a lot of the for-profits do not do well. a lot of the most prestigious colleges do not do well. our alma mater, you and i both graduated from northwestern, grad degrees, it does terribly in certain -- they have a counseling degree that leaves people with 178,000 dollars in debt for jobs that pay $55,000. 55 miles away in aurora where president trump just spoke, you can get more or less the same degree for 1/6 the amount of debt and make more money. the same with yale. a yale nursing degree costs more than $150,000 a year and pays less than a degree from a regional public university like the university of texas el paso.

and a university of texas el paso grad makes more money five years out. i feel for the gentleman. it is happening a lot. we need more policing of our colleges. host: our guest, paul glastris, is the editor and chief of "washington monthly." if you would like to find more information on their rankings of universities, you can find it at washingtonmonthly.com. thank you for being with us today. guest: my pleasure. host: that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning with another program. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> c-span's "washington journal" discusses the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy. coming up sunday morning, we will talk about campaign 2024 and other political news with the democratic strategist and the republican strategist. then, the faculty director of the emergency and disaster management program at georgetown university discusses fema's role in the hurricane recovery in the role for managers. join in the conversation live sunday morning. >> later today, former president dona trump speaks with latino

voters at a roundtable in las vegas, nevada. tune in for live coverage at 4:00 eastern on c-span, c-span w,ur free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> ♪ >> as the 2024 presidential campaign continues, american history tv presents its series. learn about the pivotal issues of different eras, uncover what made these elections historic, and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today, the election of 1948. >> we must entrust our destiny to those who will safeguard our rights, our freedom, and our national honor. >> we will enter a new era. there will begin in washington the biggest unraveling, on snarling, untangling operation in our nation's history. [applause] >> in what was considered a

major upset, democratic president harry truman defeated thomas dewey, keeping the white watching historic presidential elections saturday at 7:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering to create wi-fi enabled spots so students can get the toolshey need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> ♪ host:hi isashington journal

for saturday, october 12. it is estimated that more than 56 million guns were sold in the u.s. between 2019 and 2021 with a study finding that 7.5 million americans came new gun owners. according to recent "wall street journal" reporting the number of women, african-american and those leaning democe the buying a firearm for the first time. and we will ask youf you've become a firearm owner in the pa f years. if yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. and if you are condeng purchasing a firearm but have not yet, the line20748-8002. you can text us your comments to 202-748-8003 and be sure to include your name and city and

you can also post a question or comment at facebook.com/cspan or x @cspanwj. thank you for being with us. more from the article reporting talking about the increase in gun ownership. "this american gun culture has been dominated by conservative white men. now a burgundy -- burgeoning number of labels are buying firearms according to surveys and fast-growing gun groups drawing minorities and progressives. historically it was not unusual for democrats to own guns with many of them living in rural areas. hunting was much more popular. starting in the early 90's, gun ownership among democrats drop significantly, increasing divisive battles over the role of firearms in american society lead the democratic party to become an advocate for gun regulations.

republicans became the party of gun rights. now, today's democrats are rediscovering guns. the article goes on to talk about the reason for some of that shift. researchers, god merchants and owners attribute it to the factors including "rising concerns about personal safety any of article -- and a volatile political trip climate. gop presidential candidate and former donald trump warning about potential "death and destruction" if he is charged with crimes. democrats morning of the potential end of democracy and two assassination plots against trump. and among those democrats who are gun owners is vice president kamala harris. an article from "the new york times" says that "she first revealed to the public that she owned a gun in 2019 during her

first presidential campaign. it was only this week that the democratic nominee for the president revealed the make of the gun which an aide says is securely stored in her loss residence -- los angeles residents which is a glock." she revealed that here on 60 minutes. here's a clip of the interview. [video clip] >> you recently surprise people that you said you are a gun owner and if someone came into your house. >> that is not the first time i have talked about it. >> what kind of own do you -- gundy you own and when and why did you get it? >> a glock and i have had it for quite some time. look, my background is in law enforcement. so, there you go. >> have you ever fired it? >> yes, of course i have. at a shooting range. of course i have. [end video clip] host: this morning we are

hearing from you. are you -- have you become a firearm owner in the past few years? again the lines if you say yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. and if you are considering purchasing a firearm, but have not yet, the line for you is 202-748-8002. you'll -- we will hear first from marissa who is considering buying a gun. good morning. caller: thank you and a shout out to brian. i am so grateful to c-span. good morning. the only reason i am considering is because i live alone in a rural area and my significant other recently passed away. i hate word for varmints, but anyways.

i would like to address america for a moment if you would give me a second. i would like to ask we are putting down immigrants and we are all immigrants. i will ask who will rebuild our glorious south? who is going to pick up the pieces? host: i'm going to leave it because the topic is the gun and gun ownership. but i appreciate your call. and i wanted to show you some statistics from pew research, a poll that they put out earlier. about four in 10 u.s. adults say that they live in a household with a gun including 32% who personally own one. that is coming out of the survey conducted in june of 2023. and looking at a breakdown of who owns the gun, 45% of republicans and gop leaning independents say that they

personally own a gun compared with 20% of democrats and democratic leaners. gender, 40% of men said they own a gun versus 25% of women. community type. 47% of adults living in rural areas like marissa that we just heard from, own a firearm as well of those that smaller shares of those living in suburbs, 30% or urban areas of 20%. when we look at race and ethnicity. 38% of white americans compared with smaller shares of black, 24% and hispanic, 20% and asians, 10%. al in waterton, tennessee says they have purchased a gun recently. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think there are many statistical problems going on with that report. what has happened it is not that

democrat had owned guns in a lower percentages than republicans but the democrats that believe in liberty and freedom and america in general and they are not communist and socialist, they have changed into republicans or independents, and they have done that in the last 20 or 30 they were southern democrats in middle tennessee and they have guns. they still have them but they changed their cart -- their party affiliation. generally speaking that report is not very intuitive and not very accurate. host: when did you become a gun owner? caller: i think i was 10 years old or something like that. probably for 50 years. i am also a range safety officer at a public shooting range. icds people all the time. typically it was covid. those were the first time --

first time gun owners and they were republicans, democrats and independents. everybody who was concerned about their safety. the reason is they came to the realization just like now in north carolina and florida, you cannot depend on the federal government protection. you protect yourself and that is the way it has always been. they are starting to wise up for that. host: you said that you are a trainer. what are you seeing now after the pandemic on who is coming in? caller: we still see some first time gun owners. unfortunately, the novelty of owning a gun has worn out for those who bought them during covid. they should be coming every two -- every few months for proficiently. they buy the gun and they come to the range they shoot it or maybe a day or two and then you do not see them again. that is an individual decision.

but, it is not the best decision. host: al in tennessee. norm in mod road township on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: hello. caller: i did not know you could hear me. i am very much against anyone owning a gun. i am 98 years old. i was in the second ward -- world war. the only time i had a gun when i was on the shooting range when i was in the navy. and i was a coreman so i did not have to carry a gun. what i want to say that guns do not help people. people have guns and they say they are going to defend themselves. how can they defend themselves?

someone is going to come to shoot you has a gun. we have more killings with guns than all of the other countries put together. why do we need guns? how does this help you with a gun? why do other countries have may be this, one or two killings in some countries. in england and australia there are no guns at all. what benefit is it to have guns? you cannot defend yourself with a gun because you are going to shoot somebody and the chances are he has a gun. that is all i have to say. host: that was norman asking why people would own a gun. according to pew, personal protection tops the list of

reasons that gun owners for having a firearm. "about 72% say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. a considerably smaller shares as a major reason is for hunting, sport shooting, as part of a gun collection or further job." grey in -- greg in illinois on the no not -- line. good morning. caller: i have not purchased a gun and i do not have the intention of doing so. host: why wouldn't you purchase a gun? what factors? caller: because i am a christian. and i am pretty sure that jesus would not own a gun. he did not own a knife or so ward or any wet -- sword or weapon of any kind so he would not own a gun today. host: sharon in sam buck, florida says that she is

considering purchasing a firearm. good morning. caller: how are you? i am pretty sure that i would right now, i am considering buying a gun and taking lessons. host: what are some of the reasons you are considering? caller: for protection. i feel quite safe where i live. i really feel like i need more protection than my little 12 pound dog in my mouth. host: how long have you been thinking about it? caller: six months. host: and you have been seeking -- thinking about it for six months? why haven't you gone to a gun store to buy one yet? caller: the reason i had not made a decision is because i did not know where to go and now i

do. i would like to learn how to use a gun before i get one. host: last question. you are in the tampa area, are you ok after milton? guest: yes. in my area we are ok. we have had some minor damage in my community but nothing earth shattering with -- like the rest of florida. i feel bad with everyone else. host: happy to hear that you are doing ok. carmen in florida is also considering purchasing. good morning. caller: yes. i am considering getting a gun for protection. not -- it isof a political issue. we are hearing so much hate. i am a man with 10 grandchildren and i am getting old. so there is a possibility where i might be in a situation where i cannot protect myself.

but i really do not want to get a gun. i ink i would be part of the problem. i would not want to be a police officer in this atmosphere. i believe that there are so many people dying from accidental gun use. we are losing the war on regulation. we are lose war on common sense gun laws. party is totally against that. it would make it so much safer for people. i should not have to go down to the beach and worry about getting shot at. that is where the problem is. as a democrat i am starting to think that i am on the wrong side by not having a gun. it mig behoove me to get something to protect myself which is why am considering it. host: carmen in florida. and as mentioned, women are among those that are buying guns for the first time. this article from fox news last

december. "women are considered one of the fastest-growing groups of gun owners in the united states, and a house judiciary subcommittee this week will examine how gun ownership empowers women across america as crime spirals in many areas of the nation. the house judiciary subcommittee on crime and enteral government surveillance held that hearing and included a trio of female gun experts and instructors advocating for segment -- second amendment rights. one of those who testified during the hearing is beth alcaz ar, who is a u.s. concealed carry association senior training counselor. here she is during the hearing explaining why she is a gun owner. [video clip] >> as a woman and a mother i am honored to be one of the leading instructors in the firearms industry. i have witnessed a rich

diversity as scores of american women are purchasing and training with and carrying firearms in the name of female empowerment. for many women this awakening has resulted in a new source of certainty, security, responsibility, and equality that we might not have otherwise had. for the women who walk across a dark parking lot every night after work, for the realtors who show houses to strangers every week and for any women who have shadows in their past and for moms like me with children in tow, they would all agree. they refused to stand by helpless and refused to become someone's victim. they refuse to allow harm to come to those they love. that is why i view the attempt to limit or criminalize law invite -- abiding citizens as anti-productive or dangerous and potentially carrying grave consequences for our families and communities. the reality is that violent

criminals many with evil intent do exist and they are terrorizing us. it should not be this way. but it serves as a clear reminder that law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves danger at all times and any solution to better protect ourselves, children, and communities should start with our god-given right to self-defense. i can honestly say i'm a profoundly different woman and mother from the one i was before i decided to carry a firearm. i am physically change because i how i train and move through life, but i am emotionally changed because of the decisions i have made. situations i have contemplated and obstacles i have overcome. the more i trained the more i realize that i do not have to wait for someone else to care for me or protect me. i am my own protector. and i am my family's first and immediate responder. and being able to keep myself and those that i love safe,

there is nothing more important than that. [end video clip] host: our qstn to you for this first hour, have you become a firearm owner in the past fe years? here are the lines on your screen. yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. and if you e considering purchasi airearm for the first time but have not y, e line is 202-748-8002. you can also post on social media on facebook and x or send us a tweet. and a few messages coming in on those social media channels. this text from larry in new jerseyay"i have not but i veonsidered it and i have been saying for the last eight years that only one aspect of the political strict owns more guns in the rest the." sandy and leamingndiana. "i have no intention of owning a

gun. my father taught me how to shoot when i was very young he also taught me to have great respect for the damage t. he said do not ever poin g at someone unless you are sure you can use it because he will make the person desperate and yomay end up on the wrong end of the gun." one more from philip in ohio. "i am not a gun owner. oo old to start worried my life.ning a gun at this point maybe the liberals feel like they will have to arm themselves against the god loving republicans. just a thought." back to your calls. this is georgia. she says she is considering purchase -- purchasing a firearm. good morning, sue. caller: i have been considering it for the last five years and it is going to be for protection. and now i am by myself and my friends are concerned. there is just too much going on

right now in this world. and it is just something that they have been teaching me and everybody that since i buy myself i need some protection. that is pretty much what it is. host: you said five years you have been thinking about it? caller: yes. the reason why is because of the fact that my family -- well my husband, when he was alive, and then my friend were telling me whatever -- when anything ever happened to them that they wanted me to have a gun, and now -- they took me to a gun range and stuff like that with their guns. and pretty much it is self protection, you know? host: if you were to get one,

would it be soon or do you want to think about it? caller: i am thinking about soon. because i have friends that are telling me that they are just worried because i am out here. i live up in the mountains. so, you know. everyone has guns out here. i -- pretty much it is self protection. host: that was sue, in georgia and this is tom, in hawaii. he is considering. caller: i already own a firearm. but what i would want to make clear is that as a veteran of the marine corps for 10 years, and then being -- host: go ahead.

caller: are you there? good. host: listen through your phone, do not listen to the tv. caller: the tv is off. host: go ahead. caller: sure. i am a veteran of 10 years from the united states marine corps. and i am a retired police officer from hawaii. and my first experience with firearms was while i was in the marine corps. and my job in the marine corps was as a rifleman for 9.5 years. i became interested in these weapons not only as a form of self-defense or offense, in my case. but, when i am not working, they are fascinating pieces of machines that you can become very proficient with in a target sense.

and there are numerous target competitions all over the country. and even worldwide these days. so i am not saying anyone who is going to buy a firearm will do that. that is something they can do to sharpen their skills and become more proficient with this weapon while they are around very experienced people to give them advice. host: tom from hawaii. iris in michigan says that she is considering buying a weapon. good morning. caller: good morning. i am just considering because i am trying to get the license. i do not know, my mind does not work and thinking of going out somewhere and then why would i have to defend myself to go somewhere? i would rather go somewhere rather than considering whether i should keep my mind on putting my hands on a gun to protect myself to get somewhere.

because i do not feel like going somewhere, and i do not understand when i saw that lady testifying why you would want to bring turtle driven -- children into a world where you would have to go around killing people to protect a child. you want to live in a world with people. i think the world has just gone insane. you cannot think of everything at one time. i think if i go out, i want to enjoy life. i cannot do it with my hand on a trigger. i have to have my hands ready to do what it is when i went out to do. i cannot be 10 places at one time. i think the whole world has gone bonkers for even considering on whether you should have a gun in your hand when you go anywhere. rake the leaves, cut the grass, take the kids to the school bus,

go to have your hair done, go shopping, go grocery shopping. how do you think about grocery shopping and, is your hand on the trigger? when you go out to eat? it is just insanity that is going on in this country. i do not think it is going on in the rest of the world, we are being told that we must defend ourselves against the others. but that is where we want to be, with the others. so i would not want to live a close up life and be ready to shoot. do you know what is on somebody else's mind. get your head together. host: iris in athens, georgia. the varus -- he is on the mind are considering. caller: before i answer the question i want to say something on my heart. you know brian lamb retired and we did not give him a proper sendoff. and i just want to make that

public statement because he has done a wonderful service to this nation. host: i will tell you. he has the most humble individual you will ever meet. and he definitely did not want a sendoff. i am sure he appreciates your thoughts. caller: i could imagine that because i have heard so much. to answer your question, i am considering firing a gun, why? because the civil unrest and civil chaos that is being foisted upon the american people, you need to protect yourself. the wonderful farseeing founding fathers had a very deep understanding ofisry. they know thafirs amendment, the freedom of speech and thed amdment the right to bear arms, these would all betect in the future due to the rights of the citizens to defend themselves against tyranny.

for those who do not see that as a value. then as mr. ben franklin said, those who would trade liber and freedom for security deserve neheand shall have neither. thank you so much. host: can i ask you a question? caller: of course you can. host: you said you are considering buying another firearm. how long have you been a gun owner and why would you purchase another one? caller: truthfully, i have been handling guns since i was a small boy. i was shot at 15 years old in 1993 when the first rendition of programming was out. black men and black america where the first victims of the programming which was turned against the american people. they divided us and have us hating one another.

they definitely got the people hating donald trump who did nothing but to try to prevent globalism and internationalists from destroying this country. thank you so much. i look forward to talking to you next time. host: kentucky on the no line. did i say that correctly? caller: yes. i am in lexington, kentucky. host: go ahead. you are on with me. caller: ok. the reason i do not like guns is that i think a lot of other countries do not have guns and there is so much less violence. i think i would definitely think

that there would be something done. for instance, the very powerful guns, the ones that should be illegal, you see. i think they should be controlled. and i agree with kamala harris on gun control. i do believe that. there is less violence and other places without guns. i thank you. host: jeff in fayetteville, north carolina on the no line. good morning. caller: no, i do not own a gun and i will use my hands. they are lethal. but i think that democrats

should be prohibited from owning guns. you give them guns and they will try to assassinate president trump you have the young black democrats in chicago, detroit slaughtering other jan -- young black democrats so they should be prohibited from owning guns. that is all i have. thank you. host: jack and tennessee is considering. good morning. caller: hello and good morning. a lovely topic, timely. iona a lot of got -- i own a lot of guns personally that i am considering buying them for each of my daughters-in-law. along with the purchase, i am volunteering for that also to have them have instructions from basic beginning to more sophisticated instruction.

so, they will be able to properly use the gun and hopefully never. but should the need arise, they will be competent and skilled enough to properly use the weapon. host: you said for your daughters-in-law? how many is that and how many do you have. have they expressed an interest? caller: two of them have expressed the opposite of an interest years ago. i have three total. but, look at societal -- societal trends and they do too, and they are concerned for themselves and their family. that is the basements of the police. the police cannot recruit enough good people to serve anymore. and they have lost a number that were serving. the police protection is over

time going to become less and less. what are you going to do when it takes 20 to 25 minutes to respond to an emergency for the police? you are at the mercy of whoever is seating you. and that happens. my girlfriend at the time, my wife and i were saved one time on a picnic by the existence of a gun. some people were creeping up on us in the woods. there were two couples and my friends happen to have a shotgun in the back of his car. he racked the gun when he saw that these people had stopped and were creeping up. and he told them with a few expletives to move on down the road. all of a sudden, two people

popped up out of a bush very near where we were picnicking. absent a gun, we were at their mercy. i do not want my daughters-in-law's, or our grandchildren to be in that position ever. host: jack in tennessee. more from the recent polling on gun ownership. or guns in america. "non-gun owners are split on whether they would see them selves owning a firearm in the future. looking at the breakdown by party. 61% of republicans who say they do not own a gun could see themselves only one in the future compared with 40% of democrats. gender, 50% of men who do not own a gun said that they could see themselves owning one and 40% of women not owners pay the same. and looking at race and ethnicity. 56% of black nonowners say they

could see themselves owning a gun compared to a smaller share of white at 88%. hispanic, 40% and asian, 38% for nonowners. we have about 25 minutes left in this first hour, asking you how do you become -- have you become a firearm owner in the past few yes. we are taking your cal and hearing from you on social dia. this is from paul in columbus, ohio. "american cities have become -- so dangerous guns for personal protection have become a necessity. you cannot wait for the police to save you, a firearm will solve the problem in less than one second." jeff in michigan says " in the u.s. i do not see theown need. is this because republican and keep threatening violence? i do not hear democrats making threats, but both trump shooters

were registered republicans." back to your calls. charles in illinois is considering purchasing a firearm. the morning. caller: hello and thank you for my call. i have been considering for the last three or four years but, i was a vietnam veteran. i spent two years in vietnam as a better -- as a medic and i have seen what guns can do. and all these people buying these guns and so-called christians i will say is one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill. i have seen what guns can do. i have seen guys in body bags and picked up body parts. let me tell you want -- why you want to buy a gun. you want to try and overthrow the government, that is all that is. you need to get out of here with all of that because no. host: you said that you have

been considering purchase a firearm for a few years. what are some of the factors going into the potential purchase? caller: well my granddaughter and her fiance two years ago came into my daughter's house and got in. a guy pulled up in another car pulled up and opened up on them. he left behind five in the back. one of the bullets went to him and hit my granddaughter. they were trying to get into my daughter's door. the man was not drug dealing or gangbanging. i live in chicago. and i just go everywhere and i do not care. and those people who are just trying to own guns, just get out of here. they are dog -- they are talking about civil war and that is not

what they used to be. all you people trying to rise up against the government, all of the january 6 and all of you people better think about what you are doing because there is no coming back. you live the life one time and you need to enjoy it because i've seen what the ar-15 and m-16s can do. please, i tell you, make that decision wisely. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: steve in massachusetts on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to segue with i did 21.5 years in the u.s. army. 20 active. i have nothing against guns personally. i enjoy going to the range and shooting them. i would like to throw out a number to you if i may. there are approximately 40,000 gun deaths in the united states annually and it might be 39 or

38 but let us rounded up. of these 3/5 are suicides or approximately 24,000. 16 thousands -- 16,000 are homicides. let's compare this with traffic fatalities, which is also 40,000. i will wrap this up really quick. 40,000 people die annually going to work, driving to sporting events and etc. there is no intent to kill. it just happens. but where is the outrage for that. we have to worry about 16,000 homicides, which is too much. i really think that people need to step back and take a look at the situation holistically. driving in massachusetts with all of the road rage around here, it is as if the standard for driving is 75 or 80 miles an

hour on interstates. you drive through towns and people are tailgating. we need to get our priorities straight. and have a good day and weekend. host: jack in pennsylvania on the yes line. good morning. caller: good morning and how are you today? i have been a gun owner since i was 12. when i was 12 we kept them in my father's gun cabinet. but when i was 12 i bought my own 22 and inherited -- i am not hearing you. host: i am not talking. we do hear you. caller: ok. when i was 12 i inherited a deer rifle, shotgun and bought my own 22 which i got handed to me when i was 18 so i could go hunting on my own. i am also a hand owner. i have about six.

when i get up in the morning and get dressed i put my hand got on my side and carry it everywhere that i am allowed. if i go to the grocery store it is with me. if you go to any government office, you are not allowed to have it. you have to leave it in my car. my car locks up with an alarm. i cannot understand anybody who does not have at least one. host: that was jack in pennsylvania. and a headline from "the minnesota star tribune" saying that the lieutenant governor, peggy flanagan is a new gun owner. "minnesota's democratic lieutenant governor revealed this week that she purchased a small game hunting license, doesn't stamp and a 20 gauge benelli shotgun in preparation for the annual governor's pheasant template duckhunting

opener held in sleepy i minnesota on friday and saturday. flanagan said this would be her fifth time attending a pheasant opener but a first time with her own firearm." the governor of minnesota, tim walz also a gun owner. he spoke at the dnc over the summer. here is some of his remarks about guns. [video clip] >> when republicans use the word freedom they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor's office. corporations, free to pollute your air and water. and banks free to take advantage of customers. but, when we democrats talk about freedom, we need the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. freedom to make your own health care decisions. and yes, your kids' freedom to

go to school without worried about being shot dead in the hall. look, i know guns. i am a veteran. i am a hunter. and i was a better shot than most republicans in congress and i have the trophies to prove it. but, i am also a dad. i believe in the second amendment, but i also believe that our first responsibility is to keep our kids safe. [end video clip] host: william in ohio, considering purchasing a weapon. good morning. caller: good morning, i carry a sidearm as a law enforcement officer and i had weapons and i was in the military service for 7.5 years. i believe in the nra and i personally do not own a firearm at this time but i am

considering purchasing one. i do agree with red flag laws. i also agree that people should have at least a 12 gauge or 10 gauge or a pistol for home protection. and, personal protection. but i do not believe in assault weapons as a home protection item. and, i also feel that people should extend the background check. i agree with the red flag laws. aside from that, that is how i feel. i feel that americans have the right to defend themselves in their home. and i have had experience where i should have, if i would have had a firearm there would have been a problem and i did need assistance. and the suspect who tried to get in on my home got tired of waiting on the police.

and then when they showed up i presented them with the suspect's identification after they had left. and then the police alleged that maybe they should arrest me for aggravated robbery. all i did was demand identification. the man tried to break in my home and then he busted down my fence trying to steal my lawnmower. host: how long have you been thinking about purchasing a gun? caller: only over the last 2.5 years. of actually purchasing and owning one myself. but i agree are people should have beginning training up to qualifying and i think that should be a legislated course of study. and that it should be required testing to pass the same examination every three years, minimum.

thank you. host: that is william. jack in oregon says yes, they have become a gun owner in the past few years. in morning. caller: yes. of course i buy guns. i have the liberty having to own a few of these. but as everybody knows the liberals do not like guns around here. but, that is fine. host: go ahead. caller: sorry. i just want to say that guns do not matter. you can have as many guns as you want. host: that is jack in oregon. carol in st. louis, missouri on the no line. good morning. caller: i was wondering if you

could look up and see when it says democrats and republicans buying guns, who is buying the assault weapons, what majority is buying more assault weapons. the other thing is why not use a stun gun or the spray? why do you have to kill somebody? i do not understand. it is just too confusing to me. host: patty in louisville, kentucky on the no line. caller: good morning, how are you? hello. host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i do not have a gun. and i do not have any intention of getting one. i am 70 years old and raising -- can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i am 70 years old and i am raising a 16-year-old grandson. and i told him that guns are never an answer.

i do not want him having a gun. i was married to a law enforcement officer for 17 years. and so, i have been a rounded a gun. but every night when he came in from work he locked his guns in the trunk of the car because i did not want them in the house. and he did that. and i think that, with the situation going on in this country right now, with people being killed -- filled with fear and hatred, i think putting guns in the hands of people who are already scared and who are already hating. i mean, the hate is just astronomically unreal in this country. i do not think putting guns in people's hands like that is any kind of answer at all. and as far as his officers, the

lady on the call said that police do not respond anymore and they are not getting on the force anymore. what comes to my mind is uvalde when 19 officers went into the school and they were afraid to confront. -- afraid to confront an ar-15 gun. police officers know that they take an oath to serve and protect. they are human beings. most of them have families. they do not want to join the force and go on a call and be looking down the barrel of an ar-15. i think that is the reason we are not recruiting police officers is the guns. they are outnumbered when it comes to guns. and i think that guns are not

the answer. i think getting rid of some of the guns would be an answer. host: that was patty in kentucky. over the summer in august with the increase in new gun owners, the brady united against gun violence and the ad council released a new public service announcement aimed at storage of guns. here is the ad. [video clip] ♪ >> i am a different kind of threat. i cannot be scared away. or negotiated with. you cannot call the cops on me. >> do you still want to hang out after? >> i do not want your money, or

your tv. ♪ >> i do not even have to break in. i am invited. ♪ [end video clip] host: just under 10 minutes left in this first hour, hearing your calls and asking have you become a firearm owner in the past few years. can give us a call if you say yes. the line is 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. if you are considering purchasing a firearm for the first time but have not yet, 202-748-8002. you can also text us or send us

a message on social media. this text coming in from bob rhode island saying "i am not a gun owner or considering becoming one for run -- for one reason. i have kids and seven and the thou one h -- the thought of having one in the use for me seem selfish and unreasonable. they are much more likely to get hurt from the gun in the house already." david in indianapolis, indiana is considering it. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am considering buying a firearm simply for protection. and, you know i need to learn how to use one, so i think there ought to be someplace you can go and get training on how to use one so you can be safe and

everything. but yes. i am considering buying a firearm for protection. host: how long have you been thinking about it? caller: probably about six months. host: you said you would want to get training. have you looked into training that is around you or near you? caller: i have not. host: that was david. ellie in maryland says yes. good morning. caller: good morning. so, i say yes because i actually recently became a firearm owner. i am a female. i am not really a threat if i have no firearm on me. and i have been carjacked. i have been jumped and do.

so, after that i just had enough. and i think it is just important that me, guns do not kill people. people actually kill people. i do not know who the older lady was said that -- for i think it was a gentleman who said that there should be some type of insanity test for some people. i know for maryland the laws that you can purchase a rifle and shotgun out of the shop with no license or anything. i think that is also a problem. of why there has been settlement more shootings in areas especially such as schools. for me, i think it just needs to be in the hands of people who are safe and know how to handle the gun. i became an armed officer so i

think the training helped me get comfortable with the gun and different types of guns. that training and getting rid of that awful lot of people just being able to buy shotguns and rifles. host: when did you purchase your first gun? caller: last year around summertime. host: and the reason you got it was just for protection. how long had you been thinking about it before you bought it? caller: i was not thinking about it. i was scared of guns and i did not like them. i have seen what they have done to people. and i have seen how accidental mistakes in the wrong hands happen. i was afraid of them. but i guess as i got older and mature and i started taking classes and started watching more videos mainly on youtube, i just decided that it is time to get one and nowadays there are a lot of people who are not even

willing to allow you to live to rob you. they actually wants to kill you. so, when they do see, versus when i was carjacked versus me having my hands, they beat me up but i did not fall. if i had my firearm, they would have been a lot more willing to leave me alone versus me just having my car and everything taken away. plus going to the hospital for my injuries. host: that was ellie and marilyn. one of the many women who have become gun owners recent years. gun manufacturers adds appeal to women as serious students of firearms to boost sales. the article says "they are shifting the strategy over the last two decades that may be contributing -- contributing to the increase gun sales among women. from 2007 to 2022, women's gun

ownership rose from 16% to 22% while the rate for men stayed steady at 43%. more than half of gunowners in the united states between 2019 and 2021 where women." that is just one of the studies that was done about new gun owners and the shifting demographics. rita in jackson heights, new york. she says no. caller: good morning. i watch the program almost every day as long as i can until i get so disgusted that i hang up. today that young man called and said that 40,000 people are killed in cars, i am so happy because that is what i say to everyone. when i get in the car this is a killer. but he forgot one thing, how many people are maimed for life.

that is double the amount. double. and i wish i knew who he was and i would call him up and i would give him an embrace because this nonsense of women or men owning guns, it does not matter. what are you supposed to do if it does attack you. excuse me i have to get my god. it does not happen that way. what do you do at night? do you sit with your rifle at the window to make sure that nobody comes in. my husband was a hunter and he had rifles locked up. he had the key, he did not belong to the nra. and when women would say i want to get a gun and he said you are afraid of a mouse. you scream and yell at a mouse. but all of these women are going to do when did you get the opportunity do you say excuse me, i want to get my gun. it is the same with men. i want to thank him and if he is

listening, god bless a person with sense, formation, knowledge, and facts. hard facts. host: time for one last call. raul in texas says yes. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? i wanted to say that i own two. i own a full-size and i decided to buy a concealed carry. i was vetted with the department of public safety and i go to practice about every two weeks. so practice makes you proficient. the scenarios back in the day are this -- are not the same as today. and people are there to hurt you. you are not going to have your shot on in your house, but you are prepared just in case. so training is a factor.

the fact that in uvalde the police officers did not want to go. they are trained to go and protect children. so that is another issue why they did not pursue. but yes, i own a firearm. i am licensed and practicing different scenarios will take care of you. host: that was our last call for the first hour. next on washington journal, the legal reporter alex swoyer will join us and discuss the new supreme court term and key cases ahead. later in the program, "the washington monthly" paul glass chris will talk about the overlooked demographic of state college voters. we will be right back. ♪

♪ >> american history tv, exploring people and events that tell the american story. neil gorsuch and his former law clerk talk about america's fin -- america's founding ideals, and a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the african-american men and women for their contributions to space exploration in its early days for calculating the 1969 apollo mission sending men to the moon. watch historic presidential elections, exploring what made these elections historic, issues of different eras, and the lasting impact on the nation. this week, the election of 1948. in what was considered a major

upset, harry truman defeated republican new york governor thomas dewey in 1948 to win a full term in the white house. lectures in history, the university of north carolina at pembroke history professor on southeast native american tribes during the 18th century and the impacts of colonialism, the american revolution, and emergence of the united states. on the presidency, looking at how eleanor roosevelt used film from the early 1930's to 1960's to promote her political and social causes. exploring the american story. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org /history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction book. at 7:30 p.m. eastern, we speak with kirk cameron where he

talks about his latest book "born to be brave" on american culture and faith. he discusses his children's book s and story hours at public libraries. at 9 p.m. eastern, a fox news contributor, the author of "fear itself", argues liberals use fear as a political and social weapon and suggests ways for conservatives to respond. on afterwords, the future of work and how to better align workplace culture with the needs of american workers in her book "over work." connie chung shares her memoir about her life and career in journalism, serving as the first woman to cohost the cbs evening news. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide

or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now to discuss the new supreme court term and cases ahead, alex swoyer, a legal affairs reporter for "the washington times." we will jump into the new term for the supreme court. they begin on monday. it comes at a time when there has been continued calls for ethics reform. what has been the mood at the court going into the new term? guest: you wouldn't know that there were at ethics concerns. i think there was a leak of a confidential memo. you wouldn't know in the courtroom that any of that was going on. the justices seem very friendly. i often say that i think courtrooms should have a camera

so you can see them interact. you can see justice kagan and justice kavanaugh often whisper and laugh together. it shows a little bit of stability on the bench. -- civility on the bench. the cases were quite interesting this first week. there was an interesting death penalty case where the state actually is on the side of the defendant, which you don't see all the time. host: we will talk about that ghost gun case. they heard the oral arguments on tuesday. explain what they are looking at. guest: with the ghost gun case, it is 2022 regulation that the biden administration put out. it's the so-called ghost gun kits. to put a gun together yourself, they don't have serial numbers. that was the concern, that these were used in crimes. requiring these kits to comply

with serial numbers, background checks, that kind of thing. it was challenged by the manufacturer of these kits. they say the 1968 gun control act to try to regulate them is running afoul of the ata, statutory rulemaking. it is not necessarily a second amendment case likely think of, but more of an interpretation. the justices seem to be willing to leave this rule intact. they left it in forced. the majority of justices seem to think that the biden administration biden administration has the leeway to do this. if you know what you are getting, it is still a gun, it is still a firearm. host: your reporting on this case, the supreme court has skeptical eyes towards unregulated ghost guns. what were you hearing from the justices during those arguments? guest: what i mentioned was there was a back-and-forth.

if you're ordering a kit that has these pieces, and all you have to do for example is drill a few holes to assemble and remove plastic, aren't you in fact knowing that you're getting a firearm? it isn't that these pieces could be regulated on their own. one analo between -- one analogy that justice alito brought up is what if i have peppers and eggs, does that mean it's a western omelette? what if you are ordering an omelette kit on hello fresh? it is that kind of notion. host: c-span aired the oral arguments on our website. you can find them and watch them in their entirety. you can go to c-span.org /supremecourt. they have other cases coming up ahead of them including a case on gender affirming care for transgender teens.

what is at stake? guest: this might be our biggest case so far that has been granted. it is out of tennessee. the law bans medical treatment for transgender minors including puberty blockers, that sort of thing. it was challenged by transgender children and their parents. although there was a tennessee law, i think 26 states have similar legislation. this could impact other laws as well. it is an interesting you will protection case that children and their parents say that we have a right to access our own medical choices and control that parental control. the state on the others says we have an interest in protecting children and we see that they are not old enough to make these types of decisions yet. it is an interesting juxtaposition looking at what is best for the children. host: we are talking with alex swoyer, the legal affairs reporter for the washington

times. if you have a question or comment for her you can call in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. the supreme court added more than a dozen cases just before the new term started, including one one the use of deadly force shooting. there is one death penalty case, there is actually two? guest: they do -- it's interesting. you often saw justice breyer in the past heavily writing on the death penalty cases, but jackson is on the court. it will be interesting if she jumps on that with justice sotomayor. host: what are you watching out of the cases that we know so far they've granted? guest: we talked about the transgender minor one.

not that there is a theme for each term, but there are cases that look at the protection of minors. one has to do with a law out of texas with giving your identification to porn websites, a first amendment challenge. should someone enter their personal information to access those websites are the intent is to keep minors say from accessing those websites. there is an interesting one about the marketing of flavored vapes. they shut that down because of the appeal to youth. that is another one they've granted. host: when we look at these cases, you said sometimes it can seem like they are thematic. what we know about previous cases that may be similar in terms of what we may know about how justices ultimately decide these cases? guest: i would say that a few things that stick out this term,

the court has been heavily involved with the religious liberty challenges. each term i've covered since 2017 has had a major religious liberty case. this term, one has not been granted yet, but several are pending. one of them is a catholic charter school. it would be the nation's first religious charter school. it hasn't opened yet out of oklahoma. that is on pending review. we will see if they take that. another one that has to do with montgomery county and the idea of parents being able to opt elementary kids out of certain story times related to lgbtq issues is also pending. host: we will bring our audience into the conversation. first is milton in philadelphia, pennsylvania, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to bring up three

points if you will allow me. ethics reform. i think that the federal judges should be barred from accepting any kind of gift, especially when it comes to clarence thomas and alito. the vacations and this from right-wing billionaires. second, in the case of clarence thomas you have his wife who works for a conservative organizations. a lot of people come before the courts and clarence thomas will not recuse himself. third, it seems like this court, especially the right-wing part, seems to be going out of their way to support trump because of the fact in the case of his immunity. they allow the president to do whatever the hell he wants to and not be charged. i have serious problems with it. i used to have a lot of respect for the court. i don't anymore. guest: those concerns are something that i hear a lot from readers. on the ethics, your hearing more

from the liberal wing on the court when they make public statements, especially justice kagan. she called for an enforceable ethics code. the problem that a lot of people have said that the supreme court issued one for itself but there is not necessarily an enforcement mechanism about themselves. basically policing your own conduct. that was a concern. one issue brought up with rick -- with recusal as you have nine justices. the idea is, if one has to recuse you are left with eight. if you're left with a tie that means that the lower court's ruling withstand. there is no one to fill that vo id. that is why you don't see a lot of refusals. beyond that we will have to wait and see what happens. we talk about transparency. i brought up when i first joined, i think cameras in the courtroom would be really good and would help people see the

justices interact with each other and of the way that they question the lawyers. there seems to be more unity on the bench than what is perceived in major rulings like the trump immunity ruling, the presidential immunity ruling that we saw. i think it's possible that the justices will have to narrow down that ruling on key charges that might actually come back up to them from the pending election fraud case, now brought before the d.c. district court. host: the color brought up the ethics reform question. senator ron wyden out of oregon presented a bill to overhaul the supreme court that would add six justices among other things. what we know about those proposals? guest: since i cover the court, there has been a number since president biden took office and

we have reports. what happened with justice thomas and disclosures. you have seen a lot of legislation proposing term limits were ways to elevate judges in the lower court that could sit in. different mechanisms on how to keep tabs on what's going on. i don't think there's enough energy on capitol hill to pass something like that, especially with the gop-controlled house right now. we could see what happens after the november election. host: lincoln, nebraska on the independent line. good morning, eric. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is probably a supreme court one-on-one question. i thought that i had heard once that the supreme court justices were not supposed to consider the consequences of their decisions, they were just supposed to interpret the law. the recordings that i've heard of the supreme court recently,

especially recently, they are always asking questions about, well, if we make this decision this will happen or that decision that will happen. i thought they weren't supposed to do that? guest: i will jump in and say that it's interesting and a good observation. oneof the things that you hear from the justices that are strictly looking at texts is that i might not like the outcome of the way that i'm going to rule, but that is pointing to the lawmakers to fix. that is one of the things that when i interview justice gorsuch in 2019 he said in his chambers, when i'm looking at something, if i don't think that it passes muster, i am paraphrasing, then it is up to the people across the street fix, the capitol. you will see some of the court doing that, but there have been questions about if we were to rule in your favor, what could

be next?what would that mean ? host: daniel in wilmington, delaware on the line for democrats. good morning. guest: thank you for take -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to know the dobbs decision and how come the american people don't know, it has been almost two years plus. if you could answer my question, i would like it. guest: that is a wonderful question. i actually have a story coming out later this week about the leaks out of the court. you had the 2022 dobbs decision. you had some talking to cnn giving some inside deliberations surrounding the idaho abortion case from last term. in september you had the leaking of the confidential memo from inside the court, a high of memo that only a few people would have access to, leaked to the new york times. the only leak i know of and any

court watchers that i've spoken to that have any investigation was the dobbs leak and no one has been identified. does the court now and won't tell us? it's possible. all of us want to know will there be accountability? otherwise leaks will continue to happen. host: you can find alex's reporting on washingtontimes.org. you can find her on x. the new term, they have four cases they will be hearing. one is talking about veterans medical benefits and another the ability to recover civil damages for economic harm, immigration, visa review, and using federal restrictions on sewage pollution. anything that sticks out to you? guest: i will be covering the epa case, san francisco versus the epa. it is an interesting case

because you have san francisco basically challenging its water pollution limits, a federal rule. california is siding with the epa. you have one city challenging this rule and even the state is on the side of the feds. the day before tuesday, it is about a trucker who was fired from his job after using thc products for inflammation. he was subject to a surprise drug test and tested positive and lost his job. the justices will be reviewing that as well. host: c-span will have coverage of all four of those oral arguments next week and you can find them on our c-span life app and our website. let's hear from dorothy in dayton, ohio, the line for independents. good morning. guest: it kind of -- caller: it kinda breaks my heart a little bit. i appreciate that you are doing the segment on the supreme court, the u.s. supreme court,

implying that whatever the term is, the right-wing activist court. even the case, yet you leave out so many details. i have a question, you know. i can use the example you just gave. the epa against somebody, and california agrees with the epa. it's against pollution. that was very misleading. that is not against pollution. that is against the epa trying to seize someone's property or prevent them from doing something on their property, because the epa has determined it's pollution. please -- also, while i am on that, why did we never, ever hear anything regarding the

supreme court of the weeks of harassment? that's illegal. that's against the law. where was merrick garland? where was the dhs? where was the doj? host: any response to dorothy? guest: on the epa case, it is a challenge to the rule that regulates limits for pollution in water. it is a little wonky, so there is not necessarily that many people who follow that -- that my nisha in federal rulemaking. i will be covering it. in terms of the harassment and threats, i think that that's an important issue that she brought up. we saw protests outside of the justices' homes for months without much repercussion. i know that i talked to neighbors and they went out to some of these homes. they were very upset with what they were seeing.

some of the justices had to leave. it was a major concern. i do think that it would have been a positive had there been more accountability from the justice department. one part that we will see at the end of the term, we usually get our opinions in june, we will see the attempted kavanaugh assassin go to trial. he pled not guilty. that was someone who showed up outside of justices homes in the wake of the dobbs leak. host: matthew in north carolina on the republican line. good morning, matthew. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i had a question. i realize we don't have a current judge being sworn in, but what is -- i don't understand how someone can get away with not answering the simple questions from the senators in the other party. for example, what is a woman?

her answer is, i'm not a biologist. the senator wasn't trying to be cute. she was worried about children may be in the future consenting to surgery as a minor and what does it mean to be -- i wonder in the future, we we see justices that the senators are going to demand answers or they are not going to swear them in and they are going to say enough of this? thank you so much. guest: i have been covering the court since 2017. i covered several now. four new justices coming onto the bench. some people cover it for a decade and no real movement. that was interesting. what i've noticed throughout all of the confirmation hearings is there is a need from the justice or a feeling of needing to be evasive about their views to win votes and support.

as i cover the court, the confirmation votes have been so divided republicans to democrats i think that it's one reason we saw the 60-vote threshold to confirm a supreme court justice done away with i think in 20 to confirm justice gorsuch. i'm not surprised that there was a way not to answer that question directly. one of the reasons is because we have transgender rights cases moving through the courts. we talked about the transgender minor surgery one. there are two petitions pending before the justices out of idaho and west virginia dealing with women's sports laws to basically ban transgender athletes from participating. you have to be a biological female under the law. that is something that the supreme court could have to review this term. host: the supreme court has several cases on their docket.

they have also declined dear several cases. supreme court rejects elon musk lawsuit against special counsel jack smith over trump's messages. another headline, u.s. supreme court won't hear full protest case that includes mother. remind us how the court decides which cases they are going to take up. guest: it takes four justices to vote in favor of hearing a case or oral argument to be granted. we don't know which four justices think that the lower court may have gotten it wrong or there is the need for them to take up a case to set a national standard. the way that we know if there is a potential that the justices will take a case is, is there a circuit split? did the ninth circuit come out differently than the fifth circuit? that may encourage them to an. something called realist. a case scheduled for this conference and we don't know what goes on in the conference, but we don't find out if it will

be rejected or granted and it can be relisted for the justices to get that. when a case is relisted it suggests that there is interest from the justices in taking it. more often than not we see that getting granted. host: they had a conference where they decided on some of the realists. they have another one coming up. any of those re-list cases that will get the approval of at least four justices? guest: i learned a long time ago to not make predictions because i'm always surprised. one of the interesting things -- i'm surprised, i mentioned that there isn't a religious liberty case. having covered this court, there seems to be an appetite for that. that's one area i'm looking at. there are not that many cases compared to the -- the docket feels light. there's a feeling among court watchers that the justices are waiting to see if there is an

election to see if they have to take up quickly. when you talk to election law experts i don't see anything on the timeline that would get to the court. i guess a side from a bush v. go re-type of situation. host: tyler, good morning. caller: this is atrocious. i have written the supreme court indiana all the way to the supreme court of the united states of america, the insight and professional help that -- without probable cause. in segregation for 245 days. the charges were dismissed. i suffered from a fungal infection in my eyes, liver, lungs. i nearly died and they provided no medical attention. when i was there i witnessed people come in and license the

inmates to come out as a second optional way to get out of jail. these people would come out of the jail and participate in slavery to people. the criminal conspiracy to commit fraud is real, and i haven't had anyone from the professional standpoint assist me with this. they always reject me. host: what is your question for alex? caller: alex. i have written the supreme court i have written the professionals and i have filed disputes with the department of justice. if no one is going to answer me, who do i have to talk to about having the assistance and restitution and review of this case? even with filing the appeals and the appeals court? guest: i had a difficult time hearing everything. i heard the last part. it sounded like there might have been some medical issues and he is looking for someone to go to for damages? personally, if you're not getting answers through filing

lawsuits, i think it is always important to enlist a lawyer. they know how to navigate the system. also, local elected officials i think are the ones who react sooner. they are able to go to their doorsteps and meet with them rather than send a letter to your senator who has a local state of constituents to respond to. host: john in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: i have a question. during the hearings for gorsuch, actually gorsuch, barrett, and cavanaugh, all three of them said that they were going to honor stasis -- what is it? starry on roe v. wade. they turned around and they voted in favor of getting rid of it.

isn't it perjury when they say one thing and go the other way? i thought there was some kind of law or rule against that? i wondered if that was ever brought up the way that they answer their questions to a senate hearing? i thought that you weren't allowed to lie in a senate hearing? guest: that is something that has come up since i've covered the court, the question about if a justice says one thing during confirmation hearings but rules differently if that is some way to prosecute them for perjury. in my recollection in recent history that hasn't happened, but it is something that the justices are aware of. there was an interesting back and forth between justice alito and justice sotomayor. he said something about when he

was on a lower court that he would salute the victim and justice sotomayor said not anymore. there was a little bit of laughter between the two of them on that. when you are a justice on the court you might find reason to believe that was fraud so you see your view as righting that wrong. a lot of what you hear from court watchers is about why you saw the court do what it did with dobbs. host: elliott from south carolina on the one for republicans. caller: good morning. someone stole the transcripts to the dobbs case. why did the supreme court use their head of security, the investigator. why didn't they use the fbi or

the doj? i think it was really bad. only a couple of hundred people and we should have found out who stole it. thank you. guest: i believe it was about the leak. and why we don't know who is conducting the leaks, is that correct? host: yes, the dobbs leak. guest: the courts-martial service did this investigation. i'm not sure why there was not more reach out to the feds, the fbi. one reason i got when i was asking former clerks what they thought about that was it could be that the chief justice did not want another branch of government intruding into the judiciary or their building. that could be one reason you did not see more fbi involvement. host: as of now, there are no blockbuster cases on the court's

docket. is there anything that you see other than potentially an election-related case coming up between now and the end of --? guest: we did not have some of the trump cases. we did not have the immunity case last term. we did not have the ballot case out of colorado. it really ended up being what a lot of people pay attention to. as time goes i think we will see more of those high-profile cases. i think it's possible that we see them revisit the immunity decision. that could be related to now at the lower court with special counsel jack smith arguing about trump's communication with mike pence surrounding january 6 and the election results. there are arguments back-and-forth and the supreme court was not clear on whether those would be immune or not.

that is a topic that could return to the court that i'm watching. when you look at polls out of swing states, pennsylvania looks tight. during 2020 there were a lot of questions over ballot laws that came to the court on emergency requests. pennsylvania is one that i'm watching to see if they get anything out of there for the election. host: bernard on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i'm calling about the supreme court justices, when we saw on television people beating drums outside their houses, why there was no police protection to get those people away from the supreme court justices. also in china you are not allowed to own a firearm and they lock you up in your apartment and what you start to death. i saw that on a special about

owning firearms. the used to have, you would have to abort a child if it was female. i wonder how all democrats think about that. assault weapons are made to protect the citizens against their government. not protect them hunting. do i have a comment from the lady? guest: two things. first about the protest, the drums, the blow horns, all of that you saw outside of the justices homes. i went to justice brett kavanaugh's home in maryland and i saw neighbors, moms who were visibly upset and shaking because they said it was a nightly thing. it happened around bedtime for the little ones every night and it would not stop. they were very upset. what you saw was mostly the federal police, the marshals were standing in the yard of the house to protect anyone from intruding.

you did not see local police doing anything and the question would be whether or not there could be a nuisance violation due to the noise. we did not see any accountability there. that is something that needs to be pursued and followed up on. the firearms question. something we have not talked about yet that is worth mentioning is one of the cases the justices just said they will hear is an interesting case where mexico is actually suing a firearm manufacturer. they claim about 90% of the guns they recover from the cartel that are trafficked into mexico are from these dealers. they are basically trying to sue and hold these u.s. manufacturers accountable for aiding and abetting the cartel in mexico. it is a very interesting case. we don't have a date for oral arguments yet but the justices will decide that this term. host: ray in syracuse, new york

on the republican line. good morning. caller: i can see alex is covering a lot of ground with so much detail. i would like to add my two cents to one of the answers and that is the issue of whether or not you can ask specific questions related to in process cases that will go in front of the supreme court. the gentleman who called did not seem to understand. they have to be vague and the questions are not supposed to be directed pointed to an actual case that will come before them because if they actually give any indication of how they will vote on that particular case, they will not become supreme court justices. it is an obvious thing but people don't realize that. they are giving general conversational, i will tell you

how i do my job as a judge. i will not give you specifics so that you can vote me on or off. it would be unethical. guest: i think that is why you saw justice jackson not answer the what is a woman question in detail given that we have the transgender cases moving through the lower courts and into the supreme court. i noticed with the court, they do not -- when they take an lgbtq case, you don't necessarily get another big one. when we talk about the tendency transgender minor surgery ban, medical treatment ban, i am wondering if they will take the sports bill, the issue about women's sports because it also deals with transgender rights. it is one i am definitely watching. i am eager to see if they take it. since they have already taken one transgender rights case, i am not sure if they will get another one on the docket this term. host: i want to ask you about a

hearing that was not in the spring court this week -- in the supreme court this week. it was in the appeals court. this article, "appeals court to end dreams for dreamers where the fifth circuit heard arguments on thursday before three judges about whether to uphold sweeping ruling by a trial court judge that would end daca altogether, the program created by former president obama by executive action until congress passed legislation to address the state of the dreamers, as the group is known. former president trump moved to kill the program in 2017, one of a number of measures his administration took to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. the program has been suspended, reinstated and partly rolled by court rulings ever since. conservatives in texas and other states filed the challenge now

being heard in 2018." what do we know about that case and if there is any precedent? guest: i am not up to speed on all of that. i know daca has been in and out of the courts for several years and as a legal affairs reporter, when i look at something that is been politicized and i look at the court it is in, the fifth circuit is known as the most conservative court out there. i would not be surprised if they were to rule against what was president obama's program or at least curtail it even further. we shall see if that were to happen, i suspect there would be an appeal to the supreme court. they could put that on hold while they review the case. we saw that with the ghost guns and litigation.

there was a ruling in the lower courts in favor of the challengers looking to keep ghost guns unregulated. the supreme court said we will let the feds implement the rule while we review the case. that could be what happens or something similar. host: james in pennsylvania on the independents line. good morning. caller: how are you guys doing? host: we are good. go ahead. caller: i am all for the supreme court being four four. the reason why is we don't want to do a 5-4 because that gives us a marginal vote. let's go with 4-4 so you have to go with a 5-3 swing. you have to have the information, facts and truth. this will get rid of the frivolous cases, frivolous lawsuits and daca has been going

on for a long time, since bush. these people are fine. most of them are 99.9% no criminals. regular americans are above that. host: you will get a response from alex. guest: i think it could be that the supreme court takes a case like daca for one of these appeals coming out of the fifth circuit simply to have a final say. so that is a possibility. in terms of the numbers, it depends. even the late justice ginsburg said she likes the number nine and that the court operated well for much of the period since the founding with nine justices and that suited them just found -- just fine. we will see if they have to reduce for certain reasons. it has also been ok. we don't like to see ties

because it means lower courts affirmed. i am on the side of wanting an odd number. host: our guest alex swoyer, the legal affairs reporter for the washington times. find a report online at washington times.com and on x. thank you so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: still ahead, the washington monthly's paul glastris will discuss his recent reporting on what he refers to as the overlooked demographic of state college voters. first we will hear from more of you during open forum. start calling now. the lines republica (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back.

>> attention middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span's documentary contest 2025 is here, your chance to create a documentary to inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president. what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment or community stories. use your platform to share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity to not only make an impact but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter yomissns today. scanned the code or visit studentcam.org for thels on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025.

as the 2024 presidential campaign continues, american history tv presents a series of historic presidential elections. learn about pivotal issues of different eras, uncover what made them historic and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today the election of 1948. >> we must entrust our destiny to those who will safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our national honor. >> you will enter a new era. on january 20 they will begin in washington the biggest unraveling, untangling operation in our nation's history. [applause] >> in what was considered a major upset, democratic president harry truman defeated thomas dewey, keeping the white house for four more years.

watch historic presidential elections turday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 2. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are decided with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: welcome back. for the next 30 minutes we are an open forum. give us a call and discuss any public policy issue that is important to you. we will get to those calls in a moment. first, wanted to show you this

headline from the wall street journal. front page, "swing state battle is tied. a new poll says the survey of most contested states finds harris with a slim lead in arizona, michigan, wisconsin and georgia on ballots including independence and third-party candidates that will be offered as options. trump has a narrow edge in nevada, north carolina and pennsylvania but no lead is greater than two percentage points except for trump's five point advantage in nevada which puts others in the margin of error. across other swing state voters, trump has 46% support and harris draws 45%. the presidential election is too close to call. if harris wins the states where she leads in the polls, she will

win with a narrow majority in the electoral college." another headline from the washington post, "dnc releases ads attacking green party's joel stein. it says advisors to vice president kamala harris still say the final outcome in swing states could hinge on the remaining independent and third-party contenders who are collectively drawing about 5% of the vote in public polls. in response to democratic national committee on friday, launched its first television ad targeting the candidacy of joel stein, the green party candidate who has been registering at about 1% of the vote in the northern swing states. the ad will run on television in wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania along with national broadcasts on cable news. the dnc did not announce how

much money would be put behind this spot. here is that ad just released by the dnc." ♪ >> joel stein green party candidate for president. but wire trump's allies -- why are trump's allies helping her? she is not sorry she helped trump win. a vote for stein is really a vote for trump. >> i like her very much. she takes 100% from them. >> i am kamala harris and i approve this message. host: we will start hearing from our callers, frankie on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: as a college-educated graduate and a citizen of this country, i wish someone would explain to me how that in 1973

an amendment was added to the constitution of this country, roe v. wade in 1973, when that amendment was unconstitutional when it was added. you cannot amend the constitution of this country that pertains to only one segment of united states citizens. and that one segment was women. and that excludes all male citizens. and yet, it was added unconstitutional whenever it was added to the constitution. host: tony in asheville, north carolina on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? thank you for c-span.

i wanted to bring up the topic of our recent disaster that has fallen off of the front page. it is something we will be dealing with for years to come. i am fortunate that i own two homes. one in asheville and one in black mountain, both of which were spared. my home in black mountain, the river runs less than a mile away and five people were drowned less than a mile from my home. i consider myself extremely lucky. i wanted to address a lot of the stories will the rumors and conspiracy theories going around about this disaster in north carolina. it is amazing to me that people will grab onto something like this and spin the most outlandish tales for some political advantage. i think part of it is the fact that when a crisis came under former president trump in the form of the covid-19 crisis, it

was an abysmal failure. he failed to address so many natural disasters and so many things affecting the common people in this country, i cannot believe people would want to go back to that. i would like to say thanks so much to all of the fema people come in the national guard, the local state volunteers that have been here moving food and water and ice into the area. i was without electricity for 10 days. i just got it back yesterday. i still have no running water and no estimate as to when it will be restored. we are perhaps weeks away as the water plant was destroyed. they have been bringing drinking water, food, bags of ice, essential supplies ever since the second day after the storm as soon as they got the interstate open in the area. i hope people will remember the history of the republican party

when it comes to appropriating funds for natural disasters in this country. please pray for the people in asheville and black mountain whose lives have been lost, whose properties have been lost and who will have to rebuild. they will need help around here for a long time. i do not believe that a republican administration will provide. remember that when you go to vote. thank you. host: glad to hear you are doing ok, tony. this headline in this morning's washington post, "disaster funds on fumes. the small business business demonstration which provides low-interest loans for millions is set to run out of funds for hurricane victims within days. the sba administrator isabel guzman told congress late thursday as officials tally the extent of hurricane milton's damage on the heels of hurricane helene. without urgent action from

congress, the agency would be forced to stop offering new disaster assistance. isabel guzman wrote in a letter obtained by the washington post, the sba issues loans worth as much as $100,000 for renters, $500,000 for homeowners and $2 million for business owners. the agency has roughly $50 million left in disaster loan authority but officials expect to run out in the next several days due to escalating demand." it goes on to say if the agency runs out of funding, is guzman says it will continue processing loan applications up to the point of payment so that they can quickly distribute funds when congress provides additional funding. the federal emergency management agency also provides disaster relief and its budget is unrelated to the sba's potential shortfall.

cm in new mexico on the independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to say a few words. i read in the bible where it talks about the law and it describes lucifer and it describes donald trump completely. it is completely inaccurate to see how all of these christians are voting for the devil. that's all i want to say. host: paul in kingston, new york on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i would like to say something about ukraine. you have to hear the actual story about what has happened in the ukraine on american news.

there was a democratically elected member in the ukraine. we overthrew it several years ago. those we put in power in the ukraine were photographed and filmed running through the streets carrying american confederate flags and nazi flags. those pictures were published over the world. there is another myth out there about that time, the nasty russian sent tanks into crimea. actually that never happened. what happened in crimea was devoted to join russia in a referendum because they were afraid of us. they were watching what we were doing in ukraine and they were afraid that they were going to be next. the road that was taken there with the referendum was covered by international poll watchers and observers from 12 different nations and they all agreed that it was a fair, free, honest vote. still waiting to see that. that was all covered at the time it happened.

but since then the fairytale has been out there and everybody is hunkering down, meeting for the -- waiting for the mean russians to do their thing. we learned nothing from vietnam, believe me. thank you for having me on. host: van from el paso, texas on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring it back to the guns. when i was young i used to hunt deer. but now i am older. my eyesight is terrible and my hands shake. i am not the person you want to have a gun. i foster dogs. a lot of my dogs look like coyotes or foxes. when i take my dogs off the leash in the desert, people in the desert like to go target shooting. i don't mind that.

i don't have a problem with that. but i do worry when the sun comes up and they start firing the guns, i am worried that i might get hit or my dog might get hit accidentally or maybe on purpose. i think there has to be a way that people can have their guns but leave open spaces open to people like me who just want to go out and enjoy the desert without having to hear gunfire or worry about a stray bullet. that is what i wanted to say. thank you so much. host: john in california on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to first say that the guy from new mexico, you should have cut him off. while you would call trump satan, that is wrong. you should cut these guys off.

i have been a businessman all my life. i do the numbers. i like to talk about kamala harris's numbers. she talks about raising corporate taxes by 7%. she talks about raising capital gains 40%. we talked about trickle-down economics. there is something called trickle-down taxation. when you raise a corporation's cost by 8%, they will pass that down to the consumer. what you are going to get with kamala is that we are going to go after the corporations, but those corporations make a profit and they will pass the expense down to the consumer. so you are really not accomplishing anything except increasing inflation. i challenge kamala's economic plan and i want to get it out to

the public that the democrats have high inflation and we have it down to a little bit better. if you let kamala and she enacts these corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, it will trickle down to the consumer and it especially hurts the low income consumer. that is my point. i hope you vote for trump. he is not satan. have a good day. host: matt in massachusetts on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad i went after that guy. i don't know what planet this guy is on where he has an issue of people calling trump satan. that isi do not understand. this trump goes around playing nazi book one 01, the most

basic play of calling people -- saying that people eat dogs and the dehumanization. he has more than satan, he has a vile human being. and then the reason i called and was hearing the first callers or one of the first talking about his problem with roe v. wade. i do not know what planet these guys are on. it is like we are living in the medieval era where we have conservatives talking about bible stuff like it is 1602. i do not care about your religion. i do not respect it or think about it. it is irrelevant and embarrassing that i live with people who are just in a cold in every way -- cult in every way and walk of life. trump is a vile persian -- person and you should be essay -- ashamed as a man and a human for supporting that guy. what i will always remember as a

40-year-old is walking around with people like these guys who are just clueless. clueless. this is literally how hitler got into power and dehumanize people and how he turn people against each other. i do not get it. really i think about it and it has to be the misinformation bubble. we started with conservatives her -- hooked on fox news and radio crab like a drug in their iv going into the brain rot center and then we turned it into social media where it was catalyzed and every form of disinformation has been catalyzed. i have been listening to c-span for literally 20 years and it is just dumbed down and i cannot listen to it anymore because we have crazy old people calling in from another planet and culture that just cannot grasp. host: that was matt.

former president trump was at a rally in aurora, colorado. here he is talking about his proposed nationwide effort to target suspected members of immigrant criminal gangs. [video clip] >> upon taking office we will have an operation aurora at a federal level. [cheering] to expedite the removal of these savage gangs, and i will invoke the alien enemies act of 1798. 1798. this was put there. this is a long time ago, right? to target and dismantle every megan -- every migrant criminal network. who would've ever thought that a president or future president would have to stand here and say such things.

who would think that is even possible to do. so many things are changing in the last four years. that is the state of our country after kamala harris and joe biden destroyed our country. we are a country and tremendous distress. we are a failing country and we are left out all over the world. we will send elite squads to hunt down arrest or deport any last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left. and if they come back, into our country they will be told it is an automatic 10 year sentence in jail with no possibility of parole. [cheering] and i am hereby calling for the death penalty for any migrant that kills an american citizen

or a law enforcement officer. [cheering] [end video clip] host: a couple of programming notes. former president trump will be speaking wh tino vers in a roundtab ilas vegas, nevada today. live for coverage at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now and the free veopp or online at c-span.org. he ial going to be making an appearance in coachella, california. you can follow c-span for coverage of that event as well. also i wanted to let you know at 1:00 p.m. this afternoonth 2024 republican vice presidential nominee jd vance will be at aalgh -- a rally in johnstown, pennsylvania and you can watch that on c-span, our app or c-span.org.

josephine in new jersey on the independent line. that morning. caller: good morning. i want to talk frontline on public television. frontline has been on almost 50 years, longer than c-span. and suddenly they had two programs on. one was on the vice presidency, he choice. and the other one was on the president. i wish everybody would take the time to look at it because warts and all, they present to you each individual, where they came from and what they stood for. it is sad that we are at a point of misinformation and nobody wants to acknowledge it. simply there was a news report that finland of all places does not have this problem and i thought they do not have this

problem? and they said no, we teach in school not to go to social networks because social networks lie. they are all propaganda and these children when they are taught they do not have a problem with misinformation. no wonder they are that happy country in the world. i am beginning to think that finland has an answer that we do not adhere to. the other thing, when we removed -- when both parties were about to present the issue, we removed the truthfulness to an issue. i had a cousin who said to me you know, who knows about project when he 25 -- project 2025. and i said the organization behind it was the heritage that everybody who wrote it came from

trump's cabinet. i mean, every single one who wrote it came from trump's cabinet. if you do not understand what is going on i am saying you are going to repeat and it will go on. "mein kampf" was written by hilter and he told you what you would do. and when trump went in 2022 and it is on c-span. he thanked the heritage for writing it for him and would use it for his bible when he went into office. as usual he lied. just now recently when he indicated that he gave covid testing kits to putin, and he said i never did that. guess who said that he did, putin? what else is new? host: i wanted to give you a heads up because you brought up "frontline" and we do have a guest scheduled to join us next

week to discuss the new documentary "year of war: israelis and palestinians." you can follow our coverage for more of that. john in california on the republican line. good morning. caller: how are you? i wanted to call about the supreme court. you know the decisions that the decedent -- that the supreme court makes dealing with the law and constitutional review. i have about 40 years of experience in the community college environment. i was teaching government full-time. i do have background in this. the relationship of the supreme court to the constitution is one of support. and that is spelled out in article six of the constitution. the mechanism where the president vetos things, people need to understand that the world veto does not exist in the

constitution. what the president does is review legislation. and what drives the legislation is the first sentence in the constitution, article one, section one. in that it begins that all legislative power will exist in congress. that is the first sentence. legislative power is the power to write law to revise laws, or to get rid of laws. again, the word all, it means everything. you cannot alter legislation, only congress can do this. how does the supreme court get involved? there is no basis for the supreme court to have that kind of power because in article six they can support the constitution but not interpret

it. the person who interprets the constitution's article two. the president or the person who will be president takes an oath, and on completing it they are the president. in that statement the president says that they will protect, conserve, and defend the constitution. the world defend -- the word defend does not exist anywhere else in the constitution. the way to deal with the supreme court, i think on the part of the president, is to use the same mechanism that he uses on the congress which is if they want to make a statement, they need to have the president review it. and the president does not send a message back to the supreme court, he sends the message to congress and shows his -- and says this position is unconstitutional. and congress can override the president by a two thirds vote.

that would bring this whole process of checks and balances to the way it is supposed to operate. that is my $0.02 on it. host: mike on the line for democrats. good morning. mandy: hello and -- caller: hello and good morning on the segments. i live on the border of new york city. i have never seen a gun in my life, never heard one shot or had one pulled on me. i leave my doors open half the time at light -- at night because i forget to lock one of them. i am not afraid of anything. people drive like idiots. that is the worst thing here. so i would just like to put out a word. we just hit another stockmarket record on friday which is not bad for a bunch of communists. in march joe biden added more

jobs than the jobs we lost during covid plus another 8 million. the economy is phenomenal. inflation is down to two something now which is where it was before covid. the c.h.i.p.s. act and i bring this up to trump people. republicans are going to be taking credit for this for the next 20 years. it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in my lifetime and i am in my 60's. you know, i also have a family member who has dealt with trump since he was 15 years old. and he really has not changed much. he tried to do something to a woman when he was 15 years old. i will not go into it. so, you know, for everybody out there who wants to vote. i am curious.

i want to see trump win, to see how bad he destroys the country and the constitution and fda and noaa and everyone else. they get what they deserve. so, any trump supporter i ever speak to, they have no idea what is going on. they do not know how to pass a bill. they think that the president should be able to snap his fingers and do what they want. host: i will leave it there because i want to get in a couple more calls. melissa in california on the line for independents. caller: i was calling in regards for some of the programs they are running in california. this is to reduce your energy. it has been such a fraud. i have two households, different households and different properties. and this program that they funded to bring down the energy

is being run by all of these people who are undocumented. and my bills had gone up. and i tested it and they have told me to call them and have them turn it back around. so all of these programs that are being run, people need to be aware that it is all of a -- it is all a scam. i wanted to let people know. host: peewee in virginia, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes. i wanted to say that my issue with trump is morality. jd vance told people to go to hell. i am not to go -- i am not going

to vote for a man who tells you to go to hell. on the morality part. the morality part is, and the insurrection. did he think it was the democrats or republicans who had these people actually going to the hill. whether we are white or black. i am the cofounder of a group in northern virginia. it is interracial from high school and it is called the brotherhood. what kind of brotherhood has mr. trump shown in anything. women are the morals foundation. and from --

and saying we are the party of abraham lincoln. come on. host: we got your point and we have to leave it there because we are out of time. next we are going to be joined by paul glastris who is going to discuss his recent reporting on what he refers to as the overlooked demographic of state college voters. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. near gorsuch and a former law

clerk talk about the founding ideals of democracy, liberty and equality and a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the african-american women who worked at nasa's computer pools. one of their achievements was helping calculate the apollo 11 mission that sent men to the moon. watch historic presidential elections, exploring what made them historic, the pivotal issues of different eras and a lasting impact on the nation. next the election of 1948 when harry truman defeated thomas dewey in 1948 to win a full term for the white house. and on lectures in history, jamie myers on southeast native american tribes during the 18th century and the impacts of colonialism, american resolution -- revolution and the emergency of the united states.

and then angela beauchamp looks at how eleanor roosevelt used television to promote her social causes. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. >> booktv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 7:30 p.m. eastern speak with kirk cameron for our about books, -- broadcast when he talks about "born to be brave" on american culture and faith and he discusses a series of children's books and his experience hosting story hours. at 9:00 p.m., tammy bruce the author of "fear itself" argues that liberals sphere her as a

political and social weapon and suggests ways for conservatives to respond. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, rig schulte examines the future of work and how to better align workplace culture with the needs of american workers in her book "overwork." and connie chung shares her memoir about her life and rear as journalism serving as the first woman to cohost the cbs evening news. watch booktv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program line or watch anytime online at booktv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is paul glastris, the editor and chief of "washington monthly" and we will discuss his story on state

college voters and how it could impact campaign 2024. welcome to the program. i want to show you that headline from your article, the overlooked demographic that is a huge opportunity for democrats and you look at what you call state college voters. explain who you are talking about. guest: so, your viewers probably know that the big demographic shift happening politically in the country is called the diploma divide between voters who do not have a college degree and those that do. that is an important trend. but 60% of americans have a college degree or -- a community college degree or spent some time in college. that is a big chunk of people who are college-educated to some extent. and there are big differences in that group and that is what this article is about. the most -- the biggest percentage of bachelors degrees come from what they call

regional public universities. these are colleges that typically have state in their name. or the location of the college. say, northern illinois university. or you know washington state. and they are, 45% of degrees come from there. they tend to be open access. do not need the highest sats to get in and they tend to be reasonably priced. only 5% of voters come from the elite colleges, harvard and yale and so forth. but the press and political consulting class tends to group them together. and politically and culturally, graphically there are big differences between the colleges that most people go to and the colleges that national media and political step -- political class and thanks that people

went to because they went there. either party really can take advantage of this class of voters that i coined the state college voters but i think that the democrats are better positioned. host: when you say that they are overlooked, all of these college-educated voters are lumped in, but why in particular is this demographic, that specific demographic overlooked. guest: partly for the reason i said, that we tend to thanks that all colleges are the same. me give you an example. the gaza protest that happened and are still happening a little bit but happened big-time in the spring and summer, overwhelmingly they happened at the 5% of elite colleges. very rarely did any of those happen at the community colleges or the regional public universities. and yet if you were to read the media you might think that they are everywhere. i will give you another example.

five points -- at columbia university there are six liberal students for every one conservative student. at the university of texas el paso it is to-one. these colleges still lean liberal but less so. for the most part, people who go to regional public universities are from the area and get their degrees and more or less stay within a commuting distance of where they grew up and build their lives there. at the elite colleges people come from elsewhere and they go to basically big cities. so the demographics are different. the attitudes that people have are different. and yet, there is not data out there to help reporters and others understand those differences. host: why don't pollsters focus on that specific demographic? guest: that is a good question

and i asked them about it and they say you are probably right. one told me people do not think they are members of this group. if you said -- if i said to you you went to a regional public university, even though you went to one you might not know the term. so, it is hard to poll someone that does not know they are a member of the group. but i think that mostly they have a look and a thought that this is a distinct group but there is a tendency to lump everyone who went to college in the same group and everyone who did not go to college in the same group and there is a big difference. host: when we look at typically the republicans might say liberal college-educated, when we hear that, is there a -- do we know and is that something that they would like to look at for who that specific

demographic is actually supporting when it comes to voting? guest: look. there are plenty of republicans with college degrees and plenty of democrats do not -- who do not have college degrees. the trend is for the former to move to the democrats and the latter to remove the republicans but there is still room for both parties. tim walz when he introduced himself at the democratic convention of chicago, the first thing he said was i grew up in a small town with 24 members of my house school class and none of them went to yale. that was a clear day get jd vance. he was trying to portray vance as the elite and he, tim, as the regular guy. and he has done it a couple of times instead. that is kind of what i am talking about. that is an ear for the differences. what we have in this particular race is on the democratic side

both walz and kamala harris, and their spouses attended regional public universities or the equivalent and on the republican side you have jd vance with a yale degree and donald trump with a university of pennsylvania degree. so we have the first all ivy league republican ticket in history. that is a kind of thing that could be played on, and whether they do or not or recognize it i do not know. host: we are talking with paul about his article, looking at state college voters. if you have a question or comment you can start calling in now. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. paul, i want to share some data with you looking at the u.s.

population by education level. this is from 2003. the highest level of education for the population age 25 and older as of 2022, 9% had less than a high school diploma or equivalent. 28% had a high school as the highest level completed. 15 hpleted some college but not a degree. 10% had an associates degree. had a bachelor's degree as thei highest and 14% had completed advanced education such as a masters degree, professional degree or doctorate. when we look at those last two numbers, 23 and 14, it is still only about one third of people who have a college degree. is there a misunderstanding about who college-educated voters are we here and the word

elite? guest: i think there is. it is that you went to a very selective university and you are making $400,000 a year and you live in a penthouse apartment in new york. that is different than if you went to southwest missouri state and you make $75,000 or $80,000 a year and you live where i grew up in baldwin, missouri. that is a different voter, different politics and worldview and sense of themselves. they are both college-educated. and you appeal to those folks with different messages. they have different interests and identity is. and i think it is not going to happen in this election. the data is not there and people do not know how to play with it.

but the percentage of the country that is college-educated is growing. the percentage of the country that is not is shrinking. over time this is going to be where the votes are. and you know, political professionals love to slice and dice us into different categories and this will be a category i think at some point, and this is a guess at my point. host: we will start with michael in florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder if he would talk a little bit about what he does and why he got interested in this. i have a statement. perhaps you are unaware. i had called earlier and spoken about the issue of textbooks being altered nationwide by our governor, desantis, where he bragged on a video clip i came

across of basically bullying all of the textbook publishers into removing what he thought of his woke material. governor newsom announced that he was investigating that. last week i noticed he had done a tweet with bill nighy the science guy saying the u.s. constitution saying kids have a right to be taught the truth. i'm wondering what those kids are being taught, especially in state colleges, where desantis has put a big effort to ban d.e.i. and all kinds of things. this affects how we view the world and may explain some of the differences between the republicans and democrats at a most basic level. their view of the world is different because children are being taught natural law as being about purely competition. that's factually and

scientifically untrue. the constitution says we are supposed to teach the truth. the truth is, cooperation rules in every cell of every living creature. there is another creature that used to be free living and it formed a symbiotic relationship, our mitochondria, the energy and every one of our cells every living creature comes from. cooperation is the ruler. host: all right, michael. we will get a response from paul. guest: it is not a new story that large states that buy textbooks often have a politics that they demand things that they want in and out of the textbook and all of the rest of the states lined up using most textbooks because the publishers don't want to be writing an individual textbook for vermont or montana or whatever. on how i got interested in this, since 2005 the washington

monthly produced an alternative college ranking and we do investigative work on colleges, college finance, policy. this year's issue was devoted to regional public universities. we think they are the engines of upward mobility in this country in higher education. unfortunately, very much underfunded and underfocused on. that led me to write the article. host: how did your team decide to focus on this regional university and also explain how this year's ranking is different from other rankings that people may see u.s. news college report? guest: u.s. news & world report, the dominant ranking, typically has ranked colleges based on three main criteria.

wealth, literally how much a college spends per student. exclusivity, how few students they allow in. and prestige, they do a survey of college leaders and if those leaders think that you are in an important, great school you are said to be a great school in their metrics. we do a very different set of rankings based on different criteria. instead of wealth, exclusivity, and privilege, we measure upward mobility, the record of a college recruiting and graduating students of modest means with degrees that don't cost too much or lead to too much debt and lead to good incomes. upward mobility research, whether a university is creating the scholars and scholarship that drive economic growth in technology and so forth. and service, whether students are encouraged to vote, serve

their country, are they in americorps? a very different set of criteria. there is overlap with the u.s. news at the top, but to give you a sense of how different we are, only three regional public universities are in the top 100 national universities on the u.s. news ranking. 16 are in the top 100 of hours. our attempt to highlight more the colleges that most people go to, and u.s. news highlights the elite colleges. host: if you would like to look at the ranking that washington monthly did, you can find it at washingtonmonthly.com. it is a different kind of college drinking. next, cheryl in south carolina on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am a 40-your educator, in particular a historian, and i listen to c-span every morning to hear the perspectives in america. i am a little concerned. the pew research on various groups and how they tend to lean, one of them was obviously the educated tend to lean democratic, as paul said, but i'm interested in knowing, how are the educated evangelicals polling or leaning? what poles are they leaning towards? democratic, republican? that is an interesting question. guest: i don't have a good answer, but i suspect it leans very strongly republican, because evangelicals in general lead that way -- lean that way. host: i wanted ask another question of this headline, harris overtakes tom among

suburban voters. poll showing what does the overlap of state college voters and suburban voters look like? guest: is very much the same group. that's who probably disproportionately lives in the suburbs. a little less than half of everyone who is college educated comes from these regional public universities. another 20% or 30% come from either colleges that are not super elite and those are the people who, for the most part, inhabit suburbs. host: mark in little river, south carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. what i want to say is, we need a college of common sense. there is no college of common sense these days. if you look at the professors, they are very liberally taught in the universities.

if you actually look at the vice president that's running, her father was teaching marxism economics in stanford university. this is what these kids are learning. i don't even know if they go to school anymore because they are too busy protesting. i'm just making that statement and i hope people learn the college of common sense. i went to a college. i went to a good parochial college. so, thank you and have a good day. host: any response from mark? guest: i don't have much to say. host: when we look at other data on college-educated voters, like gender and race, these graphics are from the census. 36.2% of men completed a

bachelors degree or higher. race, this is by population. 48.1% of white, 28.6% of black, 58.9 percent of asians, 29% of hispanics had college degrees in 2020. to those demographics play into who the state college voter is? guest: part of the battle between the harris and trump campaigns are for the white vote. it's closer than you think. people tend to think, the republicans have won the white vote. they do edge them out, but it's not like all college-educated people vote for democrats. there are plenty of republicans in that camp who are

college-educated. i think one of the questions is, does college-educated swing voters, my understanding is, don't take easily to conspiracy theories and bashing of the educated. that is getting to their identity. that's uncomfortable for them. what i think is happening is donald trump and his campaign are going all in for the high school vote, may be missing some of these college voters. i think that the harris campaign is understanding that the college vote, the numbers are shifting wildly in their direction. whether they understand the class elements, i don't know. host: something that you mentioned earlier is the fact that the current gop ticket is the first all ivy league

educated ticket. when you look at who the gop traditionally had gone after, voters, the working class, is that a turnoff when they pushed aside these elites? guest: again, everything is potential here. i don't think either party has understood that in the broad middle of the country are college-educated voters who do not consider themselves elites. it is kind of a working-class college-educated group. people who grew up working-class. who didn't have a lot of money growing up, who went to the least expensive college nearest where they live, probably had to work during college to help cover the tuition, stuck around where they grew up, very proud of their communities.

they hear people with fancy degrees talking about how smart they are and cool the places are where they live, and these folks from the regional public universities think that their snobs -- they are snobs. there is that. i'm painting with a broad brush, but i have family like this. there is nothing more potent in politics than a group that has both reasons to be proud and aggrieved at the way they are being treated and someone sees them for the first time. think of reagan democrats in the 1980's or unmarried women in the 2000 or the double negatives today. once those groups existed and no one thought of them. they think that this is a coherent group even though they don't think of themselves as a group, and you can begin messaging and doing policies for

their consumption. i think the regional public university group is such a group . in five or 10 years there will be politics around it. host: virginia, the line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: i am in woodbridge, virginia. i have a comment for college education people, public, in america. i don't think 60% of americans are well educated, i think 1% or 2%. they never -- they never asked the right question. for example taxes. if someone gets $10 per hour, if they pay taxes, through tax,

sales tax, gas tax, they have two dollars left. 40% tax, every time you buy something he pays tax. the money goes back to the government. the people in america, food, shelter, anything, college-educated people know as the right question so i think only 1% or 2% of the public are educated, not 60%. are you sure 60% of americans are college-educated? that is the question for you. guest: 60% have some college or a degree. given how educated they are, this gentleman has a different opinion. host: mary in washington on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning tammy and paul i think it is glastris?

did you say that you went to washington university? host: i did. go cougs. caller: i have three and my family. did you have to drive over the mountain pass? host: i sure did. caller: we paid off our student loans, my husband and i. my point is, i'm concerned about all of the studies and interest in young voters. our daughters, they go by what we told them. they signed their ballots and filled them out with us standing there. i don't understand how we can let people who support hamas vote in our country. it really disturbs me, and i think that if you are under 24 you shouldn't have to vote. i don't want you deciding who is running our country at all.

that is my comment. guest: the constitution disagrees with her, but yeah. host: mark in fort lauderdale, florida on the line for democrats, good morning, mark. caller: hello, good morning. thank you very much for washington journal. i am a product of state colleges. i grew up in cincinnati, ohio, which originally the university of cincinnati was a city college. the year that i entered it and became a state college. -- it became a state college. i'm enthusiastic and supportive of state colleges. laura -- florida i think has the second-most state colleges in the state. i mean, in the country. you had a caller earlier complaining about desantis and what he done to some of the textbooks and such, but the fact of the matter is florida's state

colleges have been under assault by republicans for years and years and years. among other things, going back a while, florida state, a lot of money was donated for buildings or a college of certain things. in return, they wanted control over who worked in those things. who the professors were. also, along the way, florida somehow seems to have colleges like a retirement system for politicians. every time that a politician retires he somehow ends up with the job in a four to state college, running it as the president or whatever the top guy's name is nowadays in those things. even more recently, the university of florida, which is our number one state college, at one time, ben sasse, they

appointed him the head of that college. a politician from nebraska somehow becomes a florida college president. he had to resign recently over some problems and that sort of thing. also, not too long ago, one of our other colleges, a republican lawmakers who was arrested for imitating a law-enforcement officer somehow became the president of that college under desantis. the comments that you have gotten about colleges are liberal, the professors are all liberal, i've never accepted that argument. students may become liberal because they are being taught that you can be open-minded. someone called you earlier complaining about the vice president's father worked teaching communism in stamford.

stanford is not a state college. it is a private college. in fact, it is notoriously conservative. a lot of the stuff doesn't make sense. it has been a long-term project of republicans and conservatives to attack the college system and that is basically it. i would like to hear what your guest has to say about it. guest: there is no question that under ron desantis, the governor of florida, he has had an agenda to shift the colleges from the left to the right. he took over new college, which was -- washington actually did a story on this. it did fine on our rankings, but in his opinion it was too liberal. it is interesting. florida public colleges, the flagship and the regionals, do well on the washington monthly rankings. states that put money into their

higher education system lower the cost of the people can afford to go and run them well , they tend to do well on our rankings. ford is one of the more successful ones. one other point. public universities, 45% of all bachelors degrees come from there, they get 10% less per student than flagship universities. they don't get as much federal research dollars, they don't have big endowments. compared to the elite private schools, they get a fraction. these are the colleges that are educating the most americans, doing the most good in that sense, and getting the least amount of money. kind of crazy. host: it is something that you talk about in the article. you could potentially see an impact of harris and walz were to win? guest: absolutely. your viewers may recognize that

community colleges have kind of become a subject of debate in washington. there have been big pieces of legislation to try to put more emphasis and money on them. that started under the obama-biden administration. joe biden's wife, jill, teaches at a community college. i think if we ca harris-walz -- see a harris-walz administration we will see focus which hasn't been talked about much at all. host: david in new jersey. good morning, david. guest: thank you. a quick complement and then a criticism. the eastern state universities can't come close to the excellence of the midwestern state universities. i will not belabor all of the names, but the wisconsins, indianas, illinois, the

university of columbia, the oldest journalism school in the nation. my other comment is that estimates are about one third of everybody who goes to the ivy league schools, harvard, princeton, yale and the wannabes like colgate university, they frequently end up in the state department or in their parents' corporations. they are enormously rich. they are from the original new england group. they joined fraternities, they drink, they party, they have nothing to worry about. they are legacy students. thank you for taking my comment. guest: i don't think that that is quite fair. i went to the university of missouri and drank and partied in a fraternity. there is a lot of that out there . it essentially is the case that more selective a school the

higher percentage of students from wealthy families. that's just a fact. host: karen in lexington, virginia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have one simple question. when did the university of pennsylvania become an ivy league school? guest: good question. founded by ben franklin, and it has been a private university from the beginning. so, it has been as long as the ivy league has been around it has been part of it. host: charlie from texas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, charlie, you are on. caller: i would like to ask, do they have any studies where smaller state colleges, how effective they are in the state

teacher college systems that you have in some states. how effective they are? guest: you can go to washington monthly, washingtonmonthly.com, and look at colleges with state in their name by zach marcus, and it has fascinating data that says -- most state colleges are not 20,000 or 30,000 students. most are smaller. because of what i was saying before, regional public universities draw their students from about a 100 mile radius of the campus. 80% or 90%, 70%, of the students settle in that area. they have a better return on investment for state taxpayers than the flagship universities.

the universities of michigan s are not as good of a deal for taxpayers as grand valley state in grand rapids. you are educating people, they are making more money, they are staying in the area, and they are contributing their time and efforts cynically. -- efforts civiclly. i hope that answers the question. host: there were a lot of different breakdowns of different types of degrees, the best and worst schools for that particular degree. what kind of response have you gotten from that polling? guest: overwhelmingly people love our rankings. they especially love our best bang for the buck rankings where we are only looking at the part about upward mobility. we say, the family at median income and below, how do the colleges treat them?

what kinds of incomes are they making later? what debt are they carrying? we break that down by region. a lot of great colleges that probably a lot of people haven't heard of dominate the top 20% or 30% of the list. i would say if you are a parent or a student, any of those colleges in our washington monthly's best bang for the buck list will be a good place for your tuition dollars. host: looking at the 2024 rankings for the northeast, to your point of some of them may not be known, the number one is the massachusetts institute of technology. most people would be familiar with that. but charter oak state college in connecticut came in next. guest: the state university of new york colleges, the city university of new york colleges,

they are doing a better job, under our measures, then a lot of the fanciest schools. you can get into the schools for certainly under $10,000, sometimes $5,000 a year. that is still a lot of money for people, but if you look at the worst on the lists, you would be shocked to see what they are charging and how little you make when you get out of college. host: michael in texas on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead, michael. you are on. caller: you can hear me, ok. i only need about 30 seconds. my wife and i were going to galveston, but i only need 30 seconds. if someone out there can really help us. first of all -- this has been

going on for years. the university of phoenix has demolished my life. -- my wife. they never really told her the price -- sorry if i get emotional about this, but goodness. this has ability to -- oblivia ted us. my wife, heidi, a lot of you already saw -- anyways, i put her through college. she wanted to stay with the library system. i helped her through college. they billed us for $78,000 and they also went after the military too with us./ anyways, after she got done, they gave her the wrong degree. when she went back to the library after covid.

anyways, her kids, as some of you already know -- host: can you summarize your comment, we are running out of time. caller: anyways, they added a $200,000. this is what they are doing to us. anyways, i just wanted to make that comment. it went from $78,000 to over $200,000. host: i got your point, michael. guest: yes, there are very bad universities out there. my guess is if you look at the bottom of our ranking some of the university of phoenix campuses fall in there. we have a best and worst graduate programs, colleges for

grad degrees. the first time we've done that using data that has never been used before. again, the pattern is the same. a lot of the for-profits do not do well. a lot of the most prestigious colleges do not do well. our alma mater, you and i both graduated from northwestern, grad degrees, it does terribly in certain -- they have a counseling degree that leaves people with 178,000 dollars in debt for jobs that pay $55,000. 55 miles away in aurora where president trump just spoke, you can get more or less the same degree for 1/6 the amount of debt and make more money. the same with yale. a yale nursing degree costs more

than $150,000 a year and pays less than a degree from a regional public university like the university of texas el paso. and a university of texas el paso grad makes more money five years out. i feel for the gentleman. it is happening a lot. we need more policing of our colleges. host: our guest, paul glastris, is the editor and chief of "washington monthly." if you would like to find more information on their rankings of universities, you can find it at washingtonmonthly.com. thank you for being with us today. guest: my pleasure. host: that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning with another program. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

>> c-span now,our front row

seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more. >> the world has changed.

today a reliable internet connection is something no one can live without so we are our customers with spe, followe conditions without difficulty for more than half a century and those basic requirements are crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons and domestic violence abusers. but they have tried to circumvent those violence. they framed and receiverso require minimal work. they advisedhe product as ridiculously easy to assble and dummy proof and touted that you can go from oning the mail to have a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes. no serial number, background check or records required. those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully purchase them or who plan to use them as crimes. as a result, our nio has seen

an explosion of crimes mmted with "ghost guns." the face of tha crisis, atf underscored two pnt first, a weapon parts kit that can berted to function as a gun witon tools often in under an hour is a cered firearm. second, a produc framef receiver under the act even in the buyer must drill a few holes or remove a few pieces of plastic to make it functional. it is consistent with how atf has implemented the act across five dad in 11 different presidenal administration. respondents seek a sea change in acts scope claim thought the fiarm in the 100% functional, it is missing one hole that could be drilled in seconds and semble into a gun, that product coulbe sold to anyone online with no background check, no records, and no ri

number. that contradicts the plain tex and it contradicts common sen. this court should make clear that the act regulates these products as what they are, firearms and frames and receivers of firearms. i welcome the court's questions. >> does this new regulation cover all of chapter 44? y. so i think that the understanding of a firearm reflected in the final rule does reflect the 922a-13 definition. >> would it also apply under 924? >> yesan so i think that also incorporates, though, the men'ss rea regards that responds have rais tt manufacturers could be swept up by these restrictions. it req a showing of wi willingfulness with respect to selling products without a

serial number or without a license. that you've been right.fact this h bn related for half a century but it wasn't regulated in this way for hf a century. what was theriginal reg? >> -- i agree that this rule reflects any approach because under that reg, atf recosed that even when that framer or receiver, the component wasn't yet fully finish ordinary complete, it would qualif as a firearm looking at the meactors listed in the rule. things like how much te it function?take to make it do you need special equipment in do you need to buy parts and are they readily available? so all long f68 on, the agency had consistently f quickly you can make that framer

receiver oonal as part of a working gun and the only change in t rule is that atf is now ting account of template is which are a form of tools because they owou where you have to drill in that weapon so there's no tria and error or guesswork but as atf exained the final rule, that wasn't a change in statutory interpretation, it was a change that jigs are the samfution like indexing to show you where you have to drill so mh it goes to the eson that the agencyas asked all along how quickly and efficiently can this process be completed. >> general, i'll looking at a s letters stretching back as far back as 1978. each of them basically used the same language that the current regulation is using agency letter in 1978 said w

evaluated an item on wheth had reached the stage of manufacture that it might be readily converted to functional con, correct? >> exactly right. and that refute suggestion that atf had w been applying a different standard over the -year history of the gun control. instead, atf looked at whether e em has reached the crypt stage of manufacture to make it functional. so it's not like these are entirely separate context as the 1978 classification letu made clear. and what steps you need to take to turn that into a functional framer receiver. reciever is just a block of

that's not readily convertible. so if i can p to one item that wou qualify, would -- could be swept up potly by the new regulation, is that enough to defeat a facial challenge? is it enough or is that always lied challenge? >> that is not enough to defeat a facial challenge. the only question the court should be asking in this case whether there is anything on the face of the rule at is contradicted by the statutory text.

and they cake that showing here. true that they tried to suggest and your question touches on the thathere might be particular marginal produt there that could test the bou whether something is converten but the those kinds of products in this case because that can all be adjudicated. >> you use the -- our statement versus ncir, which basical tracks you're just saying. but in renveus flores, we use a different standard and said that respondent to prevail must estabsh there are to of circumstances exists under which the regulion would be valid. you didn't go that route. >> that would be an even more stringent standard but we think under the inc standard, it is very clear that there's nothing

on the face of the gun control >> how about the washington state range standard which says even if there might be some apions that are imper missen, those applications could not render the rule vad so long as the rules have a plainly legitimate sweep. >> yes, and that anrd is satisfied as well here. you pnt to the hypothetical possibility of marginal case wheres a product could take a loof time tout petting. but -- put together. the "ghost kits and partially completed frame or receivers leaving up to this rule those are issues or products where the readi cvertible determination was not hard at all becauseheroducts designed and marketeto individuals who could put them together wh no specialized ill and often and under an hour with common hand tools. and so is a acknowledge the point that maybehe could be other applications of the rule

thatld test the bounds, but i think that under any conceivable standard for adjudicating the facial challenge, resndts have not come close to satisfy their burden to show thathe statutes rule.loses the standards and the >> what is the mning of the term weapon in 921a3a? >> that's an undefined term and carries its plain dictionary definition. but nothing in congress is used to the term at suggests it has to be functional in order to qualify and i would say t rest of thetaffry provision makes clear that the weapon mite have to undergo a conversion. >> but before it's converted, it must be a weapon. >> that's right. we don't dispute that. it has to be an instrument of combat desig and intended to be used in this wa and congress made clear that the

reason it used thateris because there are objects out there toys d ols that have a well-known non-weapon use but that actually do expel projectiles through the action of an explosive. a cap gun is an example of this. it expel bird shot. and itould set within the functional definition. to be used that way.t intended s it the case that a component that could easily be converted into something duty that thing before they are converted? as a matter of ordinary usage? >> it's a matter of ordinary usage. we're not suggesting that any statuary reference to one thing includes separate and distinct things that could be converted. under frame or receiver, that >> no, i want to sckith the definition of weapon for jt a second. here's bnk pad. and here's a pen. all right? is that a grocery list? >> i don't think that's a grocery list but the reason for

that is cae there are a lot of things you could use those products for to create something other than a grocery list. >> if i show you, i put out on a counter some eggs, some chpe up ham, some chopped up pepper and onions. is tt a western omelet? >> no, because those items he well-known other uses to become something other than an omet. these weapon parts kits are designed and intended to be used asnstruments of combat and they have no other conceivable use. d i think the further evidence come from the fact th respondents themselves agree that a dissembled gun qualifies as a weapon. so that's helpful so your definition i a group of components that are -- can readily be converted into mething and have no other use. they must have no other use in order to execute that thing. -- constitute that thing.

in that situation, they already constitute that thing. >> you can recognize that something is a weapon even if it's non-functional. >> no, that's true from the face of the statute because it s be -- it's sufficient if it's capable of being ced into something that can expel a projectile. all right. thank you. >> i just want to follow up on the question on the omelet. would your answer change if you ordered it from hello fresh and you got a kit and all of the ingredients are in a kit? >> yes, that presses on the more apt analogy here which is that we are not suggesting that scattered components that might have some entirely separate function could be aggregated and called a weapon in the absence of this evidence, but if you bought from trader joe's some omelet making kit that had all the ingredies make the omelet and maybe included whev you would need to start

the fire in order to cook the omeletnd had all that indicatit's what's being marketed and sold, we would recognize that as being sold. escily under statutory language that refers to something like breakfast foods or things that can be converted to make break difference between the the destructive device andne gun definitions that also referenced parts in way that this definition does not? i have been thinking about in 1968 in the gun control act why congress might havdo that diffy. and these guns weren't around. these kits are a more recent problem which doesn't cover the unintended consequence but in and i don't know enough the gun industrnow which is why i want your take on this. wasn't it the case then, i

think, that destr devices like grenades or even machine tended to buy whole because they were regulated andegal to purchase that as opposed to firearms. so they were generally purchased as components or things that were know, able to be converted or made. like it would make sense to think about that. i thinking about that corrtl >> yes, you're right about that relevant difference and now people were ordinarily constructing things lik destructive devices. and the important thingo recognize is that congress can use aty of verbal form policetaons to cover similar types of conduct, each of these other definitionshat responded refe t parts were enacted in different times from the definition of a firearm and they address different issues in the wath your question touched on. but what they are dng is ignoring the language the atute that congress did use in

it referred to things thaca be readily converted to ex pile a projectile. quite literally, the kit is inte and designed to pdu that functioning weapon in a very short amount. time by people who don't know anything about guns and can do it with little skills. >> general, i understand your argument under a with respect to things that could be readily converted but there's also an arme b, frame or receiver that might bring in this more obviously what's your thought ou that? >> i do think there's language ats unfair and it's the fact that congrfers to frame a receiver but didn't defi that term. it is true thatess used congress's definition of the term. that would be limited to operational weapons. so congress had a really good

reason to use the language there. >> moving on to b. >> cgrs didn't define the term which means it carries the plain and ordinary mean and a noun like frame or receiver includes object that are holes that need to be drilled. >> we can't think thay noun that congress uses and every word iu.s. code is used as a noun that cares with it things like justice alito's pen and pencil as a grocery st right? so there's got to be line that makes this on ur theory, the case, why we should read that into b here but not everywhere in the u.s. code. what are your thoughts? ight. so i want to be very clear that we think that this is a matter of ordinary meaning that you don't need it to be 100% complete. and that runs across the board. meioned a bicycle but it was missg pedals, you would still

recognize what that is. >> yeah, but if i'm not inclined to think thaevy noun is used in that way in the u.s. code. i mean, tuld be a very dramatic argument. ght? the fair notice tpele that every piece of paper and pen is a grocery list. you're on notice of tt. but is there something particular to this statute that you think would a more narrow approach? >> yes the context and purpose determine it. and the reason is becau throughout the federal firearms law, whenever congress has provided a definition, it has inud not only the fully complete and functioem but things that can be made to function that way. so that's congress's own incation in this statute that it's tto ensure coverage noonly of things that have the functionality of the fre receiver at the moment they're sold but frames or receivers that can be conve

>> if you have something tex rule, i wou le for you to point that. and your friend will mak something of this that as recently as 202in brief filed in a southern account of new york. >> with resp text, what we have is the turn frame or receiver that is notefined and the court has recognized ineed to interpret text and context. just one undrilled hole is enough, then that covers for framoreceiver -- >> does it help that c and d deal with muscle lesser -- mufflers and silencers that don't have frame or receir? does that help you? >> it goes to show that congress was trying to oay cover the scope of products that c qualify firearms and it refutes

respondent's suggestion here that every covered object under the statutory deafenings needs to have -- >> i'm wondering whether looking at c and dnd a which carries some broad language about not just complete items, might be a tex text -- tex rule way to cais feature. >> i think respondents are misreading that brief. theyugst that the brief today for the principal that atf was arguing that a frame or receiver has to be fully functional to qualify but if you look at that brief, it walks through the statutory and gutory history here and makes clear that repeatedly er five decades, atf has always looked at whethe a partial or

complete frame or receiver can be brought inondition. so there is no dramatic break in the way that atf has regulated throughout the entirety o the statute's history. >> i will look at that and last question for me and i'm soy to take up souctime. in the regulation, it indicates that a frame or receiver and i'm stuck on this b point, which has been cut into pieces is still a firearm. but one that's been shredded is not. difference between cut into pieces and sledding is, but -- shredding is but perhaps you can liten me there. >> this refers to when you already have a fullyete and functional f. what steps to formerly destroy that firearm and except it from regulation. >> so it's not convertible. >> so once you brought something from the regulatory scope of the

ute, it is a specialized term in the firearms inst, i can tell you that the most common way that you destroy a m is to torch cut it and with three specified cuts that -- >> well, i'm sorry to inrrt but this is about frames and receivers that i'm talking about and it's 48 --782c and e. ok? and it talks about partially complete dsembled or non-functional fmer receiver. that's what we're talking about, not the firearm. and, again, maybe there is a line that -- a through line that i couldn't find one between shredding and cutting into pieces. i thought that was pretty much the same thing. >> so that comes from 478.12e which i should note respondents t challenged in this case. about what it takes to destroy a ame or receiver or a regulated

object. they are not chall that here and the one thing that is before theou is the definition and rec -- >> no but it illuminatest is a sufficiently cplete frame or receiver if aomplete frame or receiver is not a firearm. and the only way can be sure that i don't he a fully complete or nearly complete or convertibly complete frame or receiver and therefore a firearm is to shred it and not cut it. >> oh, no. that's not accurate at all. asegulation itself makes clear, you don't even get to the qution of asking whether it's readily converted into functional shapenls you have the component part so youav something that is well along the way to bag frame or receiver and that's when you could conduct the inquiry and ts nothing in the rule or in the agency's pastraice to suggest that anything isn't shredded or

cut up or destroyed is going to be considered a frame or receiver. that would be entirely inconsis >> thank you. >> on to the rule, what percentage of parts of a firearm must be included to be a firearm kit? they come with a frame or a receiver usually the part that needs a cplof holes drilled. then the weapon parts kits generally come with the additional come points. if you are asking whether it would still qualify if it were missing other parts that is a matter of degree and press on what it means. so with aar missing it is super specialized and hard to track downr cost you a million dollars that might not be readily veteraned. but if you are missing a single

pin you could have ou the house it would be. i don't tnkhe court needs to consider all the p stations with respecto dip products. the things you need to ask did the agencyeasonably define the term readily and it gave the ordinary definition and did they entify relevant fact with time, expertise, scope of work and if your question touched on what parts would be needed. >> we have a clue from the starter gun asexample of something readilyvertible. as i understand it to make a gun operable you have to replace the bore so need a new bore part or drill out the exist willing bore on the starter gun and get a pin, correct? >> that'coect.

the post commonlyubcized top of mind for congress and c is the example of a gang member who bought the starter guns in bulk and had to drill out the plugged barrel or cut it off and rethread it and often you have en large the barrel son chamber common things. >> so incomplete items qualify. >> yes. i think it also shows as the statutory tbgts makes clear things not presently functioning as guns can be readily are covered ends subparagraph a. that is what they were trying to accomplish tt things are used as instruments of combat with minimum work would be win the federal firrms law. >> were weapons parts kits

common in 1968? >> there he ly been a couple of examples reflect. we cite the stewart casan witt case one an oozy ming kit and another making it possible through kitorm to construct a machine gun. it was not particularly common because the big development and technical development was using polymer to make this, a form of plastic. >> are there kits that consist of parts taken from disassembled firearms that have been altered in a way to make them nonfunctional without some modification? >> i'm not aware of any commercial product right now th fits that description. >> on what it means

readily convertible i dnow whether it is possible to do something - that is a statutory term -- more precise than what a.t.f. hasone, but it would be interesting if it would be helpful if you could perhaps explain a little more what that means. what lf expertise is taken into account, what collection of tools is taken into account? can you provide any time limit how long must it take some of us who are not and don't have a lot of mechaca ability have spent hours and hours trying to assemble things that we have p purchased. >> i'm with you on that justice alo someone who struggle with ikea furniture. i think the thi tpoints to is case law because t. was not coming with the factors of

nowhere but because we have 50 years of judicial precedent flushing out the contours. s a general matter what the courts and agency has said is r readily converted if a novice in a fairly quick amount oti can easily and efficiently convert the weapon to function. u asked outside bounds like s

. as i mentioned that removes all the tri a error

and makes it dummy ps the manufacturers have claimed it goes to the question all along which is howuickly, easily and efficiently this be made to function. it is no different from indexes on the frame or looked at apartments recognize if you put a dimple in the frame or body of the component that will speed up the process. proc work the same way >> let me ask you a broader question. sometimes this court looks at regulationsndt says, you know there's an old statute and it doesn't contemplate a new m and a new problem comes up and congress can't get its act together and deal with the old problem. so the agency takes auld stutory language that do not really fit the problem b vague enough or general enough orad enough so there could

be made to dealitthe new problem and this court has sometimes sd that is not right, the new statute -- the old statute had nothing to do withhinew problem and this is kind of the agency just taking over what is really congress's business. that a story line that the respondents here c tell about this regulation? >> no, i don't think there'sny way to characterize this regulati as an attempt to change the meaning of the statute to confront a new problem. first , this is an age old problem. i think congress recognized manufacturers might seek to evade central requirements. that is why they dinit whether it can be readily made. we think that is described. in somebody paragraph b it is

not a duaned term but we thin congress was tracking ordinary meaning which recognizes if you have the principal structural component of a handgun that can be rnted as a frame or receiver even ifisng a single final hole so i think it would be wrong to say it doesn't cover the situation. on top of that, we have context and purpose here. on respondent's theory of this statute it would be incredibly easy for any gun manufacturer to avoid the regulation and sealizing bronze check by leaving one l of the weapon unfinished clainthat is not what congres was intendingnd it brings this casequarely into cases where the court recognized if you have an interpretaonf the gun control acta will allow that entire circumvention the statute

shouldn't. >> you m want this to be a stronger cast. >> it is and the sirom srepbgs is more profound because it -the circumvention would be effectively all weapons going forward would not needs to be serializ sold with bronze checks and record keeping. >> your statutory interpretation has force, but i had s concern at the space sge and mens rea. this is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it was before. what about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware that they are valenting the law and gets clly charged? what assurancesan you give about mens rea,ut instructions to the jury that the government would seek and

the like? >> let me begin with the statutory standards which multipresses this. this is 18 u.s.c. 924, a, 1, d requiring willfulness. so if the manufacturer is not putting a serial until on because it bies in goods favorite it is rick lated it will not be criminally charge believe because the government cat prove mens rea. so that is a check. the something thing -- does willfully apply it tential processes? it applies if tre's to serial numbe if it is sold without a license. i believe that respect to not coucng a background check that is under a differe provision that requires knowledge but the entry point is whether or not it has a serial number and that is at the point

of manufacture. i want to emphasize -- >> how would that work on a background check? i want to make sure i'm not missing something there. >> i think if you have a seller who wants guidance with resp to technique products it i necessary to do the backgun check the person can seek a khrafpgs fm a.t. -- classification from a.t.f. the manufacturer is the one and that is the way to get a preenforcement as to whether that is deemed to be a regulated fiarthen if you don't like the answering have review. >> but if ve not done that and you truly -- take the hypothetical -- you truly believer not violating the law, couldoue charged under that provision? >> as a theory rest calendar ilities i think only with respect to bronze checks.

i'm not aware of any prosecutions that looks like this. >> is that sometnghe government would do? >> i donnk the government would be likely to carjack and it is not anything where the manufacturers were the sler putting the products on the mark with the explicit knowledge it is puts the hands of taoerpblgs >> anything else you wanted to finish with that? >> the only ear thing i would say we think tre a lot of protection foranacturers seeking to pl a.t.f. is not trying to hard the ball. this inot a game of gotcha to criminally prosecute people. there was a serious public safety threat posed by the explosion of ghost gunin crimes so it is to put the regulated industry on notice of how it appliesn always applied since the statute wasnacted. >> you had a lot of

classification letters, this was collect everything and put everyone as you say on notice. >> i don't think this is a advance expansion but a. long -- >> some expansion. >> onlwi the addition of looking at jigsuthat just changes the factors relevant you would the statute. >> that is heavily. thank you. >> i have a question about ar-15's. a concern was expreecause ar-15 seasons can be readily converted into machine gap receivers this turns were who owns an a.r.15 into a iminal. >> that is wrong. i wa be clear about interpretation. we are not saying a statutory rerps to win things includes all other separate and distinct things that migh readily converted. the example in the reply brief

is a pairpants is not regulated as a pair of shorts if you have a statute referring to shorts even though the pants could be converted in shorts. they are distinct options. the rule incorporates this principle by quing the regulated object has t be clearly identifiable a the unfinished componentf the regulated weapon so you would have to say there is a clearly unfinished component part of a machine gun. but you couldn't say that abou an ar-15. that is something tt designed and intended to be use for semiautomatic fire and the fact that you might be able to understood take drilling to convert it into a machine gun d not mean it would be regulated as a machine gun. the agency has never held otherwise and this is the same interpon that the agency

has had all along and has never suggested ar-15's standing along are regulated machine guns. >> just k talked about the problem o the agency potentially taking over what is congress's business. i guess i'm worried about the different concern which is about court taking over what congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation. so, all of my questions -- the reason i didn't really engage in the part is because all of my questions for you stem from that concern. you have phrased the question presented in this case as whether certain items, weapons, parts and kits, or partially complete and disassemb receivers qualify as fir

within the meaning of the i'm concerned about this framing beca it doesn't seem account, in my view, or the actual claim the challengers made, which is the agency has exceeded its statutory authority. trying to figure out how we are supposed to address i think is a distinct question about the scope ofagency's auth vis-a-vis thert to fill out the category of what is a firearm. are we to conclude that appear ency exceeds its statutory authority whenever it fails to choose what we thinke best meaning of a statutory term? is that how the scope of the agency's authority to promulgate a rule is supposed to be determined. we compare what the agency believes qualifies as a firearm hat we think is a firearm and if thing a had som we would not have put there we say

the agency has exceeded its authority? i think those seem not right to me as a way of figuring out the question oed the authority. d i think it can't bessumed that the agency exceeds the authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we o do as part of this claim today is just decide what we think a firearm is. can you react to th >> as any statutory interpretation the task of this court is to determine what congress meant. tnk we have clearly the best spwhrerp station of the uage congress used and court has said time and again you interpret it in context -- you >> but c -- let me drill down a little bit. the term we are interpreting, i thought, was a category. congas said firearms and

frames and receivers which defines the firearms part of it has to be tren a certain way. in order to implthe statute the agency has to look at real world circumstances and determine whatarcular items fit into that category. i understood the delegation of this entire things to an agency to be that task. supposed to be doing.cy is we look at firearms and finition of the firearms says the agency and look at things in the world and say x, y, z are in that category. my question is, the challenge iss it exceed the authorities if thert action have been in 25 categoriment the agency still th authority -- in loper ay have realized it gave the

agency authority to make certain calls, right? >> i think in responding to this question it hpful to distinguish between fial but as applied of the agency determination wave is within the definition. i think the court concluded tacoc drafted the statute had categorically precluded and loing at time and then it would be exceeuthority because if congress said in the statute you can't tnk about time and the agency can'tose to do so. we are mesrom that situation here because all the factors the agency listed on their face are consistent with the plain meaning -- >> so what you have us do is not come up with our list of what items we think should be in the firearm category. we haveink of exactly each thing. in t facial challenge inger sawinged to do something moe did thegency that take into account the relevant factors of making the

determination wave goes into this category. >> that's correct. because you don't have any particular products to examine. the only relevant question is regulation conflict with es it anything in the gun control act and o awer is no. we think it follows from the plain text of the gun criminal act and is consistent with judicial precedence. with respect to following products that could be assessed in light of their specific facts to see hy might cash out in an individual case. before the frontin question of the agency's authority we think everything in the final rule is consistent wit statute. >> thank you, counsel. mr. patterson. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court this turns on decisions made by congress in e gun control act of noon 68. first, congress altered the

common understandifirearm might be readily converted to firearms. seconds, congress decided to relate only a single part of a firearm, the frame or receiver didn't alter the common using of a frame or receiver. a.t.f. has excee its authority by ong outside the bonds sets by congress. it hasded the definition of frame or receiver to things that c be readily converted to a frame or receiver. then it expanded firearm to clude collections of parts that are not weapons and tha not include a frame or receiver. so, some concern has beensed about circumvention and complying with the statute is not circumventing in it. court said congress and the gun control didn't seek degree.rol access the ned

it didn't regulate the secondary market for fs. that secondary market is a much bigger source of firearms than privately made firearms. the also questions about thegencies prior practice. ths been a sea change by the agency. it proje it would put 42 out 3 unlicensed manufacturers out of business. what the agency said in the syracuse litn was an unfinished frame orver doesn't meet the statutory definition of firearm simply because it can be designed to or readily converted to a frame or receiver. instead, wey looked at is wether critical machine operations had taken and we have no quarrel with that prior practice. we have raised alternatives something hbe completely machined or two thecal machine ion test and the latter we submit is more

consisteh the statutory language and solves the machine gun problems. because in the machine gun frame or receiver isated and if one heel is all that sepaa semiautomatic receiver from a machine gun receives hard to see the readily standard wouldn't also be applied. >> judge oldham makes were of the 80% rule in the stage of manufacturer versus the receiver or item is capable or can reily become. we have had much discussion about readily this morning. is that analysis or approach, does it make a difference as to your architect whether it is the 80% rule or the current readily become rule? think it does.

swiatek submit it can't be readily because we congress wanted it to be readily it it in the statute intiple circumstances. two, it has a different practical impact if the standard is readily and the government gives us the paradigmaticing of drilling one local b that is all you have to do to make it hard to see how that is not a machine gun reiver. three, the congress said the frame or iver. what it didn't include in the statute are parts that may be used to convert an item. >> i'm more interested in h the 80% rule operated. we have had heard much about the readily and whether or not that change took placend whether it really matters. >> it does really matter and0%

rule is a cloak weapon of mass destructio the governing stupl is the critical machining and would say based on the frame or receiver the part that holds the essentially firing of a firearm we will look at atnd see if critical machining opes have taken place and as a cross check thisetimes would be temporal considerations this is what the court said in syracuse considerations.ook at temporal but -- we can see this clearly in the regulation of lowers, that is the same piece of metal can be considered frame or receiver depending on whatld with it. would look at the item itself. that is what congress di

they said look at the item lf. it didn't say look at other things that may be used to convert that item into a frame that is what the agency is now doing with respect toat jigs becauseha isking at is that jig is being regulated because the same piece of metal can be a frame or receiver. >> i thought readily convert believe is in the statute. pwfrplgts.n part a but not part so it -- it is notb. it would be odd to say it is implicit. >> does the 80% rule i'm just try to understand your answer to justice thomas with regard to0% rule. >> we are usi rule as a stand in for critical machining operations. it is what the agency would look

at as to whether something had become a frame or receiver. >> once you admit that you need to figure out wh something has become a finishe product, you have to have a standard to decide that. and you ying the standard has to be sng that goes to manufacturing. psg is saying that is a silent y of saying has the manufacturing go enough to make this essentially a frame or receiver can bconverted to be fully functional? theyaying the two are dointly the same thing. you prefer one because you want to sell frames without a serial number or sell frames that you have to drill a hole in and say that is nolated. eyre saying, a hole is really not a critical component

t frame, everything else is. so, i'm having difficulty understandg,nce you admit that some sort of test is necessary why this particular test exceeds statutory authity. since it is only a different way of getting to the same thing if i have enough of a frame or receiver to call ia ame or receiver. >> understood. there are two alternatives. although machining oons had taken place. were a sculptor, all the chiseling had been done. >> you don't disagree that taking it off a frame, is that a completed frame? >> i don't thinking a tap off if you could do it with your finger, that is not removing material. if you have to drill a hole to attach it to something, that is not a completed frame?

>> this is where the difference between the two alternatives we have givenourt comes in. under the firstnative, drilling a single hole would be what would make it across the line and the government admits that sometimes drilling a single hole can be the difference between a semiatic receiver and ane gun receiver. a machine gun recis much more heavily regulated. the notion that just one whole separating something from anothe is somehow absurd is clearly not the case. the alternative we haen you is the critical machines different from the government's new test because it is n conflicting with the statute i taking languagerom another part of the statute that is not there and puttinit there. and where the government represented in the syracuse litigation in 2021, we can't do that. >> what is the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled in it? well, some individuals, just

like some individuals enjoy work their car every weekend, some individuals want to construct their own firearms. so the purpose is to provide individuals with materials with which an do that. >> well, drilling a hole or two d think doesn't give the same sort of reward that get from working on your car on the weekends. [lr] >> i would encourage the court to read the basket is brief. -- vasquez brief. this is not a particularly easy thing to do. the press democ article showedeporter could not actually do it, he had to engage friends to help them complete this that were expert in complete frame, it is not a- trivial matter to put it together. there e all parts that have

to be put in precise locations. the reporter could not put it together from the completed frame. it is not clear -- it is clearly not a trivial proposition for someone to do this. >> well, i don't know the skills of the particular repor [laughter] but my understanding is not terribly dfilt for someone to do this. it is certainly not terrible -- terribly difficult to take the asc piece out. is that part of the gunsmithing? >> the plastic parts that are brought -- blocking the rails that hav highlighted, that has to be taken out. it immended you put it on a dril press a a drill press with a specialized bit to take that away. they recommend against using a drum all. they say that could the product. i don't know -- i know we don't have any particular product at issue here. regulate the frame or receiver

itself. i'm suggesting that if someone wh through the process of drilling one or two holes and taking the plastic out, he really wouldn't think he has built that gun, would he? >> you know, i don't know what i think he would. think. it is t a simple proposition. even those who took minutes to put somethingher wasn't counting thefor the person to acquire the tools, learn to use the tools. this person was a mechanic so things.ew how to do these for the time to learn how to machine the object. they watched two hours watching instnal materials starting to put that item together. even that 21 minutes, the person had done it incorrectly and it needed to be repaired. >> i would like to circle back to justice sotomayor's question. take that one position has to be that it has to be a framer

receiver because there is no condition of readily converted the y ere is in a. but i think you have suggested that we have acceptedhat there are incomplete frames or receivers, this is indeed an artifact now. if that is true, first of all, is that true? >> our p argument is that it has to be co, but we have given an alterniv arguhat it could be an artifact now, but if it is the test should be critical machining and not readil converted. >> let me press on the first argument. why wouldn't this be an artifact now in this statute given a, which does suggest incomplete things can cou, c, mufflers as silencers, d, destructive s which don't have traditional receiver? i think the examples we have been given our penn guns and

thin like that. why wouldn't that be an indication that here if not throughout the u.s. code? >> i think it would be precisely the opposite, because congress put that language specifically into those neighboring statutes, words like converted or words like colle of parks -- parts. so it we odd where congress has taken special care to use that sort of language when congress wanted that language to be applied t say, we are going to infer that it also applies here where congress did not put language. i think it could it with the firearms laws. because there are a lot of things that can be readily conver a traditional rifle can be convto a short-barreled rifle in minutesh a hacksaw or by swapping in a shorte barrel. so this concept readily converted, congress only put it into specific places. in the machine gun provision, congress said readily restored

instead of readily converted we need to be very precise here. in of why we would take al machining operations instead of readily converted, if we looking for evidence of evidence of meaning was what did atf and the indusrking together over a period of years arrive at? what they arrived at was this critical machining test because it dt pose the same problems as readily convte would potentially witr provisions to code. it also is more consistent with the statute by not importing readily into a pla where congress chose not to put it. >> thank you. >> it doesn't appear in the up.tute, it seems a little made the critical machining ur other problem is pulling the tap off the front and saying now it is a frame or receiver but it wasn't before you pulled pe. the critical machining doesn't come from the statute. nis exception. allowing ford to

>> i wouldn't say that, your r. even under a primary test, if you think of a sculptor, when everything has been sculedif something is put on to protect it and it has to be pulled off, i wouldn'call it a -- machining. under the secondaryt, it would rom the lady -- language of frame or receiver. it comes from an artifact, but at does the artifact now mean? you have to determine at what point is something a frame or receiver. we think the evidence of meaning of the agency and others in the industry who are very keenly interested in this question working it out over a period of years and saying here is this test that we have come uph, this critical machining test, it is much better attested than readily. >> would you say that the ordinary usa now everybody just understands

based on long-standing practice at the critical machining test is the point at which frame or er -- >> correct and it is not that we are deferring to that, it is the best evidence of what this means. >> an ordinary usage, an object that is created to perform a function may still be called by the name that is attached to that object even if it is not completely funl, isn't that what this gets at? >> i don't believe that this is what it gets at. there are two provisions here. >> before you walk away from that, let me give you an example. sometimes i see that my neighr is restoring a classic car. but he has taken out some critic parts. and then someone says, what is that? i say, that is a 1957 thunderbird. even though you couldn'ive it and it would take some work to m it do the thing that it was originally created to do.

isn't that thesnce of your backup argument? the thing must still be such that one woulframe or receiver, even if it is not y ready to be functional as ame or receiver at this time. >> yes, our prargument is that it would have to be. you think of the situation wi car and you ask your hbor, could i borrow your car? you give him the car with the taken out. they would say that is n car. the backup is that at some point can't currently perform thatt function. >> so what ect does the critical manufacturing -- critical machining test involve? what does that mean? explain it to somebody, to a layperson. >> yes, frame or receiver is the part of a firearm that holds the components that allow the firearm to funct so the firing mechanism, the trigger and such, and the

ceiling component that makes sure t brel is sealed off so the round goes out of the barrel and the energythe explosion doesn't go elsewhere. so what the critical machining operations test was is we are going to focus on the parts of e frame or receiver that either have the holes drilled or materials removed th are going to hold those parts. and we are going to see, have those operations b performed or been med to some degree? frame or receiver -- this follows the hole -- solves the one hole in the air 15 problem because the person would be drilling the final hole. until the final hole is d or indexed, that critical machining operation has no taken place. if the question is readily, then could be readily in this context and not readily in the machine gun coex >> you have presented the court with the critical machining

alternative and you say you have these two alternatives. the agency hasnted yet another way of going about this. you concede that under facial challenge like the one you brought, your task is actually to demonstrate that your alternatives are the only permissible ones under the statute? >> wel think under a rule of party presentation, we have presented the court with the alternatives that have occurred aone. i think these are the best alternativ >> you see the qn as what is the best alternative? and the court is just supposed to say, we have three options, which one do we think is the best? the agency didn't pick the best, the rule is stricken. >> i think our burden is to show that the agency is wro maybe we don' the right interpretation. but if their interpretation is incorrect, than they are asking the wrong question. by incorrect, you mean they

don't have the authority under the statute to reach that it is inconsistent with the statute? >>rect, frame or receiver es not include items that may readily be converted to frames or receivers, than the rul beyond their authority regardless o frame or receiver does mean. they have gone beyond their authority. e presented the courts with two alternatives that we think are better interpretations. but the key point here is that the agency's interpretation is incorrect. >>u believe that a weapon that has bisassembled, a gun that was fully operational, that everyone would agree with the firearm, it is disassembled, as sometimes happen, maybe even after a crime, is that still arm or no under your view? >> yes and for two reasons. the first is that it will have a frame or receiver.

that is what congress put in the statute -- >> if the frame or receiver is not in the box. >> then no, it is not a weapon. >> so all that matters really is b, the frame or receiver. >> that is how the statute is structured and part of that may be due to statutory history. before the statute, the definition was any weapon that is desneto expel a projectile by the action of an explosive and any part or parts of anyweapon. >> what is all that language doing if all that matters for purpose of the definition if all that matters is that it has a frame or receiver? >> what i was going to say is congrs working from that background and tid, we are going to alter the definition of ao include readily convertible weapons and we are going to alter the definition of b to focus on a particular part, the frame or receiver, and it is the frame or

receiver of any such weapon, so that is why it is structured that way. ld be the frame or receand then insert a, instead of any such weapon. that is really how thetatute is structured. >> could you clarify for me what you mean? assume that there are all parts of a gun, a weapons kit with all the pf a gun, but the receiver or the frame has a hole missing. so that is the weapon parts kit. is it your position that under a, assuminere to find that readily conrtle does include some drilling, some holes, etc., just like the starter guns making a weapon, would that be covered under a? >> i think whether it would be covered would turn on the interpretation of b. if the court accepted our backup gument. >> so you are taking out of b

readily convertiblelso taking it out of a. >> we are not taking it out of to cover and that is the starter guns that were guns, they had handgun frames, but the barrel has to be -- proposition that the agency can, within whatever the ate limits it to do, to determi what makes a comet or nearly completed -- a completed frame or receiver? >> i'm not sure i understand the question, but we have no quarrel as the alternative with which we have presented with the critic machining test and the hypothetical your honor presented with a single hole that likely wod mean that test. >> thank you. >>ing rther? thank you, counsel.

rebuttal, general? >> mr. chief justice, i want to begin with the question you asked about why manufacturers would leave the les in drilled. you ha sd, what is the purpose? my friend rpoed is that it is to a kit that bbyists can put together. if it only takes 20 minutes, the hobbyist is probably not going to get h mey's worth and want to have the experience of building a gun. i thinkt contradicted by the facts on the ground. the evidence swshese guns were being purched and used in crimes. they were sold to be crime guns. there was a 1000 percent increase between 2017 and 2021 in the number of guns that were recovered as part cminal investigations. it makes perfect sense because the whole reason why you would want to ur hands on one of these un-serialized, untraceable firearms is if you are a prohibited person or you want to use that gun in a crime. if there is a market for these

kits for hobbyists, they can be sold to hobbyists, yo have to comply with the gun control act. someone lawfully allowed possess a firearm can purchase that kit if they undergo a if there is a market for these products, they can operate under the statute. the evidence shows that the market forho guns essentially collapsed after the rule was permitt tgo into effect, which underscores what was evident all along, the reasonhy you want a ghost gun is because it is un-serialized and can't be traced. on the question of a frame or receiver, justice sotomayor asked what governedt re. this is an undefined term in the statute. es it require to the -- the weapon to be functional? we think the answer is no. if you are missing aine hole , you can clearly recognize that as an unfinisd mponent part of a weapon and it is readily coerble to the function and that fits within the plane

dictionary definition of what a frame or receiver is to be, no different than a bicyc msing petals. we have ure on page 34 of our brief. it is hard to know what else to call themecause they look exactly like the principal structural component of a gun. that race is the follow on question, if it doesn't ha t be functional, whastdard should you use to measure when it is a or receiver? there e good reasons why atf cud on whether it could be readily convertible. first, that is most consistent with how congress has approached the issue when it has defined terms under the federal firearms law. that is the standard congress uses to mark the terrain of what products are regulated. secondthe was a consistent agency practice of applying that readily convertedard. my friend several times tried to suggest athe 50 plus years of agency practice instea focused on whether it has reached a critical stage of manufacture. but that is ignoring the actua

elements cited in th classification letters. looked not just at what had be de, but what steps remained. how much time it would take to perform those functions, what equipment you woulne to make it functional, what skill you woul need, and whether tre are other parts. none of those other elements to what has already been machined on that particular frame eiver. they are centrally revt as to whether it can be converted to function just as the agency has said alllong. for a third reason, that means this is a standard written in the law and famili t industry. it is notable that we don't have the major gun manufacturers suing us abouthifinal rule. the reonor that is because this readily converted sndard is the one that has governed their conduct ever since the gun control act was enacted. it means there is a stable body of traditional precedent and agency practice to dw on in further answering concerns about wh the particular types of products will be regulated, which justice kavanaugh also

answered some of the concern about horegulated parties will kw whether conduct falls within the scope of the law. finally, in thinking about responding to primary argumt which is that a single undrilled hole is enough to exempt product from regulation, i think the courtoenot have to blind itself to prl rafitions of that rule. the agency's ierpretation is the status quo. it is how the law has been applied over 50 years. if the court now says that one undrilled le is enough to exempt products from regulation, that is going change in how the gun control act is implemented. at that point, iterve its function because all manufacturers everywhereould simply exempt products fro regulation through the simple expedient. that means going forward, all guns could become ghost guns. the court said 200 years ago at you don't have to interpret a statute to bse-defeating like that there is a plausible alrnive construction. r construction is not only

plausible, it is the best reading of the statute looking at text, context, purpose and history. >> c-span coverage ocaaign 2024 continues this afternoon with 2024 republican vice presidentialominee j.d. vance in the keystone state in johnstown, pennsylvania. watch that live starting at 2:30 p. eastern. there is more later wh donald trump. th republican presidential nominee is expected to participate in a rndble discussion with will the voters in las vegas, nevada. watch live a 4:00 p.m. eastern and here on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile deo app or online at c-span.org. >> thank you for being with us.

more from the "wall street journal" article talking about the increase in gun ownership says american gun culture have long been dominated by conservative whit men. a burgeoning number of will be rails are bike firearms and fast growing groups drawing minorities and progressives. historically it was usual for democrats to own guns with many in rural areas appear hunting. starting in the early 1990's gun ownership among democrats dropped significantly increasing the battle over the role of firearms in american society but the democratic party to be an advocate for gun regulation. republicans became the party of gun rights. today's adams are rediscovering guns. the article goes on to talk about the reason that shift.

researchers, gun customers an owners attribute it to factors including rising concern about perform safety in a volatile political climate. g.o.p. presidential candidate warning of potential death and destruction if he is charged with crimes. democrats warning of the potential end of democracy and two assassination plots against trump. among those democrats who are gun owners is vice president camilla harris -- kamala harris an article saying she first revealed to the public she owned a gun in 2019 during her first presidential campaign but it was only this week two she revealed the make of the gun which an aide said is securely stored in

her los angeles residence it is a glock. she revealed that during an interview on "60 minutes" last sunday. here is a clip of the interview. >> you recently surprised people when you said you are a gun owner and if -- >> that was not the first time i talked about it. >> what kind of gun and when and why did you get it? >> i have a glock. i have had it for quite some time. and i mean, look, bill, my background is in law enforcement so there you go. >> have you ever fired it? >> yes, of course i have. at a shooting range. of course i have. host: we are hearing from you. are you the -- have you become a firearm owner in the past if you years? again the lines

we will hear first from t to brian. i am so grateful to c-span. good morning. the only reason i am considering is because i live alone in a rural area and my significant other recently passed away. i hate word for varmints, but anyways. i i would like to ask america -- we are putting down immigrants. mmigrants and we are all immigrants. ask who will rebuild our

glorious south? who is going to pick up the pieces? host: i'm going to leave it because the topic is the gun and gun ownership. but i appreciate your call. and i wanted to show you some statistics from pew research, a poll that they put out earlier. about four in 10 u.s. adults say that they live in a household with a gun including 32% who personally own one. that is coming out of the survey conducted in june of 2023. and looking at a breakdown of who owns the gun, 45% of republicans and gop leaning independents say that they personally own a gun compared with 20% of democrats and democratic leaners. gender, 40% of men said they own a gun versus 25% of women. community type.

47% of adults living in rural areas like marissa that we just heard from, own a firearm as well of those that smaller shares of those living in suburbs, 30% or urban areas of 20%. when we look at race and ethnicity. 38% of white americans compared with smaller shares of black, 24% and hispanic, 20% and asians, 10%. al in waterton, tennessee says they have purchased a gun recently. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think there are many statistical problems going on with that report. what has happened it is not that democrat had owned guns in a lower percentages than republicans but the democrats that believe in liberty and freedom and america in general

and they are not communist and socialist, they have changed into republicans or independents, and they have done that in the last 20 or 30 they were southern democrats in middle tennessee and they have guns. they still have them but they changed their cart -- their party affiliation. generally speaking that report is not very intuitive and not very accurate. host: when did you become a gun owner? caller: i think i was 10 years old or something like that. probably for 50 years. i am also a range safety officer at a public shooting range. icds people all the time. typically it was covid. those were the first time -- first time gun owners and they were republicans, democrats and independents. everybody who was concerned about their safety. the reason is they came to the

realization just like now in north carolina and florida, you cannot depend on the federal government protection. you protect yourself and that is the way it has always been. they are starting to wise up for that. host: you said that you are a trainer. what are you seeing now after the pandemic on who is coming in? caller: we still see some first time gun owners. unfortunately, the novelty of owning a gun has worn out for those who bought them during covid. they should be coming every two -- every few months for proficiently. they buy the gun and they come to the range they shoot it or maybe a day or two and then you do not see them again. that is an individual decision. but, it is not the best decision. host: al in tennessee. norm in mod road township on the no line.

good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: hello. caller: i did not know you could hear me. i am very much against anyone owning a gun. i am 98 years old. i was in the second ward -- world war. the only time i had a gun when i was on the shooting range when i was in the navy. and i was a coreman so i did not have to carry a gun. what i want to say that guns do not help people. people have guns and they say they are going to defend themselves. how can they defend themselves? someone is going to come to shoot you has a gun. we have more killings with guns than all of the other countries put together.

why do we need guns? how does this help you with a gun? why do other countries have may be this, one or two killings in some countries. in england and australia there are no guns at all. what benefit is it to have guns? you cannot defend yourself with a gun because you are going to shoot somebody and the chances >> finish watching this tape program. at c-span.org. now to johnstown, pennsylvania where senator jd vance is speaking to supporters. >> thank you, thank you, thank you!

well, -- [crowd chanting "jd"] sen. vance: i have to say it is great to be in johnstown, pennsylvania. and in only 25 days we will turn the town red, pennsylvania read and take back the country and make donald trump the next president of the united states. so, i want to say a few things here -- first of all, some words of gratitude to special people joining us today. bill from jwf industries. you gave us a great work. you have your grandson here. a great family and a great american company. we are appreciative that you are here and all you are doing for our troops. i love it.

we have the ambassador here. stand up and say hello. she has somewhere. we have the great carla here and we appreciate her being here. we have congressman john joyce. thank you, man. we are in john's district and he told me that we will get the votes we need and this district to win pennsylvania so john, i will hold you to that. we have congressman guy schaller . i met guy's parents. great people. and we have congressman gt thompson. thank you. i know we have some other elected officials here. thank you for joining us. i want to give a special shout out to amy bradley. amy, stand up.

and amy, i'm proud to endorse you along with donald trump so we are thrilled to be behind you. so i love pennsylvania. and as a lot of you know i grew up in a part of the country, southwestern ohio similar to southwestern pa and i know bethlehem steel really built this town in a lot of ways and like my hometown lost a lot of jobs over the last 30 or 40 years thanks to bad leadership. and i want to promise to those watching at home and you and this room that donald trump and i are committed to american manufacturing, american workers, and we are committed to making things in the united states of america and this town will thrive because of donald trump's policies. now, before i got up on the stage, will and bill showed me

around these great vehicles they are building for the next generation of our war fighters and i imagine we have some of your and boy he's here today. i'm so proud of you guys. the craftsmanship, skill, these unbelievable vehicles that will not just save a lot of american lives but they make us proud. they make us proud of what american workers are able to do and they will save the lives of a lot of our troops. thank you for what you do and thank you for building a great product here in the united states of america. now, there are a few things i want to talk about before we really got started to the meat of my remarks and after we will take some questions for some of the reporters. the first and most important thing and i will tell you a little story -- one of the things i've noticed on the campaign trail is i will talk to 100 people that plan to vote for

donald trump into their credit 95 of them actually voted for donald trump in 2020. it is not like the other five changed their mind or donald trump did something to piss them off but something came up on election day. their kid got sick at school and they had to take care of their kids or they had to take their mom to a doctors appointment unexpectedly or they had to work late that night and by the time they showed up to the polling location it had already closed we have to swamp the vote in pennsylvania to make donald trump the next president. and what i would ask everybody to do is go to this website -- write this down if you need to -- swampthevoteusa.com. on that website you checked your polling location and make sure your registration is up-to-date and i would encourage you to get nine of your family members to

go to that website. a lot of people planned about but mayb theye have not checked their registration and it is not up-to-date. and i don't want you to just vote ones but 10 times. what i mean vote 10 times in a legal way which is get yourself and nine other family and friends to the pole. let's get out there and vote, my friends. we have got to do it. we have got to do it. now, here is the crazy thing about running against kamala harris. she basically just takes everything that donald trump says and pretends she agrees with it. i see a few of you have red maga hats. kamala harris is dealing so many of donald trump's ideas that she will show up to our next rally in a red maga hat because she

realizes no one wants to vote to defund the police or banning fracking. kamala harris is on video showing that she supports the end of fracking. she came in to office promising she would open the american southern border. and no one wants to pay thousands of dollars per person in higher taxes and yet kamala harris has explicitly promised she will get rid of the trump tax cut which will raise taxes by an average of 25 hundred dollars per person on pennsylvania families. kamala harris said all that stuff and there are video clips of her saying that stuff but now she pretends that she got religion and she doesn't support all of the crazy ideas that she's rooted during her career in public office. a big part of what we have to do in the next 25 days as remind our fellow americans at kamala harris is not who she pretends

to be. kamala harris is who she has been in government. a tax and spend san franciscan liberal that wants to open our borders. are we going to give kamala harris a promotion to president of the united states? hell, no, we are going to tell, harris that you are fired and we are voting donald j. trump to be our next president. now, you all probably have noticed that kamala harris has been doing some more interviews lately. have you noticed that? she went from doing zero interviews to doing four or five. the problem is they are not tough interviews. she is going to friendly outlets to do the interviews because she cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a tough interview.

she is doing softball interviews instead. the problem with a softball interview is that you still have to be able to hit a softball. and as we have learned from kamala harris over the last couple of days, she cannot even do that. and if you noticed, there are a lot of folks and not just me or the president out a lot our camping staff and we are feeling excited about the campaign and part of it is because we are getting down to the final stretch, in part it is because we feel the momentum of pennsylvania and other critical states but a big part of it is every time kamala harris opens her mouth we gain about 100,000 votes. and we don't have a tv in here. i should have queued it up beforehand. i will have to remember off the top of my head what kamala harris said earlier in the week during her interview with "the

view." a few of you decided not to have the nightmare fuel of watching kamala harris on "the view." i do these things as a way to sacrifice as the person that wants to be your next vice president. her argument for her campaign is that she is not going to be like joe biden. you would be forgiven to think that kamala harris had never met john -- joe biden. and we know she casts the deciding vote on trillions of dollars in new spending because a vice president often has to cast the tie-breaking bow and she reich about being the last person in the room during the disastrous afghanistan withdraw. now she wants to run away from that stuff. she will stand up at rallies and say something like -- on day one

we will tackle the affordability crisis affecting pennsylvania families or on day one we will get serious about the southern border. anyone with a lick of common sense would say, day one was 1400 days ago. stop talking about doing your job and go actually do it. but, she blew up the whole narrative of her campaign in this "the view" interview because they asked her -- you have been the vice president, what would you have done differently than joe biden? and she said, nothing comes to mind. so she just -- for two months she try to tell the american people that she was going to be different from joe biden and now she shows up and openly brags in her own words, "well, nothing comes to mind." i told the trump campaign senior

staff, you know jason miller, a good guy. jason calls me earlier in the week and tells me about the interview and i watched it and said, it is worse than you said. we ought to take the clip and add on the end of it, i'm donald j. trump and run it in every battleground state in the united states of america. and it is amazing, that is exactly what they did go on my social media and you will see kamala harris in her own words does -- destroying the entire narrative of her campaign. i know you will be shocked to hear me defend kamala harris. when she said -- nothing came to mind -- that is probably inaccurate characterization no matter the topic. unfortunately -- there is a famous saying that a political

blunder is when a politician actually tells the truth. well, kamala harris just accidentally told the truth. we can joke about it and joke about the fact that she runs away from everything that isn't a softball interview but we have to be honest. i grew up in a family where we suffered when politicians did not do their jobs. we have real suffering in pennsylvania because kamala harris is not doing her job. so as much as we can joke about what she does in an interview, this is serious business. let's recount some of the ways in which kamala harris' failed leadership has made the great people in pennsylvania were soft. pennsylvania has the worst grocery price affordability problem in the entire country meaning groceries have gone up in pennsylvania more than in any other state in our country and i think that is a disgrace. and as a person that was raised by a grandmother who would

sometimes negotiate with meals on wheels to try to get a little extra food. you have to think about the people suffering when, thanks to kamala harris' policies, groceries go up by 25%. that is the legacy of her leadership. another is we have almost 10% credit card delinquency rates. he wants to go out and brag about how great the economy is. the -- is the economy doing well for pennsylvania workers and families right now? of course, it is not. that is why we have 10% delinquency rates on our credit cards. we have another big problem and it is not just economic but a crisis at the southern border. and more than any other person in public life in the last 30 years, kamala harris has encouraged the wide open southern border. she wants to give medicare to illegal aliens which would bankrupt that program and throw our seniors into poverty. are we going to ally kamala

harris to give it a care to illegal aliens? are we going to elect kamala harris to give social security to illegal aliens? here is our message to the millions upon millions of people that kamala harris has led into this country illegally -- in four months, pack your bags because we are sending you back home. and here is the thing the media doesn't want to talk about but it is an important part about what is going on in this country. and you let in 25 million illegal aliens that dries up the cost of housing. if you have millions of people that shouldn't be here, we have to house them somewhere and things to kamala harris we have bedridden's sleeping on park benches and under bridges but we are giving illegal aliens first-class hotel rooms. here is the donald trump approach to american housing and

the way we will make the american dream more affordable for american citizens. the american dream of homeownership is american homes ought by rights to go do american citizens and not to people that don't have the legal right to be here in the first place. and because, unfortunately, we haven't listened to donald trump's wisdom in the last three and a half years and because kamala harris is in the oval office, pennsylvanians are paying $1400 more a month to afford what they could afford three and a half years ago. it is an unbelievable record of failure from kamala harris. she is lying to the american people at her rallies and she talks about how she wants to make groceries more affordable or close the southern border that she opened. all i can think about is if you really believe those things, camera harris, you are welcome to vote for donald j. trump for president because he got those

things done and will do it again. here is the final point i want to make and i know i have beaten up on kamala harris a little bit but that is probably why you came here -- it is ok to beat up on kamala a little bit, right? here is what bothers me most about kamala harris' leadership. it is not just that she has been bad about the policies but she has the audacity, the golf to call the american people -- the gall to call the american people do how about opinions about her record. but she and tim walz are doing is going around the country telling everyone who is pissed about her open border is that they are racist, xenophobic and bad human beings for daring to have an opinion about what is going on in their own country.

even if we disagree with you on a given issue, we will fight for your right to speak your mind in the united states of america because we believe in the first amendment. and you know, my message to kamala harris is the border is open because of you. inflation is higher because of you. americans can't afford groceries and housing because of you. kamala harris, if you want someone to call a bad name, start making the country better. i'm going to stop here in a second but i want to leave you with one final thought and i will repeat myself and i apologize for doing it. i'm going to repeat myself because it is important. i want you to think back to 2020 and if you were like me, you went into the election in 2020

and of course, we voted for donald trump. i will be honest -- i believed the fake poles and the fake media. i didn't think we would have such a great chance. and then the returns started rolling in. remember how it felt tuesday night around 9:30 p.m.? he did it again and we actually voted him president again and then things went in the wrong direction. here is a way to prevent that from happening. one, i have a job and the rnc and the party have a job to do. we have to vote for integrity. we are making real changes to fight for election integrity. but here is what you all have to do -- you have to make the margins so big in pennsylvania that it doesn't matter what shenanigans democrats pole at the last minute. and the only way to do that, we will never have the fake media or the democrats telling the truth we do have our own voices

and our own networks, our friends and family. that is the people power that is going to make donald trump the next president. i'm sure every single one of you are on facebook, x.com, or whatever social media you are on or maybe you just have a lot of people in your address book that you can text, call or send an email two. we have to get everyone to the polls. i'm going to a pre--- and when to repeat this website. if we make our voices heard, were going to take this country back and make donald j. trump the next president of the united states. we have 25 days to go. let's do it my friends. let's work our reruns often make this happen. god bless you guys. thank you, thank you.

[crowd chanting "jd"] sen. vance: we are going to take some questions from reporters but first we have some beautiful babies in the crowd. how old is she? if we were democrats, we would try to get them to vote. i want to thank you all for bringing your families and not just beautiful kids but also well behaved kids. we made at this whole time without anyone complaining. abi should trade you my kids for a couple of weeks and you can some sense into them. anyway, let's start with local reporters first. and then we will move on to the national folks. >> harris supporters continue to say that trump is going to enact project 2025 if he gets in office. can you reassure people whether or not that is going to happen? sen. vance: i think you heard

the boos from the crowd because look, love donald trump or not, does anyone speak for donald trump but for donald trump? no! it is funny because they kamala's harris campaign has nothing to run on. they are taking a 900 page report from a conservative nonprofit organization and say somehow that organization speaks for donald trump. i don't know if you have noticed but donald trump speaks for himself and project 25 has no relation to the trump campaign, it doesn't control what we do, no one controls what we do on the trump campaign except for the man at the top of the ticket and that is donald j. trump. what i find so weird about this accusation that donald trump is going to implement some mysterious agenda instead of his own policy plans is donald trump was already president and he did a damn fine job without project

2025. so -- just remember the record, we had 1.5% inflation, we had the fastest rising take-home pay in 40 years in the united states of america. we had a secure southern border and world peace at a level we have not had on this planet in a generation. donald trump speaks for donald trump and he will govern according to his own plans and his own wishes and because of that, i think the american people are going to be more prosperous and the world will be more peaceful than it has been for 40 years and that is a great thing. and nobody else. certainly project 2025 doesn't speak for donald j. trump or for me. >> with pennsylvania being a big battleground state, what makes you want to come to communities like johnstown where it kind of

swings fluid or read. -- or red. sen. vance: one thing i've learned as i try to make sure that i call pennsylvania a commonwealth. the commonwealth of pennsylvania. i don't want anyone to run me out of town because i say the "state." one thing i will say about johnstown is i love this community. when i was coming in here, you come across the bridge and go over a beautiful river. there is a view you get where you are driving up to a factory and you look behind you and you see a church set against the mountains. the mountain is on fire with the colors of fall and i think to myself, what a beautiful town johnstown, pennsylvania is and you all must be proud of it. i'm proud to be here.

but it also says to me or represents at the greatness of america and frankly what happens when american leaders screw up. as much as we are proud to be standing in this great facility, johnstone has gone through tough times because a generation of american leaders, let's be honest, republicans and democrats, decided that we didn't need to make in america anymore and johnstown bore the brunt of that failure of leadership just like it bears the brunt of kamala harris' leadership. to me what donald trump's presidency represents more than anything is we are not leaving behind the communities like johnstown anymore. we are going to build them up, invest in them and everyone will prosper when we do that. >> do you or do you not condemn the attacks on the capital from the last election incited by donald trump?

[crowd booing] sen. vance: do i condemn the riot at the capital, sir? do i think that as the media pretends that the riot at the capital four years ago is a bigger deal than people not being able to afford groceries? i do not. i think people not being able to afford groceries is a far bigger problem in the united states of america than what happened four years ago. and do i concede the point that was implicit in your question that donald trump was somehow at fault when he told people to protest peacefully? absolutely not. go back and look at the tape or the record that has come out and the last few weeks. donald trump asked people to protest peacefully and he had every right. and the fact that a few knuckleheads went off and did something they shouldn't do, that is not on him, that is on

them. that is on them. >> you mentioned veterans -- pennsylvania has the fourth largest community of veterans in the country. a significant portion faces homelessness. the federal government announced grants for services directed to help veterans with housing. if elected, will the trump administration continue to prioritize these efforts? >> $17 million is not nearly enough to meet the challenge of the homeless veteran population in this country. think about this, these guys went off to war and some of them came back with, some wounds you cannot see but all of them came back with the pride that they served their country and did what their country asked them to

do. how disgraceful is it that millions of our veterans are getting left behind in some form or another and thousands are homeless when we are housing illegal aliens and first-class hotels? it is a disgrace. and it drives home the entire agenda of kamala harris -- she hides behind her slogans and she hides behind -- she says she is joyful but i don't think she is feeling joyful this week after her interviews. but she hides behind these fake attacks on project 2025 which has nothing to do with donald trump's campaign because she cannot answer for the fact that her government has given hundreds of billions of dollars to illegal immigrants when our own citizens suffer and our veterans are at the top of the list. a big difference between donald trump and kamala harris is donald trump wants to put american citizens and american veterans first. he thinks the government of the

country exist to serve the people of the country and not people that should not be here in the first place. it is one of the biggest differences between donald trump and kamala harris. >> good to see you, senator vance. one question, who is going to potentially replace you in ohio if you become vice president? and the second question is, a lot of supporters of yours i've spoken to in western pa, i'm based in pittsburgh, have asked me when is senator vance going to endorse the proactive or some kind of act to protect the right for unions to organize nationally. will you support this legislation? sen. vance: on the first question, i don't know if you agree with me, but i'm superstitious so knock on wood we will worry about who will replace me after donald trump and i are elected president and vice president and until then, i'm not going to think about it.

first of all, one of the things we are very proud of on this campaign is if you look according to the teamsters own pole, 65% of pennsylvania's teamsters support donald trump for president and that is something we are very proud of because these people built the country and make it run and we are thrilled to have their support. you asked about the proactive. the problem with the proactive is in some ways it doubles down on a lot of the failed things we have done instead of looking at american labor policy as something that will be better for the 21st century then it was in the 20th century. and look, i believe in the right of workers -- workers to unionize if they choose to do so but private sector union participation went from 33% when my papaw was a union steelworker, 33% to know about 7%. we have to act ourselves, what

public policies have we and acted that have driven private sector union participation so low? i don't think we have doubled down on the failed model. we have to think about a new model for the 21st century that will be better for american workers, american companies and it will mean higher pay for people that work hard and play by the rules and that is what donald trump and i are all about. >> senator vance, thank you for doing this and for taking time to take questions from the press. no matter who wins after the election is over in november, do you commit to a peaceful transfer of power? sen. vance: yes, of course. of course we do. look -- this is very simple. yes, there was a riot at the capitol on generally six but there was still a peaceful transfer of power in this country and that is always going to happen.

donald trump is committed to it and so am i. here is what is a little odd about the question. under the leadership of kamala harris we have more -- in our community then we have had before. americans cannot afford groceries, young people cannot afford to buy a home, credit card delinquencies are through the roof. that is what i'm focused on and that is what the campaign and media should be focused on. how do we solve america's problems rather than focus on a fake issue from four years ago when donald trump said -- protest peacefully. all right. >> senator, -- sen. vance: i love western pa. we are going to hit the road in a little bit. >> in pittsburgh on thursday

former president barack obama admonished black men for not -- for being hesitant about voting for kamala harris. i was wondering if you could contrast your approach to has a tent voters and how you tried to earn them over. sen. vance: first of all, whether you agree or disagree with me or donald trump, i do not believe in hectoring voters but in persuading voters. support is not something i'm given or owed it is something you have to work for. i don't like the tone -- look, the better question for barack obama or anyone to ask is not why black men or how dare you not vote for kamala harris -- it is, maybe they are thinking about voting for donald trump because they are sick of being censored, told what to do and

not being able to support the american dream. maybe that is why we are getting a lot more black voters then we have in the past. the last point i want to make -- i have to say and, newsflash, i've defended kamala harris once and i'm about to defend barack obama. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] sen. vance: said to the side the hectoring and tone of barack obama when he talked about black voters. whatever, i just criticized that. when i was watching him talk i thought to myself, agree or disagree and i disagree with about 99% of what he did and when he was in office, he had substance and kamala harris does not. he had thoughts in his head while kamala harris repeats slogan after slogan after slogan. i am offended, not as a person

running to be your vice president but as a fellow citizen. i am offended that a person so substantive -- it is a disgrace. what does she want to do about israel and the middle east? she will give you a slogan. how does she want to lower the price of groceries? she will give you a platitude. a person like that has no business being near the oval office of this country and we cannot let it happen. and i would ask you -- i mean, do all of you out here, this is one of the things at. i imagine or i hope that you are thinking about voting for democrats in the future but we cannot reward this kind of politics where they switch joe biden from the ballot two months

ago without a single vote being cast. she runs from the basement. she does a few softball interviews and we think that person is tested enough to be president of the united states? it is insulting to american voters and we have to reject it on november the fifth by voting for donald j. trump. let's do one more question. >> i watched your interview with the new york times. you brought up concerns about corporate censorship in the 2020 election. you were asked five times if you thought donald trump lost in 2020. so definitively, can you say, separate from your concerns about corporate censorship, do you believe trump lost in 2020? sen. vance: look -- as i said in

the interview and i will say it to you right now, i think the election of 2020 had serious problems. call it rigged or whatever you want to but it wasn't ok. now, you guys come again, you look at president trump's campaign and what i'm doing and we are focused on fixing the disastrous consequencees of kamala harris' governance. i know what donald trump things and he has told you. do you know what i am a hell of a lot more worried about? americans cannot afford the good life in their country because kamala harris has been vice president. but --

but look, i appreciate you all. but look, this is fundamentally the difference between how republicans think about this issue, how kamala harris thinks about the issue and frankly how most americans are on the side of the republican ticket here. the american media ought to ask itself this question -- what is the bigger threat to democracy? even if you disagree with donald trump and assuming you do, that donald trump litigated as was his right the 2020 election or that major technology firms embedded with the communist chinese party censored american citizens censorship is a way bigger threat to american

democracy than anything republicans have done in the last five years. and i -- this is something that is so important because what we really are at risk of losing in this country if we lose the election is the right for you to speak your mind. if you thought it was that we were asking three-year-olds at the height -- masking three-year-olds at the height of covid, you ought to be able to speak your mind. if you think that it is disgraceful that we are spending billions of dollars on illegal aliens while our own veterans suffer from homelessness, you ought to be able to speak your mind. agree or disagree, donald trump and i will fight for the first amendment because it is the most important right we have in the united states of america, and we won't forget it. and self, that was the last

question but let me leave you with this final thought. look, this is what is at stake in this election. i think as -- i think i was asked two or three questions about 20/20. i don't know if i was asked a single question about inflation. i think i was maybe asked one question or maybe zero about american manufacturing and how to rebuild the middle class in this country. i think it -- i think i was asked zero questions about the american southern border. what kamala harris and the media are doing is telling us we should care more about what happened four years ago then about her failure in governance. i think on november the fifth we are going to reject it, push back against it and say that the people's president, donald j. trump is coming back to town to fight for all of us. god bless you guys. it is been great to see you guys and i will see you soon. >> ladies and gentlemen, please

welcome the next vice president of the united states. ♪ ♪ >> from here the republican vice presidential nominee heads to reading, pennsylvania where he will participate in a town hall and that is expected to start at 5:30 p.m. eastern and you can see that live online at c-span.org. ♪ >> later today former presiden

donald trump speaks tlatino voters at a roundtable in las vegas, nevada. tune in for live coverage around 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> friday night's watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly discussion of how the presidential, senate and house campaigns at progressed in the last week. talk about the issues, messages and events driving the week's political news and to take a look at the week ahead. watch campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download the podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> as the 2024 presidential

campaign continues, american history tv presents it series historic presidential elections. learn about the pivotal issues of different eras and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today the election of 1948. >> we must entrust our destiny to those that will safeguard our rights, our freedoms, and our national honor. >> we will enter into a new era. >> there will begin in washington the biggest unraveling, on snarling, untangling in our nations history. >> and what was considered a major upset, harry truman defeated thomas doing keeping the white house for four more watch ic psidential electionsdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span two.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including -- >> where are you going? or, maybe the better question is, how far do you want to go? and how fast you want to get there? now, we are getting somewhere. so, let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. ♪midco suppos c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >>emocratic vice presidential nominee tim walz was in sleepy

i, mnesota to mark the beginning of the season in the state and he participated in the first hunt of the year. here is a look. [indiscernible conversations] >> we are going to start in the corner. >> good question.

>> we have some work to get started on. >> ready to go. [laughter] just the two of us. good to see you. so i'm not overstating this -- your dog got a pheasant that was at least a half mile away. we found it. so you have birds today? say hello. >> you have to work on that hat. it needs some working in.

good to see you. thank you. >> thank you for all your work. we appreciate it. >> this guy -- we've been doing this for a long time. we had a friend from norway. >> i remember the gal he brought. i face time with her. >> and he brought his dog. i got one. and i was like -- bird, bird. and he turned to me and said, the dog doesn't speak english. he speaks german. so all of his commands were in german.

>> it could be dry out there but it is cool. >> it is really nice. there are birds out there. >> i was telling the mayor -- >> look at you throwing down. >> i think it was at about the limit. these guys are good. >> you don't go wading into it

and disturb them. >> he got that one. >> they have long tails. >> when they get birding, the two of them come together. i love watching them. we had the one where we walked up and the grass was about this tall. he was standing right alongside me. i was standing right here and the road is right there. and i reached down like this and it went straight up and flew

right at the trucks. >> i should have worn my old, beat-up ones. >> governor, we are going to do the safety briefing. >> got it. >> good to see you this morning. everyone, welcome to the 2024 -- this is a time-honored tradition and i'm happy to be here. today, besides this wonderful tradition that the state has to offer, our number one goal is safety. everyone understands, everyone has gone through firearm safety and they understand there are safety points. knowing your sight picture, knowing what you are shooting at. staying in a straight line and don't get too far ahead of people are behind people. try to stay in a straight line and make sure your safeties are on your gun. if you see a bird, safety comes

off. two birds. we want the moral and ethical retrieval of the birds. we have wonderful dogs today and great weather. now i'm going to have a ceremonial check of the governor's license. >> pheasant stamp. >> now i'm going to turn it over to matt. >> members of the press, we already had our briefing and the guidelines are for you are a little bit different. if you want to be behind us, we want to know where they are at all times. we will try to be in straight line as much as we can. but if you have to follow a dog, we have to follow a dog. as our conservation officer said

is the number one priority is the safety of the people and number two is the safety of the dogs. we all want to go home tonight with our dogs safe. we want to make sure that any bird we shoot we find. we will be talking to each other and watching for that. because we have dogs on the ground, normally, muzzle down is an ok position but with dogs on the ground it is not. we will keep our muzzles in the air at all times. when a bird goes up -- we have had a funny season this year. we have some young birds that might go up a little low. be sure you have blue skies before you shoot because we don't want to accidentally shoot a dog or a person. it is ok don't call "no bird" if it really doesn't matter. the whole idea is to have fun.

that is it for the roles. we will probably plan to work the field counterclockwise around the edge. and then we will cut back in here. and then we will run the short hairs in the middle and then we will be done at about the two hour mark. and i think that is pretty much it unless anyone has any questions. we are -- the media does not want us to shoot reruns for the next two hours -- the media does not want to shoot rearends for the next two hours -- let's get faces and reset and move on. ok, members of the media, you can follow us. governor's staff, down the bridled path and cut through the trees while we work this way. >> sounds good.

great. >> we got to go to the football game last night. friday night live was amazing. >> that is mazy. >> is this your first one? >> she is not going to hunt today. >> but she is out here. macy come. >> my guy feels laying on top here.