After 'The View' Host Joy Behar Goes on Gun-Grabbing Rant, Second Amendment Expert Fact-Checks Her Into Oblivion
On Tuesday, 10 people were shot at a subway station in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, according to CNN. Several more were injured. No one has died, thankfully, and police arrested the suspect on Wednesday afternoon.
Little is known for sure about what happened, but that doesn’t mean the cast of “The View” wasn’t going to have a big thinky about it — because, at a confusing, divisive moment like this, that’s just what America needed.
I’ve seen the majority of the segment in clip form, and the points and discussion being offered ranged from purely speculative to astoundingly wrong. Much of the latter category was filled up by the opinions of co-host Joy Behar, who seemed not only confused about how gun laws work but how our very form of government does.
At the very least, however, there was Stephen Gutowski there to set the record straight. Gutowski, a Second Amendment expert and founder of firearm-centric journalistic outlet The Reload, fact-checked Behar’s shockingly ill-informed rant.
(After tragedies like the one in Brooklyn — where the establishment media tries to feed America lies — it’s important for independent outlets to set the record straight. Here at The Western Journal, we’ll continue to bring America the facts about guns, the Second Amendment and the myths around gun control. You can support our mission by subscribing.)
At the top of Wednesday’s edition of “The View,” the hosts discussed the shooting and what could be done about it, with Behar taking it a step further to discuss gun control laws.
Joy Behar has no idea how the 3 branches of government works, thinks the Supreme Court passes bills:
“The Supreme Court is poised to pass a bill contradicting New York City State laws.” pic.twitter.com/Cf3lSvZKoN
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 13, 2022
“The Supreme Court is poised to pass a bill contradicting the New York City, state laws,” Behar said.
“We have very strict gun laws here, and they would like it to be — apparently somebody has put it on their desk that New York should be an open carry state and an open carry city with all of the density in this city.
“They want people running around with guns. People — middle-class people will be leaving in droves if that happens,” she concluded.
Just in case you were wondering, you didn’t miss anything; New York City is not a state, and the Supreme Court doesn’t pass laws. What is happening, as The Associated Press reported last November, is that the Supreme Court is set to strike down New York’s so-called “may issue” law.
These laws, which currently only exist in eight states, only allow individuals to carry their weapons outside their home if they can demonstrate a need to do so.
“New York’s law has been in place since 1913 and says that to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense, a person applying for a license has to demonstrate ‘proper cause,’ an actual need to carry the weapon,” the AP reported.
Beyond that, however, we had Gutowski to disassemble Behar’s ridiculous claims.
Here’s a quick fact check for you:
The Supreme Court rules on litigation, it does not pass legislation.
The case is about concealed carry, not open carry.
It wasn’t “put on their desk” by “somebody,” it was filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA).
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) April 13, 2022
“Here’s a quick fact check for you: The Supreme Court rules on litigation, it does not pass legislation,” he tweeted.
“The case is about concealed carry, not open carry. It wasn’t ‘put on their desk’ by ‘somebody,’ it was filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA).”
Anyway, it’s fair enough to debate the merits of different kinds of gun-carry laws. But, I mean, you could at least start from the point of understanding what the Supreme Court even is or does let alone understanding the individual policies themselves.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) April 13, 2022
“Also, people are unlikely to leave ‘in droves’ if the Supreme Court strikes down New York’s ‘may issue’ concealed-carry law since the same policy, which is only used in 8 states currently, would likely become unconstitutional everywhere,” he continued.
“Anyway, it’s fair enough to debate the merits of different kinds of gun-carry laws. But, I mean, you could at least start from the point of understanding what the Supreme Court even is or does let alone understanding the individual policies themselves.”
He went on to note that 17 states and Washington, D.C., have “shall issue” laws, which means state officials are required “to issue permits to anyone who passes a background check and completes the required training.”
“Permitless, or ‘Constitutional,’ carry laws allow adults (usually over 21-years-old) who can legally possess a firearm to legally carry it concealed without obtaining a permit first. Currently, 25 states have this policy,” he noted.
Permitless, or “Constitutional,” carry laws allow adults (usually over 21-years-old) who can legally possess a firearm to legally carry it concealed without obtaining a permit first. Currently, 25 states have this policy.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) April 13, 2022
Ah, what one wouldn’t give to see Gutowski on “The View” on Thursday to set the record straight.
Alas, that won’t happen, because if there’s anything “The View” doesn’t exist to accomplish, it’s setting the record straight. Did one of the hosts blurt out a word salad that misled the show’s entire viewership as to the nature of gun laws in the United States? Don’t expect a correction.
After all, “The View” isn’t a news show, it’s a shouty-fest which treats the important issues of the day with a level of thoughtfulness quite a bit closer to Maury Povich than “Firing Line.”
Give Behar a little bit of credit for her farrago of misinformation, however: Despite getting nary a single fact right, she managed to prove that “may issue” laws do nothing to prevent crime. Bravo, Joy.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
