(plane engine roaring) - It is a high risk maneuver, but if it's successful, we've killed the head of the Beast.

- That argument that he just made completely circumvents the process that the United States has put in place for waging war.

- 70% of the people ICE detains are criminals or awaiting trial.

If you are gonna allow people.

And 30% of those people, Joe, are people that are working, paying taxes.

They've been here their whole life.

We need a pathway for them to get in.

- Rhode Island has by one estimate, 100,000 or so of these weapons that would be outlawed.

Nationwide, it's estimated at 20 to 30 million.

So the history, the ubiquitousness of these weapons is gonna lead the Supreme Court to say there's a historical tradition, you can't take 'em away.

(bright music) - And welcoming to this episode of "Lively", we're joined this time by our political contributor and former prosecutor Eva-Marie Mancuso and Governor Amman's, former chief of staff and attorney Joe Larisa.

The fatal shootings at Brown University in December and at Pawtucket Hockey Rink last month have reignited a call by gun control advocates in Rhode Island to ban so-called assault weapons when another law banning their sale takes effect later this year.

Joe, we have talked about gun control a lot on this show.

I kind of thought that gun control was because of what's happened the last couple years, the magazine capacities banning it near schools, that this was gonna be a quiet year, but these events are driving this legislation.

- Yeah, what's happened since the ban on sale is there's been a run on guns in Rhode Island.

They can't keep up with the demand because the sales are gonna end, I think believe it's July one.

- Mm-hmm.

- And now trying to outlaw possession.

We talked a year ago, the Supreme Court eventually is gonna resolve this issue and just this month it got closer to resolution where the DC circuit struck down a ban on high magazines, which conflicts with other circuits.

JustICE Kavanaugh has been saying it should be about a year away.

He's got three other votes, he's the fourth.

I think what he was doing is waiting for the fifth to make sure he is got it.

But I think this is the year that the Supreme Court will strike down the assault weapons ban and the high capacity magazine ban.

- But I agree with you on this.

I think that it's really sad that some of these advocates are using tragedies to promote their own cause, as soon as criminals follow the law, then I'll follow the law.

- Hmm.

- You know, banning possession really that all of a sudden now we're gonna have no guns on the street.

And as Joe said, people are now out buying more guns because they wanna keep them, whether they're collectors, whether they grew up, I think I told you my husband grew up out in the Midwest and hunting was a big sport.

It still is, target shooting, big sport, going out, participating.

There's a big group in Rhode Island that likes and enjoys that they do that for fun.

Like other people might go out and golf.

So as soon as we have laws that look at it, that's one part of it, you know, is making sure the laws really serve the people that they're trying to help, first of all.

And second of all, which I think is the biggest issue, is the mental health issue.

- Mm-hmm.

- You know, this is not a gun control issue, it's a mental health substance abuse issue that that's what we have to take over.

You know, those two things that happened had nothing to do with a gun.

They could have had a, you know, rocket, they could have had a knife and what have you.

They were mental health issues.

And until we look at that in terms of the system itself and how we intervene and get involved in people's lives ahead of time, we go from there.

I mean, look at the case down south where they found the father guilty for participating in the son's criminal activity.

- Right.

- By, you know, just not accepting the fact that his son had mental health issues.

- It seemed like common sense, but to us, but it wasn't in the moment.

Right?

- You know, and like anything else, you know, with what and I'm not an expert in it, but I have daughters that are social workers and you hear about the whole mental health piece.

You know, at some points they could be really good.

And then at other points they're not.

And that dad just didn't wanna realize, as he said, he testified and as he said, I was just trying to get closer to my son and this is what we enjoy doing is going on and shooting - The size of the magazine has nothing to do with the issue.

And that's what they're trying to outlaw.

And the mental health issue, as Eva says is, is at the heart of most of these problems.

But Rhode Island has by one estimate, 100,000 or so of these weapons that would be outlawed.

And we're gonna turn them all into felons.

Nationwide it's estimated at 20 to 30 million.

So the history, the ubiquitousness of these weapons is gonna lead the Supreme Court to say there's a historical tradition, you can't take 'em away.

- That was the compromise to get the- - Yes.

The sale through is that they said, oh, well you have one we're gonna grandfather you in.

- Right.

- Sure.

- As well, you said the person who who did the shooting at the hockey rink ignored every law that there was.

- Right.

- There were signs.

No, you know, no weapons.

He had bought them in other states, avoided background checks or whatever.

So if you were following the law, the guy wasn't, I mean, if the law was gonna be enforced, that guy wasn't gonna be listening to it anyway.

- So my whole life, I had a father, right?

That was a cop.

So, you know, he used to say to me all the time, Eva criminals are very smart people.

They know how to get around everything that's there.

So now what we're trying to do is we're trying to put common sense legislation, that's their word, not mine.

Common sense legislation in for people that don't follow the law.

- Mm-hmm.

- And I just don't understand it when I think of all of the issues that the legislature should be looking at, and the fact that they're spending time and money and resources - And, you know, the crowds are gonna show up the two a crowd and the gun control.

And it's gonna be a circus at the State House, for what?

Because Joe, I think ultimately you're right with this Supreme Court right now talk, you've alluded to this in the past.

What are they waiting for to get a case before the Supreme Court?

- They're waiting for a circuit split and Kavanaugh making sure he is got the fifth vote.

And again, on March 5th, we just got the circuit split after two more years.

- [Hummel] And what was that?

- It was a DC circuit striking down the high magazine ban conflicting with other circuits.

- Like they did here?

- No, no, striking down the ban.

- The ban.

- Oh, the ban.

- So the first time a challenger won, saying it's unconstitutional.

- Okay.

- Other circuits have said, including the first it is constitutional, you've now got it.

They can't avoid it anymore.

The only delay now would be if it goes what's called unbank, where the whole DC circuit considers it.

But barring that, you've got a straight up circuit split in a direct route where they can't avoid it.

And this is common with the Supreme Court.

We've talked about this in a whole host of other issues, including gay marriage in the past.

They just put it off, put it off, put it off till they have to decide the issue.

And you've got one court saying this and one court saying that, and that's when they know they've gotta come.

- Do you agree with that, that the timing on this?

- Yeah, I mean I think that certainly, you know, 99.9% of the time, I'll disagree with you on how the Supreme Court is ruling these days.

But I think on this issue, I think that Joe's correct on it.

I don't see it as a legal issue, so to speak.

I see it as an emotional issue that the people that go to the State House to try to get banning all weapons, would love to have all weapons off the street period, okay?

Why?

Because they- - That ship is failed.

- Because they see, but what I'm saying is what do they want?

They want security.

They want safety, they want all of the things that you don't get by passing laws that say that honest people shouldn't be able to possess their guns.

- It feel the legislation - Right.

Well, you know, that's the way, that's the word I was looking for actually, is that it doesn't meet the objective.

You know, let's look at it.

I understand, you know, listen, if I was a mother in Sandy Hook, I can understand saying I wanna protect my kids from going to school.

The problem is taking guns away aren't gonna do it.

It's a much bigger issue than that.

- Do you think this legislation passes or you think it.

- No.

- Yeah.

- No.

- It's not even gonna get out.

- No, I don't know if it gets out or not, but I think- - But ultimately it's gonna get flipped either way, right?

Don't you think?

- No, I do.

- No, no, no.

It would get flipped if they passed the possession part on the assault weapons ban.

You think it's gonna get flipped - Yeah, at the Supreme Court.

- But ultimately, the Supreme Court, right?

- Yeah, Oh, yeah I think the Supreme Court (indistinct) - But we had, the irony is we had an assault weapons ban passed.

It went from 94 to 2004 and it sunsetted out.

So, Congress agreed on that.

I agree we live in much different times now, but that worked, it sunsetted out and now there's been an explosion of these weapons on the street.

- Yeah, and the only way to even try to get where the proponents want is John Paul Stevens former Supreme Court JustICE pending op-ed repeal, the second amendment, 'cause other than that- - Don't hold your breath.

- Right, I mean, that's where really gets to.

Other than that, it's feel good legislation.

If these bill passed, it wouldn't have done anything to prevent the brown shooting or the ICE rink shooting, nothing, they would've happened.

- Yeah.

- Okay.

- The motivation of it is what bothers me.

The advocates are hitting people's heartstrings on issues.

- Rather than looking at- - So I think it's even a bigger issue than just feel good.

I think it's actually, I think there's something sinister about it myself, because it's not gonna meet the objective.

What we really need to do is we need to bolster law enforcement's rights.

We need to bolster mental health.

We need to put more advocates in the schools to work with kids.

And we need more first responders to be able to come forward with information on trouble that they're seeing in individuals.

So, you know, that's a big part for me.

- All right, we'll see how it goes.

As the legislative session continues.

Rhode Island's new Catholic bishop Bruce Lewandowski took 30 people with him to Washington DC last week to call attention to the timely issue of immigration reform.

The group included priests, deacons, and our own Eva Mancuso.

It was the longest bus ride to your life.

Was it not?

- Good intro, Hummel.

- How about that?

- Good intro.

- Yeah.

- You were in good company.

How did this all come about?

And I know, look, a lot of people don't know, you've done everything including the Board of Education and you are a prosecutor.

A lot of people don't know you work at Christ the King down in South Kingstown.

- Right.

- So you have, you're right in the Catholic wheelhouse.

How did this come about to go on the bus?

- So I do servICE and outreach for Christ the King.

And as part of my ministry, obviously I had an opportunity to meet the bishop and to hear him speak on these issues.

I haven't gotten yet to the Prayer Vigil at the Wyatt Center but I will.

And I said to myself, you know what, this is an opportunity to go out and work on it.

To me, immigration rights are human rights are individual rights.

It's nothing different than what I did for 40 years, but I haven't taken a 24 hour bus ride before.

And as I said at the end, I was so inspired that I said, Bishop, I'd get on the bus again with you tomorrow.

Well, maybe the day after.

It was very long.

But it was really a, it was a soul feeling that you really see that the leader of our Catholic church in Rhode Island speaks from his heart.

I was in there with him with congressional meetings and he talks about issues in Rhode Island and people that are afraid to go to work or send their kids to school and how families are being split up and children and how important it is just to like, let's have smart immigration policies, right?

Let's go to the heart of where the Catholic church is.

And that is, you know, family based.

So it was really great.

It was a great opportunity to see it.

It was less political than more philosophical.

You know, that's what I found, at least for me.

I probably would've been a little more dicier about it, but I wasn't leading it so.

- President Trump's immigration reform has had its bumps.

I think a lot of people voted him in based on we need to close the borders.

Mission accomplished.

It's some of the other things that have gone sideways.

So as you've watched this, we've had you periodically the bumps in Minneapolis and other places, and Christie Holmes out, where's your assessment on where the administration is right now?

- Well, legal immigration fine.

Those who want to assimilate and wanna be helped to the United States and join our country, wonderful, illegal immigration, not fine.

And that's where President Trump came in.

And that's one of the big reasons he got elected.

The ICE detention, 70% of the people ICE detains are criminals or awaiting trial.

These people were let in, they were allowed in our community.

We got rapists, murderers, criminals, and Trump, 70% of the ICE detentions are them.

And a lot of this is arisen.

And we talked about this last time, the sanctuary cities.

If you are gonna allow people- - And 30% of those people, Joe are people that are working, paying taxes, have lived here our whole lives.

We had this issue in Rhode Island when I chaired the board of education, we had testimony that came by from people that spoke just like that.

You know, when we tried to get the in-state tuition, which we were able to do in-state tuition for undocumented kids, we pay for their education from grades K through 12.

Now all of a sudden we're gonna make them pay full tuition at Rick CCRI and in URI, it's the same thing.

We need a pathway for the people that are here illegally, but honestly they're working in the state.

They've been here their whole life.

We need a pathway for them to get in.

And it's not go back home to Iran and Iraq and then come on in again.

We need a pathway.

- Well, while you talk about them, president Trump is in office because of the criminals in getting them out and the open border policies of prior administration.

- I don't disagree with you.

- He's doing the job, I don't disagree with you on the criminals and you know- - Would you consider just crossing here illegally as opposed to committing crimes while you're here?

Do you put that in the category of you are a criminal, you have violated the law just because you've crossed here illegally.

Are they in that basket?

Technically, yes, but- - It's in the category.

- In your mind is that what you think?

- It is in the category of course, because it is penalizing the citizens who all came here illegally.

- Oh, it's not penalizing.

- But it's not in the same, it's not causing the same harm.

- Right.

- What Trump is doing is going after the illegals who are criminals first and foremost.

But when you have, you gotta look at where the focus has been.

Sanctuary cities.

There are people in jail who ICE wants to get out criminals.

And these cities are saying, we are not gonna help you apprehend those.

We're not gonna tell you they're in jail.

So what does the administration have to do, get in there to get them when they come outta jail because the sanctuary cities are not cooperating.

Look at all the cities who are not like that.

And we talked about this last time.

You don't hear any instances of we're against ICE and ICE go home in the cities and communities and states that cooperate with the administration.

- So I only tell you- - It's only the one ones who oppose.

- I can only tell you what our message was.

And it had nothing to do with people that committed crimes.

In fact, when we left Congressman Magazine's office and walked down the hall, I turned to the bishop by, I said, take a breath because you are gonna see on the wall the picture of all of the criminals, you know, and this congressman had this all up, you know, send them back.

Nobody disagrees with that.

But we have something in the United States of America that's called due process.

And we have something in the United States of America that we don't split up families because they didn't follow the law in coming here a long time ago.

So to say that just because they came here illegally or overstayed where we have, we can't put them in the same category and we can't put them in the same category 'cause it's not the way we in America treat people.

We treat criminals the way criminals should be treated, I have no problem with that at all.

If they've committing crimes and they're here, go home, get outta here.

I wouldn't even say have a trial, just get rid of them.

Okay?

That's not what we were talking about.

- Would you concede though that the way ISIS hired a lot of people, the training may not have been the best there's been.

They've thrown a lot of money at the organization.

- Yes.

- And so even though the vast majority of people may be the criminals, you get the cases where innocent people are either taken or shot and the due process comes later as a lawyer and you've lived your life looking at the law, does that bother you process?

- You know, I'm gonna surprise you, Jim.

I don't disagree with what Eva just said.

Of course there's different degrees.

- Stop the process.

- No, of course there's different degrees.

The problem is, remember we were almost going toward a pathway to have immigration reform, but the conservatives and Trump said, not until we secure the border and it was a wide open flood.

And not until we got the criminals out, we're getting closer to there now.

So when we talk about some compromise, the amazingly we didn't need a law, we just needed a president to close the border.

And now the illegals are getting out and at some point it's gonna be fine to talk about immigration reform again.

And largely in the way he is talking about it.

- Isn't some of this style over substance?

'Cause you look at the numbers Obama and Bush, eight, 10 million people.

And I think Trump in the back of his mind thinks I need to get to those numbers.

And so in the wave of trying to get a quota, if you want to call it some innocent people are being caught up.

And that's what I see, that it's an optics issue now in addition to the substance of what's going on, the Trump administration is so hellbent on getting there.

The process to get from here to there I think is flawed at times.

- So, and this is my view, not obviously the Catholic church's view or what we talked about, but I think that President Trump needs to learn how to speak to people.

The fact that he's so nasty and that he has so many bad things to say all the time it's just not the way we're gonna move forward as a country, you know, to be laughing and joking and everything about the illegals.

What does that mean?

You know, you just, it does matter when you're the president of the United States, how you present yourself, I never would've said that.

You know, George W. Bush, George Bush, you know, they just didn't speak like that.

And with all of the media now and the fact that Trump is such a media hog that he loves being out there, you know, and I just listen to it and I say to myself, what is this teaching people, you know, everybody's stupid.

Everybody's, you know this, everybody's that.

It's name calling and everything else.

And it's just not presidential.

- Well, my daughter asked me this morning when I told her I was going on and talked about the president, "do you really support that guy and his personality?"

- You're getting it in your own household.

- No.

And I said 100% not his personality, not the things Eva's talking about, but 95% of all of his policies are great for America and it's what they voted for.

Now, how do you defend Trump's personality?

The Democrats did the same thing, my God.

They tried to take this guy out of office.

They tried to keep him off the ballot.

He got shot by a radical.

He's been through the wringer.

So the left wing media, trump fights back.

Do I like how Trump says it?

No, I mean some of it's just wow.

But his opponent, so I like to say I'm anti the anti-Trumps more than I'm directly pro-Trump personality.

- That's a good coined phrase.

He's anti against the anti-Trump.

- We'll have to coin that.

- I just think it all goes into together, right?

So if you're doing great work and you're protecting that 30% of the honest people that we all agree, we need a pathway for their citizenship.

Not the 70% criminals.

Everybody agrees the 70% criminals go out, we protect the 30%.

But then you have the president of the United States talking about those 30% as if they are less humans and that's not right.

- Do you have concerns as we head toward the midterms?

We're not that far out.

We've already begun getting voting in Texas and North Carolina and Georgia, and I believe it was Illinois this week.

That a lot of, maybe the message is getting lost in the delivery and that Trump faces the real possibility that both houses are gonna, the House and the Senate are gonna flip and then he's gonna be neutered.

- Well, I don't think the Senate has any real possibility.

The house always happens.

He's fighting history and I don't see how we keep the house.

But that alone, as we talked about last time, is a major problem.

- You don't think the Senate didn't play though?

- No, I don't think it's been play at all.

- Okay.

- But the house is, and what that means is subpoenas possible impeachment all of his cabinet members there.

It's really tough.

Nevermind no more legislation.

- So you feel he feels the tick, tick, tick.

I really need to get all of this done.

- Yes.

- Because I've got the two year window.

- That's why we had so much in the first 100 days, six months one year, and now one more year.

And now he wants another big beautiful bill in the save act.

That's his why.

- Final thought on this.

- Big, beautiful bill.

Oh, we closed down Medicaid.

We closed down people that need food stamps.

I mean, I just don't get it.

So yeah, does he go out with a bang?

He sure does, no pun intended.

But that's the way he speaks.

That's the way he is.

And I do think that the odd of compromise is not something that he is, although he might think he is, is just not something that I've seen.

- We will forgive you if you don't want to take another bus ride for at least a year.

(Eva-Marie laughing) All right?

- I told you I'd go again.

- Yeah, I'm sure.

- - We'll just give it a little bit of time.

- And I also gave him advICE on, I said, you need to be out on lively experiment and the other things.

Because when hear him- - Bishop Bruce speak and the way he carries out, that's the kind of Catholic leadership we need in the state.

- All you'll have to be my booking agent, all right.

- Yeah.

- Three weeks after the United States and Israel bombed Iran, the Trump administration is still offering multiple reasons for U.S.

involvement what the objectives are and when the war might end.

Joe, any thoughts on this?

- Many thoughts, Jim?

It's a high risk maneuver, but if it's successful, we've killed the head of the beast.

Iran's been the terror regime since 1979.

They've killed thousands of Americans.

They've made a threat to the president of the United States.

Somebody was just convicted.

They've killed thousands of their own citizens in the last month.

If this is successful and the head of the snake is cut off, we may have peace in our time in a way that we haven't had since Israel became a country.

And since the Shah of Iran was deposed, I mean it could be peace.

- You think there was an imminent threat to the United States?

- There was definitely a threat to the United States imminent.

But you gotta understand that going back, what happened here?

Israel took out Hamas, that was the beginning.

Still had Hezbollah, still had Iran, and now Hezbollah is going down.

Iran is going down, the Arabs like this, the citizens of Iran like this.

If we can pull this off and get new leadership there, well one, we've de degraded their nuclear capability.

They're set back at least 10 years.

But when we're through with this, Israel wants to degrade them more.

And I think the president does too.

And make sure they're no longer a threat in the world stage.

And if he can pull this off, it's a Nobel Peace prize.

- So let me tell you something.

For a guy who I have a lot of respect for, Joe Larisa, who is a rule of law guy.

That argument that he just made completely circumvents the process that the United States has put in place for waging war.

We have a process for them to go in.

It's not imminent.

Actually one of the talk shows played the comments from as far back as Clinton on what was going on in Rhianne.

It's not imminent.

It's something that Trump wanted to do so he could check that box off for him.

And we have a process and he didn't do it as a mother who sent a son to war Iraq and Afghanistan, I want that vetted, I want it discussed.

I want it thought through by the entire Congress, the way we make the law to do it.

And we don't want Donald Trump and Pete sitting in his office deciding whether or not we're gonna go in and get in the middle of a religious war in a country that's been unstable for at least five different presidents, that's the way I feel.

- Well, we're not getting into any religious war.

We heard when Trump went in and bombed the nuclear sites, it's World War ii, regional war, the sky is falling.

Trump said, I'm taking them out and I'm done, what happened?

He was right.

Same thing, no ground troops.

That's the trigger for congressional authorization.

Democrat and Republican presidents always.

You can't have 535 commander and troops.

The president has to make the call.

This war will be over a few weeks, few months.

We don't know.

Trump's being ambiguous.

- That is true, this has been bipartisan.

There have been other, there have been Democrats who have gone in and then maybe not to this degree, but hang on just a second.

The first thing though, I've heard a lot of people say if we obliterated their nuclear capacity, then why?

- Why and how?

- I mean there was a lot of bluster then, Why did we need to go in?

- That's a great, great question, 'cause obviously we didn't, not completely, we degraded it, but we needed to actually take it completely out.

Take their military out, they're gonna be obliterated when it's done.

We could take out the whole country, we could turn it black for years.

We take on that island and blow off their oil infrastructure.

They're set back.

- Final thought, I wanna get time for outrageous and kudos.

But what's your final thought?

- I just think that it's something that needed a lot more discussion than one.

And I do think it's odd right before the midterms that he's checking that box and saying, we really need to point out.

- Yeah, but if it's a political thing, I mean gas is going up and your 401 K going down, that's not a winning, That's not a winning political strategy.

- Right.

- I didn't say it makes sense.

- Alright, let's get to outrageous and or kudos.

Mr.

Larisa, what do you have this week?

- Well, kudos Jim.

And it is surprising to me.

I was talking to President Trump the other day and I told him I was going on Hummel.

- And what'd he say?

He said Hummel, he said Jim Hummel.

I said, yes.

He said, you tell him he's a great host.

Really terrific.

All the other hosts complete disasters.

Believe me.

Everyone agrees.

I'm like, Mr.

President, he's not gonna believe you said that about him.

He said, Joe, I'll tell you what, I'm gonna put it in writing for you.

And lo and behold, today, true to his word, he puts it in writing.

It's right here on this coffee cup.

Everything you sent about Look that.

- Lemme see what this read that says you're a great host.

Really terrific.

All the others are complete disasters.

Believe me.

Every one agrees.

- You don't get that often, especially Rhode Island.

- There you go.

- Congratulations.

- I'll be like Frank Colletta, (indistinct) Joe, you are the master of the props.

Anything else you we're- - I'm gonna leave it to Eva next.

- All right Eva, you have an outrage or a kudo.

- So I have a kudos also, and mine isn't quite as, I wasn't chatting with the president obviously, but- - Did you bring props?

- I did bring props.

So kudos to a gentleman.

- [Hummel] All right, hold those up.

- In Minnesota, who wrote a pattern called Melt the ICE.

And what he did is this is a takeoff that he brought out from the 1940s when the Scandinavian women were wearing and making red hats to protest the war.

So it was a silent way.

And I will tell you that I made these small ones so that you can wear 'em as pins because as the summer comes, I wanna make sure that at my beach club everybody gets one.

That's first of all.

Second of all, and most importantly of this whole thing, you cannot buy red yarn at any yarn store in the state of Rhode Island.

Why is that?

- Why?

- Because that's the silent majority of women in this state that don't believe in ICE.

- Wow, we need to order more yarn.

- Or go to Hobby Lobby, they always have it.

- Well, either way.

Alright, it is a quick 30 minutes.

Joe and Eva, thank you so much.

And props.

You guys win the prop.

All right.

- Take.

- I will take one, give one to Joe.

- One to Joe.

- Right.

- Thank you for joining us.

Be sure and check us out on Facebook x, Instagram, and on the Ocean State Media YouTube channel.

We'll see you next time right here on "Lively."

(bright music) "Lively" is generously supported in part by John Hazen White's Lookout.