Welcome to another Thursdays with Mary Langston and episodic appearances by Trey.

Please try to hide your disappointment to your best to conceal your disappointment. Actually, I'm disappointed. In fact, I'm so disappointed. I may not even go through with it.

That's my boss telling me that I am to go through with it no matter what. Well, Mary Langston will not be joining us this week in her absence to the extent that anything can feel that absence. But in her absence, we will revisit a few of your thoughts.

We have fought provoking questions and there are too many to choose from. But nonetheless, in the interest of time, we've chosen a few.

You've asked about the inner workings of our judicial and legislative systems. You have asked about what is the left of my golf game.

There are moments when you just simply wanted and answered to my favorite question of all, which is why. Regardless of the topic, why?

So let's get started. Hope you have a great week and we'll be back with more questions next week.

We'll start with a question from Dennis in California. He writes, why are district attorneys and judges allowed to not prosecute and sentenced those who possess firearms illegally?

And then part two, what is a reasonable minimum sentence for anyone caught having an illegal firearm. We're committing any unlawful act while possessing a firearm purchased legally and or illegally.

There's a lot of legally and illegally. Yeah, that's a demo supposed to be a male professor. Maybe he's a law professor. He's trying to stump me, which is not that hard.

He could have asked a lot easier question and still stumped me. All right, let me see if I can take these in the maybe not the order in which he asked the order in which it strikes what's left of my mind.

And I don't want to split hairs, but I think the I think I heard the word possessed for those who possess firearms unlawfully.

Not to split hairs, but the word possess I can think of three different forms of possession. There's actual there's constructive and there's joint.

So I mean, these cases come down the facts and what can be proven among those cases where there is a factual predicate sufficient to sustain charges and or convictions.

There is a new breed of prosecutor who is trying to substitute his or her will for that of a legislative body. So when Dennis asked why are district attorneys allowed to not prosecute there.

There are two answers to that question. Number one, the case may not be any good. And prosecutors do have the discretion. I mean, think who makes arrests police make arrest.

The police don't work for the prosecutors and the prosecutors don't work for the police. So you could have an arrest, but still the prosecutor does not think the case is either legally sufficient or factually sufficient to take it before a jury or to continue the case.

So those are dismissed. They're not dismissed because some progressive prosecutor thinks that type of case should not really be a crime. They're dismissed because of an inadequate factual or legal basis for that.

So that little dichotomy there, there are at least two reasons for cases not to go for it. Now he mentioned firearms and again, not not to split hairs, but when somebody says an illegal firearm. My first question is usually, do you mean the firearm itself is unlawful?

Like a fully automatic machine gun. It doesn't matter who possesses a fully automatic machine gun. They are per se unlawful or a gun within a obliterated serial number. That is per se unlawful.

There are other guns that are legal for someone like you, Marylinks, and to possess because you're not a convicted felon and you haven't been court-martialed and you don't have a restraining order and a domestic violence case against you.

So the gun is legal, but the possession of the gun is not legal. So think there's this category of cases where the weapon itself is unlawful and it doesn't matter. A Catholic non cannot possess that gun.

...