law-abiding, americans. i vow, if i am given the privilege of serving as director, to partner with others to advance the cause of public safety and to approach that task, especially now here now, with an open heart, with open ears, and always with an open mind. thank you. >> thank you, mister dettelbach. the chair has returned but with his permission i will make a very brief statement announcing questions. mr. dettelbach, i want to join you in thanking the extraordinary professionals of atf, the agency that you have been nominated to lead, having been a federal prosecutor, the united states can in connecticut for four and a half years i have worked with his agency. i have all of their work over the years. there is no more dedicated and brave group of professionals. what we have seen over the last 24 hours, again, we have seen it repeatedly over these years is the devotion of local law enforcement and state police to stopping gun violence and rescuing the victims and survivors of gun violence in this country.

it is the law of the land. there are measures we can take that are consistent with the second amendment that will separate people from firearms if they are dangerous to themselves to a red flag statutes, baked -- background checks. ghost guns. and others. when it comes to tackling these kinds of problems, we need an agency that is not only independent but will be perceived as independent beyond the influence and grip of the gun lobby which all too often has been perceived as having undue impact on the atf. that perception itself can undermine an agency's effectiveness. as much as i feel will bring new leadership, i think it is important we move forward to give you that opportunity as quickly as possible particularly seizing this moment of extraordinary challenge to make sure you have a mandate from the united states congress to do your job. let me ask you how you will draw on your background as a prosecutor to make sure that you are effective in this job. >> senator, i have spent the vast majority of my career

of law clerks.n the justice began to talk about the term and how it was going and how he felt he was doing. he told us that unlike prior years he was not planning on hiring his full complement of four law clerks and that instead he was going to hire just one. it was time. and even though we knew we were witnessing a significant moment in history, every think about it was classic justice stevens. low-key, plainspoken, humble, even when closing the final chapter in his service to this nation, a body of service that consistently sought to preserve and protect the rule of law. now, the rule of law and the supremacy of the law were uncontested for much of the justices life. they were just assumed to be true. it animated so much of his personal story, his rise to this court, and his work on the court. and even though the justice passed away at less than three years ago, you cannot possibly measure the distance between then and now in years. so much has happened. so much is now up for debate. and so much o

we're going to get into the law and the details of the law. but first, what does this moment mean to you personally? >> my life changed on that day in december 2012. i will never forget it. there's lots of days i wish i could forget it. but i established a bond with those families. and weeks later, with families i met in hartford, new haven, that was angry that i was showing up, caring about this issue when 20 white children had died when black children die every day in my state. that bond is something i never had before in my professional career. and i made a commitment to them that i was not going to give up until we passed legislation that made it less likely that those shootings and murders would happen. and there were a lot of days during the last ten years, where i wasn't sure whether we would ever be able to break the back of the gun lobby. whether we would ever be strong enough to pass laws that would save the lives of kids in this country. so, to be on the senate floor, delivering the passage of a bill that will save lives, it means s

it's not unusual for people to argue, to resist arrest, lawful orders, lawful commands and that is why it is important we collect data per your proposed legislation to better inform the public and our training but also that we again speak with that voice that the place to fight criminal charges were the police is in a court room. everyone seems to think it is okay these days to argue or fight on the street and there is no good outcome that comes from that. >> demetrick pennie come you spoke about the online radical organization of individuals who target the police and organize targeting of police officers, what is the relationship between the d fund the police movement and the targeted violence against law enforcement. >> thank you for the question. you have something as benign as defund the police like it was just a logo but once you take on social media, the message proliferates with the hashtag and that is what we lost so much, so much in discussion because we think of it as just being benign but the reality is radical groups, individuals use this same content to incite violence aga

after law, after law, after law. you can throw 100 laws on that wall right there. i can fill this room up was a whole bunch of folks who back my fifth position. we need to look at what is going to really solve the issue, that is looking at the human condition, that is what we are all failing to do in this room right now. people are hurting and scared, people are in trouble. >> you are familiar with the fact that 60% of the gun deaths in america are suicides? are you aware of that? >> yes i am, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you, mister chairman, for me this is a very emotional hearing need. on may 14th, an 18 year old was killed, killed ten people in a grocery store in buffalo new york, using an assault weapon. a week later, an 18 year old killed 19 children, and two teachers, at an elementary school in uvalde, texas. using an assault weapon. on a fourth of july, a 21-year-old killed seven people and injured dozens more at a community parade in highland park, illinois, using an assaul

law. it is about two hours. that history is so clear that new york no longer contests that carrying a handgun outside of the home for purposes of self-defense is constitutionally protected activity. but that concession dooms new >> which makes it a crime for a typical law-abiding new yorker to exercise that constitutional right. this court in heller labeled the very few comparable laws that restricted all outlets for carrying firearms outside the home outliers that were rightly condemned. none against georgia. new york likens it slow to a restriction on weapons and sensitive places. but the difference between a sensitive place law and new york is fundamental. it is the difference between regulating constitutionally protected activity and attempting to convert a fundamental constitutional right into a privilege that can only be enjoyed by those who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government official that they have an atypical need for the exercise of that right. that is not how con

it is not unusual for people to argue, to resist arrest rate lawful orders, lawful commands for that's when they get super important to collect the data per your proposed legislation so it can better inform the public and our training. but also that we again speak with that voice the place to fight criminal charges or the police is in a courtroom. everyone seems to think it's okay these days to argue or fight on the street. there is no good outcome that comes from that. >> sgt penny, you spoke about the online radicalization of individuals who target the police and organize targeting of a police. what is the relationship between defend the police movement and the targeted violence against law enforcement? >> think a center for the question. you could have something as benign as defend the police, like it was just a logo. once you take that on social media, the message of proliferates with the #. i thanks that's we have lost so much discussion because we think of it being benign. but the reality is it radical, individuals use the same content to incite violence against police rivets thi

that one carvato is the honorable harry pregerson professor of law at ucla school of law. the author of numerous articles and edited volumes. he's also the co-author of acting white. we're thinking race in post-racial america. he lives in los angeles. he will be in conversation with paul butler a former federal prosecutor who provides legal commentary for ms. and bc and npr and has been featured in 60 minutes and profile washington post. a love professor at georgetown university. he is the author of let's get free a hip-hop theory of justice winner of the harry shopping media award and showcold policing black men both from the new press. he has published numerous op-eds and book reviews including the new york times the washington post the boston globe and the los angeles time. so, please let's welcome them. thank you for being here. good evening, everyone. thank you so much for coming out. it really is my pleasure to have the opportunity to engage you in this way. i'm looking forward to your comments your reactions your questions and before we get to all of that i would of

to the law on national minorities, this is an issue related to the law on media, well, this is one ofhe important ones , this is the main plan of the verkhovna rada, which we have to implement in the near future, which laws will cause even more debate among deputies on your i am asking for an opinion. i think that the discussion will be sensitive. it will be necessary to explain why some of the tv channels were closed, including espresso , depriving them of access to the broadcast network. so, i think that it will be very uncomfortable for them to enter into the discussion of this topic, in principle, because, trust me, ask them questions on tv channels not only this is heard publicly, do we write somewhere on social networks or do we also ask about it on the air, international partners also ask about it, but i am also very worried about the fate of the draft law on national minorities, that's why that we know how actively russia will be involved in this discussion and how actively putin's friends will be involved , including orban, who has obviously lost his sense of reality after ye

our gun law does allow states to make their red flag laws work better.ade a d difference here. and alert law enforcement any time somebody under 21 is trying to buy a weapon. local law enforcement. in this case whether things might have gone differently if local law enforcement had been alerted when this young man was trying to buy assault weapons. we need to go further. but i don't think anything in the supreme court ruling invalidates the law that congress passed and there are elements of that law that could have made a difference here. >> senator murphy, good luck on the rest of the walk. thank you for joining us. >>>> thank you. >>> back next with high land park's mayor. ugh-stipated... feeling weighed down by a backedup gut" miralax is different. it works naturally with the water in your body to unblock your gut. ...free ur gut. and your mood will follow. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the tightness, stinging... the pain. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer

law. didn't really affect the keep right the way the effect the cure right and left you trying to say entirety of manhattan is a sensitive place but in general, the analysis will be slightly different but i would say that i don't think those differences are material here. i think the district instead of just banning handguns inside the home, if it adapted a permanent regime that required district residents to show that they had an atypical need to possess a handgun inside the home, i'm not sure anything and heller would have been different because it is just inconsistent with a constitutional right to either ban the exercise of it or say that it is a privilege you can only exercise if you show your atypical from the rest of the people who are equally protected by the constitutional right. >> and some of you have asked us to provide further guidance. putting aside your case for the moment, they are pointing out that some lower court have refused to apply the history test so they will not ex

>> hi, bloomberg law. has hhs instructed the fda to speed up the process to get pharmacies to spend -- you also mentioned access to medication abortion. will that include sponsoring the ongoing lawsuit in mississippi, the manufacturing arguing with the fda to prevent additional restrictions? sec. becerra: medication abortion is available. drugs have been shown to be safe and effective. i will let the fda respond to what it will do and what it is in the process of doing. i will tell you we are working with the fda to make sure they have every opportunity to continue to provide americans with access to safe and effective treatments. we will continue to work with partners, whether public or private to make sure women have access to the reproductive care services and payments they need. >> my involvement with modern health -- maia goldman with modern health care. you mentioned your directing -- to help with patients and collaborators. can you describe what that will look like? sec. becerra: under federal law t

i'll follow the law. you're watching american history tv on c-span as we look back at what the current justices said about roby way during their confirmation hearings justice neil gorsuch was asked about the 1973 decision as well. senator again, i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973. the president united states supreme court it has been reaffirmed. the reliance interest considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent. to be considered it is a precedent of the united states supreme court. is reaffirmed in casey in 1992. in several other cases so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other what about griswold which was decided a few years before row the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy? can you tell me your views on griswold? center it's a precedent. it's now. 50 years old griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive

and who appoints whom in article 8 of the law on the eight, with one symbol of the law on the prosecutor'se, taking this into account, all your predictions when he will be appointed, will it happen? in general, you know the appointment of klymenko. i hope that in the near future , the very nearest time, a corresponding personnel decision will be made, because everyone was actually waiting for this decision, and as a result , precisely because there was no confirmation of this we did not make such a decision back in december, although today we made the same decision hmm plus-minus there in the editorial office, the correction of some wording has changed, but actually nothing has changed since december and yet, i actually convinced the commission members that it is necessary that the commission actually completes its work and fully bears all the responsibility for this only from the prosecutor general. that is, the prosecutor general must appoint a deputy to himself in order to strengthen the relevant institution. and actually to ensure the effectiveness of the work of the specialized anti-c

the law itself is on trial. it is judged according to whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature which is congress. the executive branch which is the president. and the judiciary which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies. that is it passes the laws. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and the judiciary is charged with reviewing and judging policies. but while each of these branches of government has its own clearly defined duties they all work together as a team through a system of checks and balances. here are some examples of what i mean. the president appoints justices to the supreme court executive balances judicial. congress determines the size of the supreme court legisla

but enforcing the law is a real concern and the states virginia, maryland have similar laws and they are starting to be enforced more. there also seems to be spotty enforcement especially where justice robertson justice kavanaugh live. the mayor says he is so upset about the decision that he will not support the law to protect the judges. none of our justices should have to be concerned that the way they vote and a case is going to affect their personal safety. that is something i would except from cuba or venezuela where a judge would think is something bad going to happen to me if i rule one way or another. that is not the rule of law. that is the rule of violence and i think we should get away with it. host: let me quickly invite the viewers to join the conversation. one more question on safety or threats as folks are calling in, i know your focus is the judiciary. how concerned are you about threats to members of congress? we saw a story of a man arrested outside the house of pramila jayapal. what are your thoughts on that story? guest: leaders in every branch should be protected

federal law prohibits it. so it's very difficult to track who owns which guns and how many they have including prohibited offenders who are barred from having firearms. the other key here is that our country as a wash in guns and for private gun transfers, there is no requirement that people undergo a background check and you talk about the background check and in our country or the, the us being a wash with guns. i should say we have a twitter common from 10 di talking about the culture of guns if you will. if truth be told, the horse has already bolted in the u. s. as far as gun violence is concerned, as long as americans continue to glorify guns and violence in their movies and entertainment, as well as believing that guns are a necessary tool for protection. and it's a lost cause. so quite pass mistake their shannon, but i'm curious. the culture itself, how big a role does that play? you know, we know that there's the 2nd amendment. we know that, you know, we hear americans love their guns and their statis

, july 16 for e-e it will already be new an era in the history of ukrainian media, according to the law on the ukrainian language, from tomorrow administrative responsibility is provided for violation of certain informational nuances, for example, for websites, the start page must be in ukrainian, all social studies and news must also be presented in ukrainian in the mass media, but soon the nearest sometimes i understand that the ukrainian mass media is waiting for a serious update with a new law. let's talk now with olha gerasimyuk, the head of the national council of ukraine on television and radio broadcasting ms. olya, i congratulate you good evening, i specifically called this law on mass media very painful because its history began at the end of the 19th year and we still do not have a new law on mass media and now it seems that we have to adopt it in general with all the european nuances. since we are synchronizing our legislation with the european one. development can i add to the word a lot of suffering that you have experienced just these days is actually a decade since our c

she earned her doctorate and law degree at georgetown university law center. her masters in french from the university of south florida and a ba in history and french from mary college. our third speaker alexandria desantis will be speaking on her new book you have it here to hold it up? >> i do not. >> ok. she co-authored the book called tearing us apart how abortion harms everything and solves nothing. she will discuss how the pro-life movement can make the best case against abortion by explaining it is hard -- that it has harmed every aspect of our site society. -- commentary for this national review online. she has hosted many national review podcasts and speaks often on campus colleges -- college campuses and conferences. yesterday she spoke at a foundation high school conference along with carolyn from our staff. in many conservative events across the country. her work has been published in the new york times, wall street journal, the atlantic, washington post, washington salmon, and the human life view. she is a 2016 graduate of the university of notre

i am the professor of law at duke law school where i also codirected the center for firearms, law and i'm testifying here today purely on my individual capacity. as the committee considers the laws and policies to keep americans safe from the risk and reality of devastating mass shootings like what happened in highland park on july 4th, it does so in the wake of the recent decision in new york's state rifle and pistol association. shthat case announced a new legl test governing the constitutional challenges to any new gun laws that congress or states may pass as well as the laws already on the books including highland park's municipal assault weapons bans that survives an earlier second amendment challenge. how the test is applied will have a significant impact on efforts to protect public safety and it is therefore critically important that the committee and the american people understand the new judicial framework in my brief remarks i want to focus on two points in particular. first is the justice thomas' majority opinion adopts a new test for evaluating the constitutionality of gu

a special inspection is carried out in rule-of-law states , there is a distribution of power, and thistribution assumes that each body is independent and politically neutral, if we are talking, for example, about the office of the general prosecutor, if the prosecutor general is appointed a person who has no relation to criminal justice, has never worked in that field, was a teacher, for example, of civil disciplines, and besides that, there is no political injury, and he is a representative of a specific political force. can we talk about what, for example, the office of the prosecutor general is an independent body and is able to investigate, in particular, cases of the appointment of the president's office regarding persons to positions, if there is a violation of the law, we are talking about what is actually happening yes or otherwise usurpation of power grounds dismissal is very difficult to discuss because at the moment if society or us are given any reasons, we understand that these are formal reasons that have been brought to society and real reasons, unfortunately, at the mom

these laws are protective. laws is to communicate that to the public. in this case there is a long series of studies that have found that these laws are associated with increases in violence. these have used different methods that have been checked and repeated by other people. they have been peer-reviewed by others in the field. there has been strong evidence associated with these laws. host: karen is next in alabaster, alabama. caller: i am confused whether this guest wants us to have more gun laws or he opposes them. i oppose stricter gun laws specifically those red flag laws because they are not enforcing them and everyone is worried about mass shootings right now. most of those people were on antidepressant so it is more of a mental health issue. but new york is outrageous with their gun laws and they are putting in all of these laws where they decide whether you should be allowed to carry a gun. they will look at your social media account. it will not be an objective process. it will be subjective, if the

mobilization, there are restrictions in the law on legal the regime of martial law.refore, it is necessary to see how far these restrictions are currently expedient, and if they are not expedient , then of course comprehensive changes should be made and in accordance with the legislative procedure. thank you. another interesting and debatable topic for you is from october 1. at the same time, this does not automatically mean mobilization, they say there, because it is carried out on the basis of another law. our colleagues ilona and victoria are confidently holding their weapons, now they are in the ranks of the 112th brigade of the kyiv tereo, they have collected things and are ready to meet the enemy at any moment. ilona felt that there would be a full-scale russian offensive and began to overcome the trio even before february 24 that day already at seven in the morning she was at the door of the warlord with her things, she says that she was scared only on the first day, and when i was 16 years old there in the 14th year, of course, it was probably the most i coul

and there is a law of ukraine on mobilization.aw of ukraine on military duty of military service . it provides for the corresponding rights and obligations of conscripts of military servicemen. and here is the procedure for registration directly by this law, and mobilization is a rather short-lived procedure that is valid for the period there a special period for the period of mobilization is similar to that, moreover, mobilization takes place on the basis of a presidential decree, today it is the second in our country, if you do not count those decrees that were from the ato period and conscription for military service does not take place on a temporary basis, i mean on the one that what is happening now, which everyone is afraid of, is directly based on the president's decree, so why am i saying all this? yes, the law obliges women in professions on the same level as men to register for military service from october 1. to pass the medical commission, and already after being appointed to the military, it may be possible, it may n

even 150 years ago, the common law in many state laws did not criminalize abortion early in pregnancy. ats very similar to the viability line draw by row. the dobbs majority ignores that fact. the dobbs majority ignores that many laws are enacted to protect women at the time. they were dying from unsafe abortions. this is a historic -- a horrific reality that rosoff and. the practice of medicine should not be frozen in the 19th century. what happened? a dissenting opinion said as clear as you can possibly say it, and here's the. either law nor facts nor attitudes provided any new reason to reach a different result than row did. that is changing -- and all that has changed on this court. all of this change is the court. nothing about the constitution or the law. it was about a deep, long seated antipathy towards row and the right to privacy. as the justices wrote, the majority is overruling roe and casey for one and only one reason. there is always a reason to despise them, and they now have the votes to discard them. so, what we are witnessing is not a constitutional judgment. it is a

there are other state red flag laws that don't so what we need to do is take the state laws and create a quick process by which you can remove weapons from people who are a danger to themselves or others model that. or somewhat ironically it's an example of a state that has a red flag law that works . in fact there are 8000 different people in florida just over the last few years since the law was passed that have had their weapons taken away from them who were either threatening suicide or threatening violence against others. there are other laws across this country that don't work well so we got todo a better job of sharing the experience of states like florida . and we're not going to the same question again. >> my second question is aboutthe second amendment . >> i do this in my book and i've done this in my speeches. i do believe that our founding fathers believed that the common law right of privategun ownership . i don't think second amendment is most likely about the privateright of gun ownership . that is mostly about the army of militias at our founding fathers did believe th

the red flag laws, we kept hearing about these red flag laws but apparently, he purchased these weaponsthem legally even after these two incidents had occurred which raises at least in my mind, i'm sure in yours, a lot of questions. >> it really does, wolf, it highlights to you how hard it is to exclude someone from the ability to purchase a firearm. neither of those two incidents raised to the level of an ex clueser under the brady act, only about 10 or 11 of them and one is if you've been adjudicated and mental defective so no one had gone into court and sat in front of a judge and made the argument that mr. crimo should be committed to a mental institution or officially ruled mentally defective. had that happened, he would never have been able to pass a background check to buy a firearm but that is an incredibly high standard. red flag law is an attempt to create a somewhat lower, more immediate standard. any police officer or family member can go in and say this person made aggressive comments or threatened people, what have you, acted aggressively, and your weapons under illinois l

germany has a law forty years ago, to which you can change sex only after a psychological examination and by court order. this allegedly infringes on the rights of non-binary germans. now the minister. uh, for the family of the elderly and women of the youth of germany, eliza pause calls for repentance before transgender people and compensate them for the damage caused. how exactly it will be reimbursed by the lady does not specify, apparently, german taxpayers will be forced to pay for operations to change and gender. or they themselves will be delivered to change sex against desires. so they have more save washing not four parts of the body, but two at the most to live a free life, each person must determine for himself what gender he belongs to and therefore we have created a modern law on self-determination. than strengthened the basic rights for all. some people realize in the course of their lives that their birth sex does not match their real sex . we will end external control by the authorities that is why we are a traffic light coalition changing the law on transgender people

projects where the law allows?ister chairman, under the leadership on this committee and the work of the bipartisan infrastructure law, there is an increase of up to 23 billion in the funding for transit capital investment over the next five years. so, that is a doubling. with the sustained investment and the revisions to the small starts eligibility, the past year alone, we have seen 100 50% increase in the pipeline of projects. of small starts projects, entering the c.i.g., together with the new starts projects co-capacity and expedited project delivery. half of the current projects in c.i.g. the higher for small start, so i have heard from the project sponsors, especially from smaller and mid sized cities, that local match can present a problem. we are working very closely with them as the applications become available in our complete, to assist them with identifying not only with their needs are from a financial perspective but what the amount of federal funds that will be available and we can make available to