transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Hey, we're at the NRA Annual Meetings in Houston, and unbelievably, we have, well, it's easy to say rock star, but you are, Harmeet Dhillon, is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of Civil Rights Division. And within that, you have the Second Amendment section now. We talked at SHOT Show. Things have been happening since SHOT Show. The big thing everybody wants to know about is what's going on in Virginia.

Speaker 2:
[00:22] Yeah, well, you know, Virginia used to be a place. I mean, of course, it changes hands with the governor every four years, but it used to be a place where hunting was respected. You know, I have colleagues in my office who have AR-15s in their homes and, you know, enjoy hunting and enjoy self-defense. And suddenly, we have this new governor who is in the mode of a California or a New York style crackdown on firearms, and so she has encouraged legislature to render this package of radical bills that really strip not just gun owners of their freedoms, but also take square aim at gun manufacturers, require gun owners to render their firearms inoperable, you know, impose liability that is at odds with federal law regarding manufacture and even a law that impacts so-called ghost guns and gun manufacturer parts. And so this package of bills is very radical. And, you know, when I learned about it, I sent, after the legislature passed their package, I sent a letter to the governor on, just like last week, about less than two weeks ago, warning her that if she signed some of these bills, we would file suit. And so she has signed two of these bills that I think are concerning. She sent the so-called assault weapons ban back to the legislature with some technical amendments that make it worse.

Speaker 1:
[01:56] It makes it worse.

Speaker 2:
[01:57] Makes it worse, and she hasn't gotten that back yet. And even if it gets passed, the other sneaky thing about the legislature and the governor's scheme is that they have a referendum going on right now regarding redistricting. So they've literally set the effective date out of these bad bills to be just beyond that.

Speaker 1:
[02:15] Yeah, because they don't want to be judged on the gun ban. They don't want people to say, oh, you did have a gun ban, so we're going to vote against you on that. I want to set this up for make sure the people understand, because I was there 30 years ago when the gun control group, I call them the gun ban lobby, instituted a number of lawsuits against manufacturers. And they were very clear at the time. They said, our plan is to put them out of business. We want to bankrupt the entire industry. And that's how we got the Protection Law for Commerce and Arms Act. A federal law, which goes to, you're saying, what they're trying to do at the state level actually is in conflict with federal law now.

Speaker 2:
[02:52] Well, on the liability protections for gun manufacturers. So, you know, what this does is basically eviscerate that federal law. And I think that's a real problem, because federal law is obviously supreme in our system of government vis-a-vis state law. And so, I think that's a very easy knockout for that particular law. But, I mean, imagine if you have the right to bear arms, but they're criminalizing magazines that are widely in use. California has effectively rendered Glocks a firearm. I have two Glocks. I bought them in California. Now I can't go back to California with them. You know, so, I mean, these are real problems for gun owners. And the Supreme Court has recognized that the right to any particular right is nougatory if you can't buy it or acquire it or enjoy it. I mean, what if you have a right to, you know, drink alcohol, but no one's allowed to manufacture it in the United States? That's kind of an empty right. So I think it's kind of a similar situation.

Speaker 1:
[03:51] All right. So as they try to ban semi-automatic firearms, they like to call them ARs, but basically all semi-automatic firearms. And the Supreme Court in Heller said, we can't ban guns that are in common use for lawful purposes.

Speaker 2:
[04:04] Right.

Speaker 1:
[04:05] Is this where DOJ steps in and says, wait a minute, you can't do that?

Speaker 2:
[04:09] We've already done that, actually. We aren't waiting on this issue. Now, the court hasn't squarely ruled as a whole Supreme Court on semi-automatic rifles, but Justice Thomas has separately opined in cases, including recent cases, that the AR-15 is the most widely used and popular rifle in the United States. By definition, and the extension of the holdings in Heller and Bruin, it's presumptively legal. That's exactly what I argued in the Seventh Circuit. Seventh Circuit, there was the Illinois assault weapons ban, so-called assault weapons ban, similar to the law that Virginia is about to pass, and it outlaws over a thousand different types of firearms and firearm parts, silencers, etc. And we argued in that case more than six months ago. I personally argued in the Seventh Circuit. I argued in the Seventh Circuit. I think we have a very good argument. The judges didn't love it, but the judges understand that that's where the court is going. The court is going. I think if that case were in front of the Supreme Court, a majority of the court would have ruled that consistent with those prior precedents, the AR-15 meets that test or similar firearms. So I think that's where the court's going. So we just have to frankly pray that this court gets that case and that these justices get the opportunity to rule on it.

Speaker 1:
[05:34] With its current makeup.

Speaker 2:
[05:35] With its current makeup or better. Hard to imagine it gets better.

Speaker 1:
[05:39] All right, let me switch to something that's a little bit more fun.

Speaker 2:
[05:41] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[05:42] You're posting pictures of you out there shooting.

Speaker 2:
[05:44] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[05:44] You're having a good time shooting.

Speaker 2:
[05:46] I am having a good time shooting. I'm a firearms owner, and I brought my firearms with me from California. I have a CCW permit for all of my pistols in DC. I can't carry them very far, but I can't carry them. I just like to keep in good practice, we can always improve. So I had an NRA female firearms instructor meet me at the range out in Fairfax, Virginia, which is a significant distance. So my assistant and I had to take a half a day off and go drive out there and tried out. I don't have a.22, I have all 9-millimeter firearms, but I took a couple of mine and I tried a couple of hers. We had a good time and I was just trying to get a sense of what range I'm accurate at, obviously for self-defense in the home. It's a short range, but for other purposes, you want to be good. So anyway, I got a little bit of a flak from your online community on the quality of my shooting and my aim and my stance and so forth.

Speaker 1:
[06:47] That's why we train.

Speaker 2:
[06:50] I do think it's important that the community encourage women in self-defense. Women often feel more comfortable training with other women, women instructors. We need more women instructors. I have a good friend who's a female instructor in California. We have to enjoy these rights proudly. And so I encourage all women who are watching this to not be deterred by the male critics out there and go out there and get it done. And I got a lot of feedback.

Speaker 1:
[07:24] Okay. And you can't say it, but I can say it and all you guys, knock it off. When a new person is learning to shoot, we all started somewhere. We all were not terribly good. But to somehow mock or hold up to ridicule somebody who's trying to learn, doesn't make you look better. It just makes you look less than.

Speaker 2:
[07:45] Yeah. I mean, look, I'm pretty, I'm not very thin skinned. And you know, I, let's just say it had been a few years. In California, it's become increasingly difficult to get to a range. So my husband and I had the firearms at home, but to get to a range, you have to like drive three counties over. And so you get out of practice a little bit. So I've had the opportunity now since that went viral, if my local US. Marshals people are like, hey, there's an FBI firearms range right across the street, this Dhillon. And so they've taken me over to the FBI range. And so I've had the opportunity to train and get feedback from some of our FBI experts. And you know, the thing I'm debating now as to whether to put those red dot sights on my weapons or not.

Speaker 1:
[08:30] That's a whole, that's how we start bar fights.

Speaker 2:
[08:31] Because I was actually more accurate with the, you know, manual sight and not the electronic one. So I'm kind of debating that.

Speaker 1:
[08:40] It's a transition. And when you start, it's a little bit more different. Let me ask you here before we have to get out of here. What are you doing at the NRA show? What are you doing here?

Speaker 2:
[08:47] Well, I actually am speaking in a little while at the legal seminar that's happening on just, you know, Second Amendment legal issues at the Department of Justice and what we're doing and how we're ramping up. Everybody has an opinion, but I was there in the morning, and my colleagues at ATF also spoke on a panel, and we're very committed at the Department of Justice to standing up for Second Amendment rights. And so I'm here, the acting Attorney General is here, Todd Blanche is here as well, and a couple of his staff, I just saw them walk by. And, you know, we were at SHOT Show, several of us. And one of my colleagues, my former law partners, is a Deputy White House Counsel, Gary Lokowsky. He's here. He and David Warrington, the White House Counsel, and I all represented National Association of Gun Rights. So we are longtime advocates for the Second Amendment community. And we're pretty passionate about it.

Speaker 1:
[09:40] I have said several times, and I've been doing this for a long, long, long time. I mean, my dad interviewed President Reagan in the Oval Office about guns. So that's how far back this goes. This is the most pro-Second Amendment administration we have had, period, as far back as you can look back at history. I agree.

Speaker 2:
[09:57] I think that's right. And the president's sons are hunters. And there's just a lot of love for the community. The president passed an executive order very early on in his administration regarding the Second Amendment. And that's why we have a Second Amendment section in the DOJ. People are very impatient in the community. They're like, now do this, now do that, now do that. We're hiring up, we've hired some lawyers from the Second Amendment community, Barry Arrington from National Association of Gun Rights just joined my department earlier this month. And so we're drafting these lawsuits and filing them as fast as we can. Even before we had the Second Amendment section, I sued Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for taking three years to issue a permit that should be shall issue quickly. We filed an amicus brief on the Walford case in the Supreme Court, where Hawaii has made it virtually impossible to carry under its flipping of the presumption. And I'm very confident of a good outcome there. I believe the court was very skeptical of Hawaii's position. And other places, we look for opportunities like the Illinois case I mentioned and like others. And so we have some bad circuits, like Virginia is doing what it's doing because the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has some very bad precedents. But Fourth Circuit can't ignore its Supreme Court eventually. So we have to bring these cases. Sometimes we lose them, then we get them up to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1:
[11:17] And it is a long fight.

Speaker 2:
[11:19] It's a fight requiring a multi-year and institutional commitment. And that's what we have. We have three years left to go.

Speaker 1:
[11:27] But I want it all and I want it right now.

Speaker 2:
[11:29] I know. I know. And nothing is permanent. People also need, the owners need to understand, we have a good Supreme Court right now because we have a great president and administration. And if people sleep on those rights, they will be taken from us. No questions asked.

Speaker 1:
[11:45] Toward that end, the way you make them somewhat more permanent is to win the elections and get things done legislatively a lot of times.

Speaker 2:
[11:53] That's right too. We get a lot of flack of why are you doing this? Why are you doing that? Like we can do certain things at the Department of Justice to attack bad state laws. We can't change federal law through our activity. That's for Congress to do in the president.

Speaker 1:
[12:07] There you go. Thank you. Not for just doing this. Thank you for what you do.

Speaker 2:
[12:12] Well, thank you.

Speaker 1:
[12:12] No, you're doing incredible work. Because Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General, in charge of Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, go and do some more good stuff.

Speaker 2:
[12:21] I'm going to do that.

Speaker 1:
[12:22] All right.

Speaker 2:
[12:23] Thanks a lot.

Speaker 1:
[12:23] Thank you.

Speaker 2:
[12:24] Take care.