State v. Wilson: The Battle Over Public Carry Rights Reaches the Supreme Court

The Second Amendment debate has taken a new turn, and all eyes are now on the U.S. Supreme Court as it considers whether to take on State v. Wilson, a case with the potential to reshape the landscape of gun rights in America. At the heart of the issue is Hawaii’s stringent requirement for permits to carry firearms in public. State v. Wilson poses a significant question: does a state’s licensing requirement infringe upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms? With a scheduled conference on November 1, 2024, this case could mark a major shift—not by expanding gun rights, but by restoring them to the people, where they rightfully belong.

The background of State v. Wilson is rooted in Hawaii’s restrictive stance on public firearm carry, requiring residents to obtain a permit to carry guns outside their homes. The state justifies these measures as essential for public safety, given its unique cultural and legal history. However, opponents argue that these restrictions are unconstitutional, especially in light of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court ruled that gun regulations must be consistent with historical norms and cannot impose undue barriers on the right to bear arms. Many view Hawaii’s permit requirements as a direct contradiction to this precedent.

The impact of a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of Wilson could extend far beyond Hawaii. Should the Court decide to hear the case and ultimately side with Wilson, it would reinforce a broader trend toward “constitutional carry”—the right to carry a firearm without a permit. Currently, over half of U.S. states have adopted some form of constitutional carry, signaling a movement toward a more permissive approach to public carry rights. A ruling in Wilson’s favor could limit states’ ability to impose restrictive licensing laws, moving the nation closer to a uniform standard that aligns with the Second Amendment as traditionally understood.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, this case could set a national precedent by affirming that the right to bear arms in public is indeed fundamental and not subject to restrictive state licensing schemes. For states with strict gun control measures, a decision favoring Wilson could necessitate a reassessment of their laws and bring about a nationwide shift towards constitutional carry.

As the Supreme Court prepares to discuss State v. Wilson on November 1, gun rights advocates and state governments alike are paying close attention. This case stands as a critical test of the balance between state authority and individual rights under the Constitution. While some view the potential outcome as an expansion of gun rights, others see it as a return of these rights to the people—a restoration of freedoms that have long been safeguarded by the Second Amendment.

The Menendez Brothers: A Different Perspective

Beverly Hills, CA—Eric and Lyle Menendez were born into a family deeply entrenched in the entertainment industry. Their father, Jose Menendez, was a successful entertainment executive, having held prominent positions at RCA Records and later as the president of LIVE Entertainment (also known as International Video Entertainment), a major company in film production and distribution. His influence helped shape the entertainment landscape during the 1980s, making the Menendez family a powerful name in Hollywood.

It’s fair to assume that other relatives of the Menendez brothers remain influential in the entertainment industry. This family network could have the reach and resources to greenlight projects that reshape public perception, making the creation and promotion of films about these two infamous brothers a strategic move. With the case already high-profile, leveraging such media influence today to cast them in a sympathetic light isn’t far-fetched. As a result, it seems the Menendez brothers may be on the fast track toward parole before the holidays.

In this context, it’s hard to ignore the role wealth and privilege play in shaping justice. While 35 years behind bars is significant, many other offenders typically begin to reenter society after serving 20 years or more. For the Menendez brothers, serving three decades was a long sentence, but the power of their family’s influence appears to be changing their fate.

Let’s be clear: our criminal justice system is many things, but fair isn’t always one of them. In this case, wealth and influence played a major role, highlighting the disparity between those who have resources and those who do not. The Menendez brothers have the advantage of both, a luxury most serving life sentences without parole can only dream of.

Comparing MAGA with National Socialism is criminal defamation.

New York, NY —Kamala Harris and her allies on the radical left have sunk to new lows, slandering Donald Trump and his supporters by branding them as Nazis. They shamelessly insinuate that Trump’s campaign rally at Madison Square Garden is akin to the 1939 pro-Nazi event held there. This vile comparison crosses every conceivable boundary.

These political agitators, propped up by their willing accomplices in the media, have weaponized lies and crossed into outright criminal behavior with their defamatory rhetoric.

Their objective is clear: to tarnish the image of MAGA and cast it in a negative light. Yet MAGA stands for nothing but the noble goal of restoring America’s greatness. At the rally, an immense and truly diverse crowd came together—Americans of every race, religion, and background. Their shared vision? A country of greater freedom, reduced taxes, peace instead of endless wars, and neighborhoods free from crime and decay. There is absolutely no parallel between Trump supporters, who seek a better future for all, and the twisted followers of Adolf Hitler. This heinous smear campaign by Harris and her cohorts is a baseless attack on millions of patriotic Americans.

Such extremist, inflammatory rhetoric endangers lives, fueling the minds of those who could be pushed to violence. It’s recklessly irresponsible on every level. Rather than present solutions for inflation, security, or prosperity, these desperate politicians fall back on hatred and division. Their messages reek of unbridled animosity, devoid of any semblance of constructive vision.

You heard it from me there is no question. The Democrats want to see Donald Trump murdered.

The Harris/Walz campaign has crossed into dangerous territory, igniting the flames of violent extremism and openly embracing assassination as a political strategy. Lacking any legitimate platform or vision, they have abandoned reasoned discourse, replacing it with a relentless campaign of hate, vilification, and outright incitement against President Trump. This is not about policy; it’s about destruction, division, and control at any cost. They cynically label Trump as a “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “dictator,” echoing the chilling words of Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” They seem intent on turning lies into weapons, hoping that their incendiary language will incite violence.

Already, there have been two attempts on Trump’s life, and the dangerous rhetoric from the Democrats suggests they believe that “the third time’s the charm.” Their words are a loaded weapon aimed directly at the heart of our Republic. This is not merely irresponsible; it is a calculated and deliberate threat to the democratic fabric of our nation. The true danger here is not Trump but the unhinged rhetoric from those who would risk our country’s stability for the sake of power. 

Groping allegations as the last Hail Mary in a political race.

  

Let’s Talk About “Grope”: A Hands-On Guide to the World’s Most Awkward Word (Especially When Running for political Office)

Welcome to the world of grope, a word with more layers than an overstuffed burrito. Today, I’m here to help you unpack all the ways we (awkwardly) stumble into situations where this term is oddly accurate. Let’s dive in, definition style, and embrace the art of grope— the innocent, the mental, and the definitely illegal.

Ah, the classic move: the courting grope. In the history of humanity’s clumsiest flirtations, this maneuver has somehow survived every social evolution.

Men, with their fearless approach to “testing the waters,” might see a grope as the ultimate dare in the courting process — a bold attempt to break the touch barrier, sometimes without realizing that barriers exist for a reason. Women, on the other hand, are generally not hardwired for such tactics. Instead, they’ve mastered subtleties like eye contact, laughter, and even conversation. But some men? They go straight for the grope, figuring it’s the fast track to a connection, only to find it’s more like the express lane to a swift exit. The simple truth of the matter is that none of us would be here unless our fathers started the party with a grope.

Ah, yes, the infamous courting grope: a romantic gesture as old as time, performed almost exclusively by men who have somehow confused boldness with just… bad decision-making. Picture it — somewhere in the male mind, a little voice says, “This is it! She’ll find it charming!” And so, with the bravery of a knight charging into battle (but less armor and more cologne), he goes for it.

Women, meanwhile, have this thing called tact. They’ll play the eye contact game, they’ll laugh a little too long at jokes, they’ll even toss out a casual arm touch — anything to show interest without making it weird. But some men? They skip these subtle maneuvers and head straight for the grope, as if it’s a shortcut to love rather than the express lane to a restraining order.

It’s as if they think the courtship game is just one step: Step one, grope; step two… happily ever after? Meanwhile, women everywhere are left to wonder: Was that a… signal? Or do you just not understand personal space? It’s a mystery as old as the hills — and just as likely to leave everyone involved groaning.

Isn’t it interesting that all of the women who have complained that Donald Trump groped them are Democrats?  That must be a real coincidence.

Film Review: “September 5” - A Gripping Journey Back to Munich, 1972

Los Angeles, CA—One of the perks of being a Screen Actors Guild member is exclusive access to film screenings. This time, it was at the stunning theater at Paramount Studios, where not only did I see the film, but I got to meet the talented cast and the young visionary Swiss director, Tim Fehlbaum.

“September 5” transports viewers back to the Munich Olympics of 1972—a global celebration of athleticism that quickly spiraled into a nightmare. The world watched in shock as Palestinian terrorists, under the name Black September, launched a calculated attack, kidnapping and brutally murdering 11 Israeli athletes and coaches, along with a German policeman. Helping orchestrate the horror were infamous German radicals Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, making the tragedy even more chilling.

What sets this film apart is its unique perspective: we experience the horror through the eyes of ABC News sports reporters and producers, who were on-site in Munich, covering the Olympics. Imagine using the “cutting-edge” equipment of 1972—now laughably outdated by today’s standards—to broadcast a massive international story. The pressure was relentless; these were sports reporters suddenly plunged into a global crisis well beyond their usual scope. Yet, through their determined reporting, they became the eyes and ears of the world.  Nearly 1,000,000,000 viewers watch this unfold worldwide on live television. 

Sean Penn produced this film, and regardless of personal opinions on his politics, there’s no denying his extraordinary talent. The acting is powerful, the cinematography innovative, and the experience immersive. Watching, you feel as though you’re right there in the cramped, chaotic makeshift studio alongside the reporters, experiencing every tense moment as they grapple with a breaking tragedy.

As the story unfolds, you already know that history won’t deliver a happy ending. Yet, the intensity never lets up. This is a film like nothing you’ve ever seen before. “September 5” will keep you on the edge of your seat, captivated by the courage, humanity, and tragedy of that day in Munich. Don’t miss it.

The film opens in select theaters November 29.  It opens nationwide on December 13.  

Charged with a Serious Crime? You Need a Public Relations Crisis Management Expert

Los Angeles, CA— We’ve seen time and again how a media-created narrative can have a decisive impact on a jury’s verdict. If the media sows doubt, you have a chance. If they condemn you, you’re likely finished.

But wait! Jurors are instructed to avoid media coverage, right? In reality, judicial admonishments are often ignored, and jurors regularly turn to Google to dig up information. The percentage of jurors violating these rules is alarmingly close to 100%.

Some defense attorneys seek media attention not necessarily to help their clients but to elevate their own careers. Take the Scott Peterson case, for example. What could have been a routine murder trial in Modesto, California, turned into an international sensation, largely because Peterson’s defense lawyer courted publicity.

Scott Peterson wasn’t convicted by the evidence alone but by the loud commentary of media personalities like Nancy Grace. Grace capitalized on Peterson’s deceptive behavior and infidelity to paint him as a villain, influencing the jury’s perception. Even now, no medical expert can definitively state how Laci Peterson died. There’s no certainty that she wasn’t a victim of something other than murder.

Recently, we’ve witnessed a shift in the narrative surrounding the Menendez Brothers, influenced by a couple of documentaries and a new wave of media coverage.

The case of Ohio osteopath Sam Sheppard was one of the first where media manipulation played a significant role. Sheppard was crucified in the press, swaying the public and jury to see him as a murderer despite shaky evidence. Years later, a German woman who became romantically involved with Sheppard mounted a media campaign proclaiming his innocence, attracting the help of famed attorney F. Lee Bailey. The resulting shift in media narrative ultimately helped secure Sheppard’s freedom.

These examples show the incredible power the media holds in shaping public opinion and controlling the thoughts of their audience. Many of us like to believe we’re immune to this kind of influence, but that’s far from true. The media doesn’t always tell the truth, and when they don’t, we are at risk of being manipulated.

That’s why totalitarian regimes, whether communist or fascist, always prioritize seizing control of the media. It’s the first step in their systematic brainwashing of the population.

Our legal system needs to recognize its responsibility to shield the accused from the media’s overwhelming influence. Juries should be sequestered more often, and change of venue requests should be granted more liberally. While these measures are expensive, they are less costly than the price we pay for wrongful convictions.

At 1:30 PM Pacific Time today, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón is expected to announce his intention to release the Menendez Brothers. Facing a tough reelection fight, this appears to be his final Hail Mary to satisfy both the public and the media. Time will tell if I’m right.

Joining the Los Angeles County Superior Court Private Investigator Panel: A New Chapter in my Defense Investigations

Los Angeles, CA—Throughout my career as a criminal defense investigator, I’ve had the opportunity to work on numerous cases, including several pro bono efforts for those who couldn’t afford a skilled and aggressive investigator. The work involved in criminal defense investigations is not only expensive but also incredibly time-consuming and, at times, exhausting.

In many cases, clients are not always forthcoming and can lead you on a wild goose chase, which makes the work even more challenging. Sometimes, the best you can hope for is uncovering mitigating circumstances that disprove any evil intent. Other times, you’re fortunate enough to encounter cases where people are truly innocent, unfairly targeted due to sloppy police work. Unfortunately, when that happens, the cover-up by authorities often begins.

Historically, the compensation for investigators working indigent defense cases has been too low to justify the time and effort involved. However, recent changes have made it financially viable, and that convinced me to join the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s Private Investigator Panel. Although these indigent cases frequently involve clients accused of some of the most heinous and repulsive crimes, they are still entitled to a fair trial and an aggressive defense investigation.

The best part of joining this panel is that I will still have the freedom to take on private cases as I always have. I will be working cases both in Arizona as usual.  I look forward to working with a team of defense attorneys dedicated to representing indigent defendants. Thankfully, the courts have evolved since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), which mandated that legal representation be provided to those who cannot afford it.

I consider it a privilege to be part of this effort and to contribute to ensuring that justice is served for all, even those who are destitute. For me, this represents a new chapter in my career, one that aligns with my belief in fairness and the pursuit of truth, no matter the challenges. 

Looney left politicians enabling and facilitating the cowardly criminals they refuse to keep locked up.

 

Los Angeles, CA—Crime here is an out-of-control, raging dumpster fire. The odds of getting stabbed or shot on public transit are better than hitting the jackpot.

For decades, liberal politicians have been falling all over themselves to pass every gun ban they could push through. Did it slow down the criminals? Not a snowball's chance in hell. All it did was make the streets a safer place—for the predators. These lowlifes are free to rob, sexually assault, and brutalize the elderly and the weak without fear of resistance.

Los Angeles is cursed with the worst possible leadership—a mayor who couldn’t care less and a county board packed with leftist lunatics. Their solution? Keep the public unarmed, defenseless, and ripe for the picking. Meanwhile, the police force is gutted by manpower shortages, and those who are left are shackled by counterproductive policies that do more to protect criminals than citizens.

The Second Amendment is crystal clear: Americans have the right to arm themselves everywhere with modern, effective firearms. But these political ass clowns seem to get off on watching the violence they pretend to condemn.

What we need, especially on our public transportation, are armed citizens and undercover cops. When these cowardly criminals strike, they need to be met with deadly force, stopped cold by the very people they were targeting.

It won’t be pretty at first—some of these vicious predators will end up zipped into rubber body bags. Yes, many will be minorities, because like it or not, they’re the ones committing these savage crimes. But in the end, there will be fewer innocent people living in fear, being tortured, or killed.

Until we, the people, stand up and demand our liberty and our safety, nothing will change. And if that means civil disobedience to unconstitutional gun laws, then so be it.

The Death Penalty: Does One Size Fit All?

Phoenix, AZ— Some crimes are so horrific that a quick death for the perpetrator feels justified. But our criminal justice system has a fundamental flaw: the standard of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This nebulous term has become a source of injustice, particularly in capital cases.

Having witnessed numerous criminal trials, including those where the death penalty was at stake, I’ve seen firsthand the confusion over what “reasonable doubt” really means. It’s a vague standard that varies from one juror to the next. And when the crime is especially heinous, that ambiguity can lead to false convictions. People, naturally outraged by terrible acts, can be eager to punish, and often that means overlooking the very doubt that should protect the innocent.

I’ve come to despise the term “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because I’ve watched as innocent people were convicted, and in other cases, where the convicted might have been innocent. Worse, I’ve seen law enforcement and prosecutors in high-profile cases intentionally hide exculpatory evidence to secure a conviction. The pressure to win often outweighs the duty to seek the truth.

Then there’s the issue of eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. In many cases, people are absolutely certain they saw someone, only to be proven wrong when surveillance video footage comes to light. The fact is, people lie under oath more easily than in everyday conversation, and when the prosecution’s star witness is a co-conspirator looking for a deal, the system becomes even murkier.

The solution? We must raise the standard of proof, particularly in cases where life or death is on the line. Prosecutors won’t like it, but if we want to eliminate wrongful convictions, we need something more concrete than “reasonable doubt.” No innocent person should ever face death, and the only way to ensure that is to demand absolute certainty of guilt.

Our justice system is many things, but perfect it is not. In recent decades, over 200 people have been exonerated and taken off death row after new evidence surfaced. Some spent the majority of their lives in prison before finally proving their innocence. If we’re going to take someone’s life—or lock them away forever—we should be sure beyond a shadow of doubt.

There’s another issue we can’t ignore. Some killers act in a single moment of madness and, after 20 or 30 years in prison, they become entirely different people. Our justice system doesn’t account for the possibility of redemption or transformation. Should we be sentencing people to death or life without the chance of ever considering the person they might become?

The death penalty, and our system of capital punishment, demands reform. One size does not fit all. The stakes are too high to settle for a standard that allows for uncertainty.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Jobs: A New Reality

Los Angeles, CA – The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries across the globe, and there’s no doubt it’s putting many jobs at risk. High-paying professions, such as radiologists who read medical images like x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs, are discovering that AI can interpret these images with greater accuracy. The medical community is just beginning to feel the effects of this change, and it’s clear the landscape will continue to evolve rapidly.

The legal profession is also being turned upside down by AI. Lawyers, once considered irreplaceable for their expertise, are finding that AI can offer legal advice, generate documents, and guide individuals through complex legal processes. With a few prompts, people can have AI draft legal filings and tell them how to proceed, essentially transforming them into their own legal advocates. The era where AI can turn anyone into a virtual Clarence Darrow is upon us.

The entertainment industry is another sector facing major disruption. AI has the potential to replace screenwriters and create stories on demand, threatening the livelihood of many creative professionals. The Screen Actors Guild and other unions are pushing for legal protections against the encroachment of AI, hoping to shield actors and other creatives from job loss.

However, these efforts may be in vain. AI, as a form of expression, is likely protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning attempts to regulate or limit its use face significant legal hurdles. While unions and professionals may fight to slow AI’s takeover, the technology is here to stay, and it’s reshaping the job market in profound ways.

The takeaway is simple: those who learn how to use AI effectively will thrive, while those who resist or fail to adapt may find themselves left behind. As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, mastering it is no longer optional—it’s essential. In this new era, understanding AI will be as fundamental as reading and writing.

How big city politicians kill crime to bullshit to public.

Chicago, IL – You’ve just heard your local news anchor confidently tell you that despite how it may seem, crime in the Windy City is actually on the decline. But you have to ask yourself, is crime really slowing down, or is someone massaging the numbers with a pencil?

I don’t care what your mayor or the news media says, especially in large cities – the police chief or superintendent does not set policy. Mayors never give up that control. The police brass get their marching orders and either follow them or get replaced. Statistical deception is only limited by the creativity or lack thereof by those in charge of presenting the numbers.

The term often thrown around is “killing crime.” Here’s how it works: police reports are categorized on forms generated by the department. The system, created by the FBI, divides crimes into Part One offenses (the most serious) and Part Two offenses (less serious), all under the Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR).

Take burglary as an example. A burglar breaks into a home to steal property or commit another crime. If the police make an arrest and clear the crime, it’s reported as a burglary. That crime is then cleared by police efficiency stats. But when they can’t make an arrest, police bosses don’t want it reported as a Part One burglary. So, officers are instructed to categorize it as vandalism and simple theft instead. It’s a clever way to cheat—by not reducing the burglary rate but showing an artificially high rate of solving crimes.

And what happens to officers who don’t play along with this bullshit? For starters, they’re reassigned to districts far from their homes. Their chances for promotion evaporate, and their efficiency ratings tank. You get the picture.

Now, how do they cover up homicides? As an investigative TV news producer, I got a tip from a Chicago homicide detective who spilled the beans. He explained that certain cases, like a murdered prostitute estranged from her family, get dumped into a special file labeled “pending death investigations.” The trick is that since these deaths aren’t officially classified as homicides, they never make it to the UCR system.

I asked the detective how I could get the numbers on these death investigations to expose the system. He told me what I already suspected—it would require a mountain of research, and I’d get no help from the department.

So, I took a different route. I filed a public records request with the Cook County Medical Examiner and got access to their case database. I compared the homicides listed in the city of Chicago with what city officials were claiming. The results were shocking: Chicago police had concealed over 350 murders. I passed this information to retired CBS2 reporter Pam Zekman, who confronted former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline with our findings. That story won an Emmy.

If you’re a mayor and don’t like your crime statistics, don’t worry—you can always cheat. Below is a brief rundown of the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Anyone with half a brain can figure out a way to bullshit the public.

The UCR system is a national crime data collection program managed by the FBI. It classifies crimes into two categories: Part One Crimes (the serious stuff, like violent and property crimes) and Part Two Crimes (less serious offenses). Part One Crimes are what most jurisdictions use to gauge the overall crime rate, and these are the numbers the public hears about the most.

Part Two Crimes, on the other hand, cover a broader range of offenses but don’t carry as much weight when calculating crime trends or shaping public perception.

Now that I’ve told you how officials hide or kill crime, here’s the flip side: some jurisdictions over-report crime to snag more federal funds.

So, how trustworthy is the UCR? About as trustworthy as your local politicians!