i m going to say also, there is a responsibility, and this was in sandy hook, and i m not exactly sure. you grew up in a gun culture like me. mika grew up, they always had several fw guns in their house. same with me. but i ll tell you what, my kids can t get to them. they could try all they wanted to. they could never get to them. i think so much a part of this comes down to basic gun safety. if the nra hadn t stopped, like, doing their job on preaching gun safety like they did in the 50s 60s, and became a lobbying outfit in d.c. when gun owners across america are getting as rich as they can, scaling millions of dollars off the top, maybe they d be concerned. maybe they would be teaching people. maybe congress would even pass a law saying, okay, you have a gun in the house, fine.
state legislature, saying we know we re not supposed to pass unconstitutional laws but we re going to do it anyway and pass a special law next to it that forbids the courts to correct our unconstitutional nature. what if the texas legislature passed a law tomorrow making slavery legal and then passed another law saying, we hereby forbid the courts to get involved to overturn it? it s that bad, that grotesque, and that anti-democratic. i think even a conservative supreme court will take advantage of the opportunity to say you can t do this. and very much so, texas will be a test case for the rest of the country, especially when it comes to conservative states, a lot of folks will be watching the supreme court for the next few months. pete williams, wendy murphy, thank you so much, appreciate it. the question so many are asking today, what happened on the ranch? we are hearing for the first time from alec baldwin who fired a prop gun on the set of his movie being filmed in new mexico
attempting to leave texas without her husband finding out and scraping together the funds needed for an out of state abortion. today a federal judge in texas held a three-hour hearing to hear arguments on the government s emergency motion to stop the law. justice department lawyers laid out the cruelty of the law saying, quote, a state may not ban abortions at six weeks. texas knew there but it wanted a six week ban anyway so the state resorted to an unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice that was designed to scare abortion providers and others who might help women exercise their constitutional rights. the judge questioned the cornerstone of the law, the use of civilians, to enforce it. quote, if the state is so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman s access to abortion why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private enforcement mechanism, rather than just simply do it directly?
dollar reward. the justice department sued texas last month to stop the enforcement of the law, and in their emergency motion to block the law shared personal stories of how the law has had an impact on women in texas. the justice department writes, quote, one miner, who was right by a family member, traveled from traveled eight hours from galveston, to oklahoma to get an abortion. another patient facing violence at the hands of her husband s discreetly attempting to leave texas without her husband finding out and is desperate and selling personal items to script together the funds needed for an out of state abortion. today, a federal judge in texas held a three-hour hearing to hear arguments on the government s motion to stop the law. justice department lawyers laid out the cruelty of the law saying, quote, a state may not ban abortions at six weeks. texas knew this, but it wanted a six-week ban anyway, so the state resorted to an unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice that was d
we re not going to let state officials enforce this, just your neighbor or anyone down the street can just sue you if they think you had anything to do with an abortion. and the supreme court, five justices, notably not the chief justice, but, you know, the other republican nominees on the court, all said, yeah, that s fine. and here is why that is such a crazy thing. the right is happy about it now. let s say new york passes a law that says everyone who anyone can sue anyone who has a gun even in their home even for self-defense, something this supreme court said is protected by the second amendment. we can enable these lawsuits. there s no logical stopping point for this kind of madness and it s fundamentally antithetical to what it is all about. if we passed a law saying anyone who doesn t get a covid vaccine before going inside a restaurant or a mask in defiance of a mask mandate can be sued, would this supreme court hold