one of the most consequential second amendment cases in the history of the republic. about a decade ago in the heller decision the court said yes, an individual has a right to bear arms and then some lower courts have chipped away and made that look like maybe that s just for the home. this case is about making sure you have the right to bear arms outside the home. new york s restrict -f regime you have have to prove to a bureaucrat that you have a special circumstance. the constitution doesn t contemplate that. it s a fundamental right. it s a right to defend yourself and we believe in this country that s granted to you by god not by government or a king or a queen and governments just there to protect those fundamental rights. in this case, there shouldn t be that arbitrary or subjective regime that new york has and that s what this case is all about, to strike down that new york law to make sure that people can protect themselves and their families outside their home in addition to
of impeachment here. yeah. two points, fred. one, the president has a way of boiling complex nuance things down to a narrative that reflects the narrative he wants to put out there in the press and with the public. speaker pelosi said the day before she wasn t taking impeachment off the table, but she also probably did say to the president that the meeting they were in about the shutdown was not about impeachment. the president is right that the constitution doesn t contemplate i am impeaching someone over doing a good job or mediocre job or poor job. what he is leaving out is that the constitution gives congress power to remove the president if they feel he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. we re not there in that debate yet. i want to make one quick point about the shutdown itself which is that i think one reason we re so far apart on this, why it may drag on more days and weeks,