THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME -- THANK YOU. I THANK YOU BOTH. BY THE WAY, I THINK YOU BOTH HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB. MR. ECHEVERRIA, YOU STOOD UP TO MY WHIP-SAWING YOU FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THIS MORNING, AND I REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IT'S A SERIOUS CASE, SOME SERIOUS ISSUES. I THINK I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHY IT IS THAT JUDGES ALMOST ALWAYS UPHOLD THE STATE'S RESTRICTIONS. WHO WANTS TO BE THE JUDGE WHO -- BY THE WAY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I RECEIVE MAIL REGULARLY -- WELL, NOT SO MUCH ANYMORE -- PEOPLE TELLING ME THE BLOOD OF THESE CHILDREN WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS AND COMMENTS LIKE THAT. WHO WANTS TO BE THE JUDGE WHO ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO OWN LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES OR ASSAULT WEAPONS OR MACHINE GUNS OR WHATEVER WHO WAKES UP IN THE MORNING AND FINDS OUT THAT SOME OTHER DERANGED PERSON OR SOME TERRORIST HAS KILLED A BUNCH OF YOUNG KIDS OR INNOCENT CHILDREN.
MY CONCERN, MY CONCERN IS THIS: THE BILL OF RIGHTS WASN'T ADOPTED BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME PEOPLE SITTING IN SOME THEORETICAL ROOM SOMEWHERE STROKING THEIR CHIN AND GOING: WELL, I'M GOING TO THINK BIG THOUGHTS TODAY. AND YEAH, I GOT AN IDEA. HEY, I TELL YOU WHAT. LET'S DO THIS. LET'S PASS AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DISARM THE POPULATION. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. THAT'S NOT WHY IT HAPPENED AT ALL. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAD JUST LIVED, THEY HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH AN EXPERIENCE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT, THE VERY GOVERNMENT -- MR. ECHEVERRIA, YOU'RE HERE REPRESENTING THE STATE -- THE VERY GOVERNMENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS WAS IN FACT ABUSING ITS CITIZENS, AND IT WAS DOING IT ALL UNDER THE PRETENSE OF LAW.
TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THEY WERE USING SOMETHING CALLED THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO COME INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO SEARCH AND ARREST AND HAUL PEOPLE AWAY. PEOPLE VERY OFTEN FORGET THAT THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS FOUGHT ON APRIL -- I BELIEVE IT WAS APRIL 19TH, 1775. AND IT WAS FOUGHT, WHY? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED IT WAS GOING TO DISARM, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, IT WAS GOING TO DISARM THE PUBLIC, THE COLONISTS. AND THEY MARCHED UPON LEXINGTON AND CONCORD TO DISARMTHE POPULATION. AND SO WHEN THEY WERE DRAFTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD JUST LIVED THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE -- THIS WASN'T THEORETICAL. IT WASN'T HYPOTHETICAL. IT WASN'T SOME BIG THINK TANK MOVEMENT. THEY LIVED THROUGH THIS, AND THEY DECIDED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY CANNOT DO. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE YOU CAN'T DRIVE CARS WITH TINTED WINDOWS. YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GFCI IN YOUR BATHROOM AND EVERY OTHER 20 FEET. YOU CAN TELL ME YOU MUST WEAR A SEATBELT. NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY -- WHO IN MY OPINION WERE SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE EVER ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET -- CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA, CAME UP WITH THIS EXPERIMENT, AND THEY WERE VERY MUCH AFRAID, VERY MUCH AFRAID THAT THEY MIGHT PERHAPS BE FACING IN THE FUTURE THE VERY SAME THING THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. THEY DID NOT WANT TO THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY COULD DO AND WHAT THEY COULD NOT DO WITH REGARDS TO CERTAIN THINGS.
NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES. SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION? AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT.
THOSE ARE MY PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS. BUT I'M NOT FIXED ON THAT. WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO -- AND AGAIN, I THINK YOU BOTH HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB REPRESENTING YOUR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS AND ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. BUT WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO IS I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO FILE -- YOU SORT OF HEARD MY CONCERNS. AND YOU HEARD -- YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THE THINGS THAT TROUBLE ME.
