court's decision.” Do you believe that?
DAVID HOGG: Yes. I—I—I-- do believe that that's true. The unfortunate reality is here that this is the product, again, of a 50 plus year chess game that conservatives and especially the gun industry has been playing through the organizations like the Federal Society, the Heritage Foundation, and a well-orchestrated effort, where essentially conservatives have been investing with time in the market with a well diverse set of assets like the Federalist Society and others.
