i heard the arguments in the heller case as well as the mcdonald case. it was obvious they were going to rule that way. it's a very limited decision. chicago and oak brook are the only communities left in the country that have anything approaching a near handgun ban. it was washington d.c. and then chicago. there's nobody else that's directly affected by this. but the crucial part and it's really a narrow scope for the second amendment that they talked about. justice alito talked about a... the second amendment gives you a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. this is the crucial part. he repeated the language from heller that says this right is not unlimited. you can have restrictions on who gets guns and where they take the guns, how the guns are sold, carried and stored and even what kinds of guns they are. in effect the extremes are off the table. what we ought to do now, you can't have gun bans but you can't have this anybody any gun anywhere vision that i think wayne pushes sometimes. let's find the common ground in the middle that will

decision and here's what she had to say. >> i think heller is settled law and heller has decided that the second amendment confers such an individual's rights to keep and bear arms. do you agree with that decision that the second amendment is -- is for any reason you know of that it would not be controlling? >> there is no reason i know a spirit is settled law. she said ishn lott, settled law. what does that mean? guest: she was asked about this by other senators. she talked about this millard decision in 1939 -- this miller decision were the did not deal with that decision of individual rights. she thought it denied individual rights and that a fundamental change had occurred. the problem is she said she wants to except past presidents. -- past precedents. so she is leaving herself a big out. just like sonia sotomayor was asked whether or not she would give deference to the heller case and she said yes, it is settled law. but on monday's decision, she signed one of the the sense that denied it was an individual's right even though she had made the opposite statement. kagan is leaving

the second amendment is quite clear and it's interesting unlike the heller case this really shows the fact that, yes, firearms second amendment is for self-defense and individual possession as well. i think that's so often kicked aside in these arguments. in fact, i think a lot of people try to pretend that's really not what one of the focuses of the second amendment is. >> larry: it's been debated for years, stephanie, the second amendment back to the original minutes in the actual congress. >> it seems like there's no reason anymore in these arguments. there are states that it's okay to have guns in bars. it's okay to bring a baby in a bar. it's like, what's next? it's okay to arm babies in bars? is there no common sense? guns and alcohol, that's historically been a great combination. you can bring guns in church in some places. what do you need to make the commune wafer a clay pigeon? they are in the pocket of the gun lobby on the left right now that there's no reason -- >> larry: what did you make of the law that they threw out, penn? >> i think it's always good to go in favor of

. >> is there any doubt after the court's decision in heller macdonald that the second amendment to the constitution secures the fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self-defense in their home? >> there is no doubt, senator leahy. that is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case. so that is settled law. >> reporter: later california democrat dianne feinstein returned to the gun issue. >> california is not vermont. california is a big state with royaling cities. it's the gang capital of america. the state has tried to legislate in the arena. so here's my question to you. why is a 5-4 decision in two quick cases, why does it throw out literally decades of precedent in the heller case in your mind? why do these two cases become settled law ? >> senator feinstein, because the court decided them as they did. once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent. i think that that's an enormously important principle of the legal system . that one defers to prior justices or prior judges who have decided something. and that

i'm a gun owner, as are many people in vermont, and i agree to the heller decision. and yesterday, mcdonald versus the city of chicago, the court decided the second amendment right to establishing heller is a fundamental right that applies to the states as well as the government. that's not going to have any effect one way or theeother in vermont because we don't have gun laws in vermont except for hunting season, we try to give the deer a fighting chance. otherwise, there are no rules. is there any doubt after the court's decision heller and mcdonald is a second amendment to the constitution, secures a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self-defense in their home? >> there is no doubt, senator leahy, that's binding precedent and entitled to all respect to binding precedent in any case. that is settled law. . >> as solicitor general, did you have a role in the president's domestic or foreign policy agenda? >> the solicitor general doesn't take part in policy issues. certainly -- the only policy issues i think i might have taken part of,

we turn to lisa lynch, dean and professor of economics at the heller school for social policy and management at brandies university; and liz ann sonders, chief investment strategist at charles schwab. liza lynch when you look at the real slowdown in highering in the private sector is across-the-board? what do you see? >> well, in today's report we certainly saw only 41,000 jobs created in the private sector. but you know, rather than just looking at one month f you look at the three month average, the private sector has been adding, almost 148,000 jobs a month. and in particular we saw in this report that manufacturing continues to add jobs to the economy and that's great news to see those types of jobs coming on-line again. after over 2 million jobs lost in manufacturing sector. we also saw job gains in the temporary help sector. we saw job gains as always in education and health services. and we saw some job gains in the transportation sector. >> brown: well, you are pointing to some of the good news and yet everybody was talking about even much better news. all the expectations were high.

the second amendment has been strengthened twice within the last decade or so, in the heller case and now this case this week. the second amendment is a pillar of american exceptionalism. we know an armed pop -- populace can defend itself against tyranny. the pillars of american exceptionalism, freedom of speech and the press, the right to address the government for redress of grievances, the right to keep and bear arm, rights to property which have been subverted by the decision that i hope is overturned by a supreme court that's more prudent than the past supreme court that made that decision. the protection against double jeopardy and the right to be tried by a jury of our peers. the list goes on. but most of those pillars of american exceptionalism are within the constitution and the bill of rights. there's a couple of other components part of american exceptionalism that are not defined in the bill of rights or the constitution. that is something that -- one of them, one of them, mr. speaker, is enshrined in the flash cards that are produced by uscis, the united states ciiizenshi

heller has proposed. three million private sector jobs were lost. unemployment soared to 10% nationwide and 48 out of 50 states lost jobs. the only thing we stimulated is more government jobs. even democrats now question the wisdom of all that spending as is evidence by the fact the chairman of the senate finance committee proposed last week to cut some of it to pay for extending other expired policies. but instead of that commonsense approach, our colleagues on the other side have brought up this unpaid for bill under a process that prevents any amendment, including an effort to pay for this spending. . i suspect because of those reasons this bill will be redefeated. they know that. they want a campaign issue. members reflecting what they are hearing from their constituents, listening to the people they represent, oppose adding anothered 33 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of national debt. our national debt is now more than 90% of our total economy. look around the world. countries are singing in debt . -- singing -- singing in debt. this wrec

one of my concerns is if you read the heller decision there is a huge hole in it. they say any right does not unlimited and they can make restrictions on dangers or unusual weapons. they did not really define which type of weapons were protected, just that you cannot absolutely ban everything. my concern is, if areas like chicago want to have a restrictive gun control laws, are not able to enforce them on their own cities, as people will be forced to enact federal legislation that will affect everyone. host: let's return to the editorial, in conclusion -- elena kagan may soon replace john paul stevens on the court. david is joining us from flint, mich., on the democrats won. caller: good morning. yes, i agree with that caller who called republicans hypocrites. they pick and choose what things they like, and what things they do not like we had the most activist supreme court ever -- they have done so much to support the republicans since they got clarence thomas on the court. i am a liberal democrat, i will admit, but i cannot understand america wanting to be a nati

they were hoping that congressman dean heller from reno or john porter who represented suburban las vegas for a few years would be their candidate. neither of them decided to run for the senate. the candidates they have running are -- do not have necessarily distinguished political track records. you have the state republican chairwoman and danny tar containian, a developer, ran for office a couple of times but best known as the son of a famous basketball coach jerry tarkanian. and sharon angle, a very conservative former state assemblywoman ran for congress, lost the republican primary a couple of years ago and has caught on very strongly with conservative activists. voters in nevada are now -- they may not like reid but they are starting to say reid has been a senator this long, he has a powerful position and all the influence, do we want to surrender that for a new candidate just as a protest? so, a lot of voters say i'm voting for anybody but reid. this is really an anybody but reid situation. host: more about nevada. "wall street journal" writes the g.o.p. feud bodes well for reid. t

this decision and its predecessor, the dtrict of columbia versus heller have disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the united statev. miller, a 1939 case. i find that shocking as a former mayor. i believe the proliferation of guns have made this nation less safe, not more safe. we now he more guns than people in this country. they are sold erywhere. on street corners, in gun shows, with no restraint whatsoever. any type of weapon. they fall into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and the mentally ill virtually every day of the year. and the supreme court has thrown aside seven decades of precedent to exacerbate this situation. from the documents that have been revealed thus far, i am encouraged that solicitor kagan holds starry decisis in high regard. for example, at harvard, she expressed strong disagreement with don't ask don't tell. but she allowed military recr t recruitment to continue. the number of recruits did not diminish. i believe it increased. and as solicitor general, she defended the policy' constitutionality. arguing that the court should defer to the judgmen

they were hoping that congressman dean heller from reno or john porter who represented suburban las vegas for a few years would be their candidate. neither of them decided to run for the senate. the candidates they have running are -- do not have necessarily distinguished political track records. you have the state republican chairwoman and danny tar containian, a developer, ran for office a couple of times but best known as the son of a famous basketball coach jerry tarkanian. and sharon angle, a very conservative former state assemblywoman ran for congress, lost the republican primary a couple of yearsgo and has caught on very strongly with conservative activists. voters in nevada are now -- they may not like reid but they ar starting to say reid has been a senator this long, he has a powerful position and all the influence, do we want to surrender that for a new candidate just as a protest? so, a lot of voters say i'm voting for anybody but reid. this is really an anybody but reid situation. host: more about nevada. "wall street journal" writes the g.o.p. feud bodes well for reid. that