Podcasts about bruen

We've looked at the Supreme Court's upcoming Second Amendment case against AR-15 bans with the lawyer who helped craft the Court's view of gun rights and with a professor who is a prominent critic of that view from the left. This week, we're doing the same with a pro-gun critic of the Court's test. That critic is Cato Institute scholar and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down a new Second Amendment test in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, most gun-rights advocates have been happy with the outcome of the cases where the Court has applied it. But there is a contingent of pro-gun lawyers and professors who've disputed whether it's a good precedent. Somin argued that Bruen's reliance on history and tradition creates a lot of grey areas in the law. He said it is "too flabby" as it stands now, and leaves too much wiggle room for judges to impose their own preferences. He noted that liberal critics of the Bruen test have some valid critiques, but where they worry the test will be used to restrict government action, he worries it will be used to restrict Second Amendment rights. He said he's largely agreed with the outcome of the most recent Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court, but worried what might come in future cases--especially if the balance of the Court moves left. Somin argued for what he considers a more straightforward test based around the original meaning of the Second Amendment. He argued history could inform that meaning, but he said that the existence of historical laws that contradict that meaning shouldn't mean those laws take precedence over the meaning itself.Special Guest: Ilya Somin.

Send us Fan MailTwo recent slap-downs of "assault weapons" bans, one in Virginia via court injunction against their enforcement thereof and one in New Jersey that was nullified outright by a 3rd Circuit Court decision.Compare that to two other courts that recently upheld such Constitutionally illiterate bans in Massachusetts and Illinois, and you'll understand why Royce declares there are two parallel judicial systems at work in this country; one upholds and defends the Constitution while the other assaults it at every turn, conveniently ignoring the text of the 2nd Amendment as well as the Bruen standards set forth by the Supreme Court.Support the showThe Watch Floor - YouTubeAskari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)

Episode 300- Do Not Engage in “Maritime Salvage” Just Yet.  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 300 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun ban, Third Circuit Court, Second Amendment, Judge Friedman, assault firearms, large capacity magazines, Supreme Court decision, July 31 date, mandate, stay of implementation, common use, federal gun laws, interstate commerce, carry permit, socialism. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And this is Gun Lawyer. I need to give everyone a warning. Do NOT engage in maritime salvage from boating accidents until given the all clear. Teddy Nappen 00:39 You might find a few bodies in Jersey. Evan Nappen 00:41 Well, the reason for this is, of course, we’re all extremely excited about the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision killing and pronouncing dead the New Jersey 36-year-old ban on so-called “assault firearms” and so-called “large capacity magazines”. (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242415p.pdf) I mean, we’ve known it’s a violation of the Second Amendment ever since the day it passed, but finally getting to this day is wonderful. Just a great day for freedom and liberty and shoving it up New Jersey’s butt. It is great. It is great. Evan Nappen 01:26 However, in practical terms, a lot of the key questions that are out there. Are we good to go? Can we buy these guns? Can we buy these mags? What’s the story? What’s the deal? I’m going to explain to you where we’re at with that, and that’s the important thing that I know a lot of you want to know. At the moment, we’ve got to just let the dust settle here because there’s certain formalities and deadlines and procedures that can happen. Yes, we have the win. We have the win. It’s a fantastic win. It’s a decision which was 10 – 5. It was brilliant. We absolutely crushed it. Page – 2 – of 11 Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:07 The decision was written by Judge Freeman, who, by the way, the judge who wrote this magnificent decision was a Biden appointee, and the first female judge of color. That’s right, a woman of color. The first on the Appellate Court and a Biden appointee – who is giving us this fantastic Second Amendment decision, which is restoring freedom and helping to stop oppression of our Second Amendment rights. So, you know, this is important because it’s how it should be. Those that believe in rights, whatever you might think of the bat might be their politics. It’s everybody’s Second Amendment. It’s everybody’s right. And if you’re going to follow the Constitution and you’re going to be a judge that follows the Constitution and does not goes for politics, then this is the right thing to do. So, I take my hat off to Judge Freeman. It is a great decision. Extraordinarily thorough. Evan Nappen 03:27 I understand her background was that in being a public defender as well, and I’m sure that she saw what these laws do to good people and how unfair and unbelievably stupid they are. We now see the results of all the incredible hard work that’s been done over years that got us to this point. So, we’re all just jumping for joy, and it’s really making clear that the so-called assault weapon, assault firearm bans, even across the country, are on their deathbed or are being killed and dying. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court having taken the Viramonti and Grant cases now. We’re going to get a federal Supreme Court decision that’ll come out in June 2027. This New Jersey Appeals Court decision is, of course, going to I’m sure come into play in their decision making there, and it is a great day for us for sure. Evan Nappen 04:37 However, how does it work now that we have that decision? How will it work in practical terms? This is where some patience is necessary. Some important patience is called for. And that’s because you may have heard, and if not, I’m going to mention to you, that there was an email that was sent out to dealers from the State Police Firearms Unit. It went out and it said that that essentially July 31st, July 30-first, they’re going to the this will become effective, meaning the court case effective. It was kind of weirdly written with this date, and it seemed to indicate that July 30-first, everything was going to be free flowing, and we were going to be good to go. But it wasn’t really. It basically put everyone thinking. Okay, July 31 is some kind of key date, and that’s when we’re going to know. Why would they even pick that? Like, what is going on? So let me explain that date and what’s really happening. As a matter of fact, our good friend, John Petrolino, at Bearing Arms, recently had an article that says “NJ AG Backtracks on Date of Gun and Magazine Ban’s Demise”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/07/23/nj-ag-backtracks-on-date-gun-magazine-ban-demise-n1233262) Evan Nappen 06:10 The backtracking is as follows. This is what’s going on. That July 31 date, which Bearing Arms and Petrolino got the word from Davenport’s office. Davenport is the Attorney General that is saying. “We have until July 31, 2026 to petition the court for rehearing, and then seven days later on August 7, 2026 is when the decision is effective”. So, that’s where they’re coming from. Are they going to petition for a rehearing now? Just because they petition for a rehearing doesn’t mean that a rehearing is going to get granted, and I frankly think it’s unlikely that it’s going to get granted. Page – 4 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 Now, in addition to this mix, is what’s called the mandate. A good friend and colleague, who was the lead counsel and fought hard on this very case, Dan Schmutter, a great Second Amendment attorney, was speaking to John (Petrolino) and also explained that there’s this mandate. Essentially, what he said is, “The mandate is the actual order . . .” That’s the direction to the lower court to implement the ruling, and that mandate is basically an August 10t date. So, August 10 is going to be a critical date in understanding the practical aspects of when and if these firearms and magazines will again be bought, sold, and possessed in New Jersey. And that’s why we’re putting advice out about not doing any maritime salvage for any boating accidents on recovery until we have an understanding of where we’re at here. Evan Nappen 08:32 Now, there may even be a stay granted, a stay of the implementation of the mandate. That would mean we’d be in a holding pattern until that stay gets lifted. This might, in fact, happen, and then that will ride until we get the (U.S.) Supreme Court rendering its decision. New Jersey also might try to go for (U.S.) Supreme Court review, what we call certiorari, and that may end up bringing it into or making it part of or put on hold with the Supreme Court case pending in Viramontes and Grant. This is all out there in the mix. Evan Nappen 09:15 So, the number one takeaway from all this is – Don’t do anything yet. We have all the reason to be extremely happy, to be joyous, to realize that all our hard work is paying off. But at the moment, don’t take any steps yet, so that you don’t end up in a giant GOFU. And doing something now is the GOFU. That’s this week’s GOFU. This week’s GOFU, even though we normally do it at the end of the show, let me just tell you right now, the GOFU is that. Do NOT do anything different right now. Don’t buy or order magazines. Don’t possess any of the firearms that may fall under the current ban. You may be seeing things online where people are claiming that they’re buying and selling and doing. I wouldn’t be doing that right now. Even though I’m confident in our victory, it still isn’t a done deal. The old “wait till the fat lady sings” deal. Well, it applies here. There’s still the risk. And during that time period, right now, before we have the definitive legal standing, so we can say you have the green light. We’re all good. You’re taking a risk that you don’t want to take. So that is the point. Teddy Nappen 10:48 One of the things in reading the case, Dad, just kind of going through, they outline the full breakdown of using Bruen of how they essentially destroy it with the test, the two-part test. The Second Amendment plain text covers the individual’s conduct, and then clicks to the next one. And also says it must demonstrate the regulations consist of nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They show the combination of this with Wolford as well. Wolford goes into the three subsidiaries where applies, what is people, all members of political community, and then goes into arms. Arms is the game because that was the whole crux was the issue of common use. That was the entire thing that the Left have been trying, the dangerous and unusual. It was clearly outlined in the opinion talking about the idea of common use, both with the AR-15s and assault firearms, but with mags as well. They even highlight that where the I almost read like Scalia, where he used to you know. If you ever read his opinions, he always joked and made like little snide remarks. It was very funny. But with the 24 million AR-15s, this Page – 5 – of 11 is right out of the case, 24 million AR-15s and similar sporting rifles, the classification that can be determined are in common use, lawful purposes, typically common standard. With a 20 to 30-round mag, up to 100 million 30-round mags in the United States, magazines are in circulation. That sets the degree of common use. Evan Nappen 12:38 Let me tell you why that’s so important. Because once common use, you have that, and it actually has a reverse burden from this case. Common use is shown. It’s done. It’s there. We, as those challenging the laws, that burden isn’t on us, and it makes it now so that the State has to demonstrate the Bruen test. So, this is very significant because of how it addresses common use. And, of course, these semi-automatic firearms and their magazines are, it’s undisputable. It’s indisputable that they’re in common use. There’s more AR-15s than there are Ford F-150s out there. So, this is great. And you know the gun rights oppressors realize that their days are numbered, don’t you think, Teddy? Don’t you think they realize that? Teddy Nappen 13:55 Well, not only that, they’re putting out newsletters crying about it. I mean, cut to right now, The Trace. Literally, they just admitted defeat right from The Trace. “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapon Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/07/state-assault-weapons-ban-new-jersey/) They admit it. In Delaware. The challenges in Chicago. All the different ones that are currently in play to take out the assault weapon bans. They even go into that it’s been part of. It’s been, they’ve been a synonym, the assault weapons and the gun control debate. Oh, really? It just shows the outlandishness of the debate, really. Evan Nappen 14:39 Yeah. Well, they know it, and this issue for them has been such a magnificent fundraising, pearl clutching, issue for them, and it is going to be bye bye. Across the board on gun laws challenges, they are losing, losing, losing, losing. Teddy Nappen 15:07 The one thing I will say, and I always like reading the dissent. This is the mindset of the Left of how they, and pulling right from the dissent here where they go into it. The rights secured by our founders in the Second Amendment is not unlimited. They always cite that to Heller. It has never been understood that the guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms, to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, or for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment allows states to ban certain types of firearms. I don’t remember that in the Second Amendment. I don’t remember those words. Evan Nappen 15:50 Well, here’s a funny little thought that occurred to me about this. Once the dust settles, and ARs and mags and semi-auto rifles and all the, you know, intrinsically evil guns that the oppressors hate. Once they’re all good to go in New Jersey, the definition of assault firearm. That term, assault firearm. That definition is still found in New Jersey law. It’s just that the ban is found to be unconstitutional. The ban, right? The prohibition. But the definition of that term is still in law. That’s found under firearm definitions. It’s found there. The ban itself is found in a different section. That’s under N.J.S. 2C:58-5.(f). It’s a Page – 6 – of 11 different section. That’s where it’s banned. It’s made a crime of the second degree to possess any of these guns without a permit to carry an assault firearm, or it having been registered or rendered inoperable. Right there in the statute. If you don’t have any of those exceptions, then you are a violator. If you violate it, if you’re convicted, you’re looking at up to 10 years in State Prison, with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. It’s draconian and insane. Evan Nappen 17:28 So, the law, the law itself, that is the ban. That’s the 39-5 law. That’s where the ban is. The definition is in 39-1. However. However, what’s very interesting is New Jersey has, under 58-5. That’s N.J.S. 2C:58-5. They have the license to carry and possess an assault firearm. Now that license to carry an assault firearm mandated two things in order to get it. One is that you first have a permit to carry a handgun, and of course, when that law was put in place, you know, there were less than 600 citizens that even had permits to carry a handgun. Now, there’s 100,000 approximately or more that have a permit to carry a handgun. So, that one has already been met. Evan Nappen 18:33 Then the other thing you had to show was that somehow it was in the public interest for you to have this. However, that standard, those standards, even the standard for carry of justifiable need, the standards have been eviscerated by Bruen. You can’t have those standards. You can’t have those standards on a carry. So, what is left in place, my friends, is an assault firearm carry license. Let that sink in. So, in other words, not only by the definition that still exists are these guns there as a list, but New Jersey has a carry permit waiting for you to obtain, so that you can carry those guns. They can no longer ban them, but they have a license to carry them that you can get. And not only will you be able to get it, you’ll be able to get it and have the guns. Because you can’t ban the guns. So, now, their carry permit that they put in to somehow work as an impossible to get exemption can now be turned against them, and can be used so that we can even get licenses to carry the list of guns that they so radically expanded to the features of the ’97 guidelines and anything substantially identical in the list of 67 guns, etc. So, their laws are going to come back, as they are, and bite them in the ass, as it should be. Keep that in mind. Teddy Nappen 20:21 It’ll be really, it would be really funny, Dad. If we somehow could interview Josh Sugarman. Just to ask him, like his literally the thing, the term that he used is now going to codify as the de facto defense to allow people to have and possess the firearms. Evan Nappen 20:39 And not just possess, but to be able to carry. Because New Jersey has a so-called assault firearm carry license. The definition of assault firearm is one statute, and the carry license is another. What the decision is invalidating is the ban, is the ban, and New Jersey has a vehicle in place already in law to apply to carry them. So, there you go. Another little tidbit to consider. Evan Nappen 21:13 And I’ll tell you something else, Teddy. I have a really important case to talk about that may even be more significant, if you can believe it. More significant than this entire battle over assault firearms. Page – 7 – of 11 Because this issue may completely wipe out the key foundation of federal gun laws. I’m gonna tell you about it in a moment. But first I want to tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. Where we get our certifications, where we get our training, and where we love to enjoy our range time. Now WeShoot, as many of you know, has a fantastic pro shop. There are such a great bunch of folks, and they have many different programs, training, and offerings. Evan Nappen 22:12 One of the things they’re offering right now that I want to talk about, that I think is really, really great is they’re offering New Jersey carry certification, CCARE, but specifically they’re offering a course for seniors. For seniors. They have a very welcoming, senior-friendly program designed to make the process simple, comfortable, and easy to understand. With WeShoot’s extremely experienced instructors, they’re able to provide a safe and supportive and a pressure-free environment where you can build your confidence, improve your skills, and gain the knowledge necessary so you can carry responsibly. This course is really a great idea, and it is something that if you are a senior and you are looking to be able to protect yourself, because that is our right, and of course, as a senior, you know you’re not as physically capable as you used to be. Evan Nappen 23:30 This course has basic firearm safety as a component. There’s safe handling and loading, unloading, and storage techniques. They do easy to understand instruction in use of force, how to do holster safely, safety with holsters, and how to properly draw. Then you do the live fire qualification. All this is step-by-step guidance, including through the New Jersey permit application process. So, this is a great service that is being offered by WeShoot. If you or anyone you know is a senior and they want to be able to get their permit to carry, here’s a great opportunity to be introduced and learn properly, correctly, and get the credentials that you need to do it from We Shoot. Check out weshootusa.com. Their beautiful website with fantastic photography. And don’t miss the WeShoot girls when you go on their website. You’ll love it. WeShoot is the place. They’re right there, conveniently located in central Jersey. Conveniently, right off the Parkway there. Check it out. Evan Nappen 24:49 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you have your copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey Gun Law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It will guide you through the insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws, and it is something that I’m looking forward to seeing be made smaller, being made a smaller volume. That’d be nice as we keep chopping away the gun laws. But New Jersey still has many of these laws to go, and you need to make sure that you don’t become a GOFU. So, go to evannappen.com, evannappen.com, and get your book today. Evan Nappen 25:37 Now, Teddy, there is a really important development taking place in the Fifth Circuit, and it’s all because of Saint Thomas. That is what we call Justice (Clarence) Thomas, one of the greatest judges on the Supreme Court, of course. He, interestingly, laid out a challenge. He laid out a challenge in the recent Supreme Court decision in (United States v.) Hemani. In Hemani, Justice Thomas said, “The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has Page – 8 – of 11 ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines'”. Then Thomas wrote. “Otherwise, federal commerce authority becomes “a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” Evan Nappen 26:58 Now that is a fascinating gauntlet thrown down by Judge Thomas, and it has now been picked up by the Fifth Circuit. And a great article on this by Duncan Johnson from Ammoland. The article is: “Fifth Circuit Takes Justice Thomas Up on Challenge to Federal Gun-Control Power”. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/fifth-circuit-squire-922g-federal-gun-ban/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=1fc1371d30-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-1fc1371d30-21268623) And yes, it does. Evan Nappen 27:22 Because what Thomas is doing there is going at the federal power of interstate commerce. Now, let me tell you, folks. There’s only certain powers that the federal government has, and all the other powers out there are reserved to the states. So, what are the powers of the federal government? Well, there’s three primary powers that the federal governments have. And if the laws are not founded within those powers, if the powers aren’t there, then there’s no jurisdiction for the law that the Government has passed. So, the key federal powers are the power of taxation. That’s one power. The military power. And the power of interstate commerce. Those are the powers in the Constitution given to the federal Government. All the other powers go to the states. Evan Nappen 28:24 So, you see that every federal law, every federal law, has to be based on one of those three powers. Otherwise, there’s no jurisdiction for the law. So, originally, way back, the key power that was used by the federal government were two: military and the power of taxation. And you see, the power of taxation that was the first power used to pass a national gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA is based on the power of taxation. That’s why you get a tax stamp. That’s why ATF and all were originally part of Treasury. It’s all based on the Government’s power of taxation. And with the Big Beautiful Bill, the tax was made zero. So, now, in the big beautiful lawsuit, the argument is: if you’re not collecting a tax, then your jurisdiction for this, your power of taxation, doesn’t exist anymore. The law is no longer valid because it’s no longer a tax, and therefore no jurisdiction. Evan Nappen 29:44 Well, that third power, interstate commerce, that’s where you see the greatest amount of federal government abuse and overreach that ever existed. You can trace that back to the Wickard versus Filburn case. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) This case had to do with a farmer growing his own food during FDR’s administration. The farmer was growing his own food for himself and for his own livestock. He didn’t sell a grain of it anywhere. And the government said, “You can’t do that. We regulate what farmers can and can’t grow.” And the farmer said, “Hey, man, this is my farm. It’s for me. It’s not for anyone else. I have a right to do it. And the court said, “Oh, well, the fact that you grow your own and don’t sell it or distribute it affects interstate commerce. Affects it. And man, that opened the door. Because then anything that affects interstate commerce, anything that has traveled in interstate commerce, anything. Broad, broad, broad. This explosion in federal power. Page – 9 – of 11 Evan Nappen 31:00 Thomas, obviously and correctly, sees that this is nuts, and wants to pull it back. And now we have a case in the Fifth Circuit, “United States versus Squire”. Again, en banc, full court, where there was a total remand back, in which the consideration is now going to be a challenge as to whether interstate commerce, whether that power, can affect simply, as in Squire’s case, which involved a felon. A convicted felon, a bad guy. Someone who, you know, is not a nice person, as our president would say. Not a nice person. However, the gun that was found in, I think it was Louisiana, the gun that was found at this guy’s place was not used in a crime. Was not used in a murder. You know, was not the element was not evidence of any offense of that. Evan Nappen 32:14 But he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question is, is a gun that merely at some point had traveled through interstate commerce, but was no longer, you know, in interstate commerce at all. It was no longer. Just in this guy’s place, sitting in a state in in Louisiana. Does the federal government’s power of interstate commerce still apply to that, so that they can enforce a federal gun law stopping felons from possessing a gun, or is that an overreach? And this case, my friends, has the potential to remove the very foundation of federal gun laws based on interstate commerce. It is extremely, extremely important. Even the dissent recognizes that this is the case. As a matter of fact, the dissent in the Squire’s case said the court has “welcomed the possibility of finding that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority cannot support 922(g).” That’s the felon in possession prohibition. “Such a decision”, he (Judge Stephen Higginson) said, “would have massive import for federal law.” That’s right. You’re damn right it will. You’re damn right it will. And that’s what they’re afraid of. This is why the Squire case can be absolutely game-changing like no other. So, we will keep a close eye on that. Teddy Nappen 34:14 I would kind of combine that with just, from the political landscape where you see. I don’t know if you saw the Democrat Socialists. They put out that stupid manifesto where they were talking about eliminating the Senate, expanding Congress. They appoint the president. You don’t elect the president. They appoint and just abolishing our system. Evan Nappen 34:37 Oh yeah, they’re basically turning us into a dictatorship, a communist dictatorship. Teddy Nappen 34:44 I feel like that would be the ultimate check on their power. If we could really, really, truly curtail the commerce clause to not allow that much power. Evan Nappen 34:56 Oh yeah, we need to. Yeah, this is all about pulling back the federal government in its overreach. And yet something like national reciprocity, where we’re dealing with a Constitutional right and actually traveling interstate. Well, now we do have interstate commerce going on. We have crossing state lines. We have something that is so plainly a federal issue that falls under it. Whereas, when you start making an inanimate object that at some point just crossed the state line and ends up in somebody’s home. Page – 10 – of 11 They’re not traveling with it. They’re not moving with it. They’re just saying, “Hey, you know, even though it was purchased or acquired in Louisiana, but at some point it had to get to a dealer, you know, and made it to the. I mean, this is so far down the line of having any connection to it. Evan Nappen 35:55 And as Thomas points out, it basically removes the state police power, which is a power that should be reserved to the state. So, this is going to be a fascinating argument to follow, and the threat of communism through the Democrat Socialists. I mean, you know, look at what we’re looking at today, Teddy. When was the last time we saw that, you know, Democrat Socialists? You know, they want national socialism, and they combine it with Jew hate. Gee, those folks used to walk funny. I think, right? Remember them? That’s what they’re basically mirroring right now in America. Teddy Nappen 35:55 Well, it goes back to, Dad, you gotta look at the two biggest propagandist industries. You had higher education, which you know that’s, thank God Donald Trump cracked down on that hard. Where now they’re no longer be going to give out loans to. So you have to get a bat. You can get a bachelor degree in feminist basket weaving, and that’ll cut out a lot. Evan Nappen 35:55 Right, that’s a great move, too. You’re right. Teddy Nappen 35:58 And number two is Hollywood and entertainment, where they also push the socialist movement. That I think, particularly with AI and other and independent projects, are rising above and breaking the stranglehold of Hollywood. At the point now, they’re trying to fund Jersey, where Netflix is building, and you got Paramount and the others are funding it. Trying to turn into the New East Hollywood. But the main thing is McCarthy wasn’t wrong. He went overzealous, yes, but just the levels of it. There were communists in our in the in our works of the government, and here is the fruits of their labor. Evan Nappen 35:58 Well, not only that, you know, during McCarthy’s day, they tried to stay hidden. Now, they’re open about it. They’re open. Teddy Nappen 36:37 They’re proud of it. They’re bragging. They’re proud of it. Teddy Nappen 37:54 They’re wearing it. They’re bragging about it. And this is a complete antithesis to what America is all about, and nowhere ever has communism worked. Look, you know, when that wall came down in Germany, where do you think they wanted to go? You know, you don’t see people escaping. “Escaping” to communism. It’s the reverse. And once you get communism, once you elect it in, you end up having to shoot your way out. So, you know, I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are that foolish. But here’s the problem. The majority of Democrats are because statistically they’re apparently in favor of socialism, which is just, you know, a euphemistic label for communism. Page – 11 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 38:54 Here’s the issue, though, Dad. It’s my generation, the next, where I think the number was like 58% are seen in favor of socialism. That’s that generation. So, you this time period will be fine. But the next generation, that’ll be where like it’s something. This is where we need to do heavy, heavy arms of propaganda. And look, the easiest way to dispel this argument – name me one country where socialism works. Tell me that. They immediately try to say the Nordic country, and then I say, okay. First of all, here’s a deal for you. We’ll completely deregulate oil, just like the Nordic countries. Our immigration policy is about around 3% and reduce the migrant population to about the size of any Nordic country. And then finally to end it all, make sure people have healthy, maintain themselves healthily, and actually watch what they’re actually eating and going into developing healthier habits, like a lot of the Nordic countries. Then get back to me on socialism. Other than that, none of that works. We are a heavily diverse nation. We have a lot of unhealthy issues. So, when I hear it, it’s just B.S., every single time. There is no. They move the goalposts and say there’s never been any true. It hasn’t worked yet because it’s not. It hasn’t been the right version. Evan Nappen 40:18 Yeah, right. Well, I don’t want to be part of that experiment. Thank you. Okay, no thanks. No, thank you. I’ll stick with our Founding Fathers. I’ll stick with the incredible quality of life that capitalism has given us. And there’s a reason why so many people want to come here. There’s a really good reason for it, and it ain’t communism. That’s for sure. Hey, the other thing. This. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 40:43 No, I was gonna say. Here’s the other one. Name me once did communism ever allow for someone to take a loan to get a business started? Name me one faction of that, where someone who came from essentially the small folk being able to rise up and become millionaires and running their own businesses. Yeah, exactly. Evan Nappen 41:07 Maybe recently you heard, I just heard President Trump talking about it, and he summed it up pretty well. He said, “Communism is shit.” That’s exactly what the President said, and then he goes. His wife gets upset when he uses that word, and Reverend Falwell even wrote him once and said to him, you know, we’d prefer if he would try not to use profanity. And then Trump said he told him, the problem is that’s the word that perfectly describes communism. So, I guess if there’s any time to use the word, that’s the time to use the word. So, there you go. Evan Nappen 41:49 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 42:03 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E300_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

A Ninth Circuit judge calls for SCOTUS to "bench slap" anti-2A courts while Paul Markel joins Mark Walters to explain why major Second Amendment victories may be just ahead. Plus DOJ action, Bruen, magazine bans and the future of gun rights.

Mark Walters and Andy Hooser analyze the First Circuit's Massachusetts gun ban ruling, discuss why lower courts keep defying Bruen, and explain why the Supreme Court could deliver a historic unanimous Second Amendment victory that changes America forever.

The Third Circuit delivers a major Second Amendment victory, striking down New Jersey's gun and magazine bans. Dr. John Lott joins Mark Walters to explain what this means for Heller, Bruen, Justice Barrett, and the Supreme Court's historic upcoming gun ban cases.

The Third Circuit delivers one of the biggest Second Amendment victories since Bruen. NRA-ILA's John Commerford and constitutional attorney Mark Smith explain why New Jersey's rifle and magazine bans were struck down—and what it means for the Supreme Court next.

Send us Fan MailIn a well-though-out decision by the 3rd Circuit Court, New Jersey's "Assault Weapons" ban gets knocked out with a one-two punch of Bruen and Heller!AI cameras are being used to target those carrying firearms, including peaceable citizens, and this does not bode well for individual liberty.Direct link to BillMick.com for some common sense, uncommon radio: Bill Mick LIVE - WMMB-AMBill Mick Live!Tune in every weekday morning from 06:00-09:00 EST for some common sense, uncommon radio!Freedom GunsFirearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes Sicarios Gun ShopFirearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!The Gun Site9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classesSHOOTINGCLASSES.COMOnline business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting RangesWJS GunsGun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, moreCounter Strike TacticalBest Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949Go2 WeaponsManufacturers of AR platform rifles for military and civilian. Veteran Owned and OperatedEar Care of MelbourneNeed hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!Glover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.Wealth management servicesQuantified PerformanceQuantified Performance, LLC is focused on building safe, high performing keepers and bearers.Control Jiu-Jitsu/MMAJiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FLDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showThe Watch Floor - YouTubeAskari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)

Episode 299-AG Attacks Gun Shows Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 13 Gun Lawyer — Episode 299 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, Second Amendment, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Ghost Guns, Pennsylvania gun show, Civil Complaint, New Jersey gun laws, Second Amendment Section, DOJ, Gun Control, Red Flag Laws, Gun Owner Faux Pas. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, I think you have a very interesting news bit to tell us about, and I have some very interesting thoughts about it. Go right ahead. Teddy Nappen 00:36 Well, first I want to say, Dad, if you’re just scrolling through, I love the random trailers that just pop up. Apparently, they’re making a Jimmy Stewart biopic. Evan Nappen 00:48 Well, Jimmy Stewart was a great man. Teddy Nappen 00:50 But here’s the deal. They’re focusing on his military career, where he was a combat pilot. Evan Nappen 00:56 He was a hero. He was a bona fide hero, and he served his country tremendously. I have nothing but respect for Jimmy Stewart. Teddy Nappen 01:12 I was pulling it up. He flew 20 missions in Europe, and he reached the rank of Colonel. He was a World War Two pilot commander, combat pilot. Evan Nappen 01:22 And this was in the middle of his movie career. He left. Page – 2 – of 13 Evan Nappen 01:26 He left his movie career to fight for America. Let that sink in. I mean, do you think these selfish movie stars, self-centered, would even think of doing that? Even think of doing that today? Please. At least not the overwhelming majority. Maybe there’d be a few that are out there that actually would consider such a thing. But good grief. Talk about old Hollywood and new Hollywood. Jeez. Teddy Nappen 01:26 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 01:57 I will say. I would have. This is no dig against Jimmy Stewart because it’s one of those I would have wanted if they’re gonna do any of the actors that served. I would love for them to do Lee Marvin. His whole story. Evan Nappen 02:10 Oh, Lee Marvin was great, too. Teddy Nappen 02:13 Where he has the craziest career, too. He was a scout sniper, 21 amphibious assaults, horribly injured and shot up. Evan Nappen 02:23 Yeah, they could just do a series, like a mini series of actors who were the real deal. That played tough guys, but were actually the real deal. You know, Charles Bronson was. You had the guy, Christopher Lee. Holy crap, Christopher! Teddy Nappen 02:44 Oh yeah, Christopher Lee. He was Wiki page. Evan Nappen 02:51 I mean, Christopher Lee was advising on the movie and saying that’s not how a knife sounds when you jam it into somebody. You don’t have the sound right on that. That’s not how it goes. It’s not what the sound the person makes. It’s not the sound the knife makes. I mean, that’s some pretty detailed knowledge right there. Teddy Nappen 03:07 If you’re ever bored, just click on the random page on his bio, and it gets crazier and crazier. Like, witness the last guillotining. Evan Nappen 03:18 I know. The guy’s amazing. Yeah, and of course, there’s always Audie Murphy, of course. Teddy Nappen 03:25 Yeah, of course. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:26 Audie Murphy played himself in “To Hell and Back”. Audie Murphy is amazing, and he would be like one of the last guys if you looked at him to think that he’s one of the most decorated soldiers of the war. But he was also amazing, and you know, he made lots of other movies, too. Even though he’s most famous for “To Hell and Back”, but he did a lot of westerns and other things. Teddy Nappen 03:52 I remember one of the underrated ones. I think it was like “The Duel at Silver Creek”. There’s moments where he’s actually like, he plays an anti-hero type where he’s like. Evan Nappen 04:03 Yeah, a bastard, frankly. A son of a bitch. Teddy Nappen 04:05 He plays like a. Evan Nappen 04:06 Yeah he’s good. Teddy Nappen 04:07 Yeah. Evan Nappen 04:08 Not what you think of Audie Murphy. Teddy Nappen 04:09 Right. He plays like the tough guy. It is very interesting that character but. Evan Nappen 04:14 Yeah, yeah. And then he ended up dying in a plane crash because the pilot shouldn’t have been flying apparently, and you know, it’s a shame that we lost him. But yeah, he was great, and I mean he came from really, really humble beginnings. I mean dirt poor, crazy beginnings there for him. We’ve many of the great Hollywood actors who served their country really admirably. I mean even Scotty (James Montgomery Doohan), you know, from Star Trek. He was also a defender. Teddy Nappen 04:17 What was he in? Evan Nappen 05:03 Oh, he was military. I don’t remember exactly his background, but he was in some tough situations. He was known. Teddy Nappen 05:08 Page – 4 – of 13 Well, he was miracle worker. Evan Nappen 05:10 There’s so many of those guys, and I have a hard time trying to think of any modern actor that can maybe give that credibility to. I don’t know. Can’t think of any at all. Teddy Nappen 05:24 Unfortunately, I’m drawing a heavy blank because. Oh wait, no, no, no. Adam Driver. Adam Driver. I believe he’s the guy that played Kylo Ren. He did. I believe he was in the Marines. But he was a veteran. So, but anyways, one thing I will say as we were reviewing these stories, I love how the Attorney General has their own YouTube and they were just like streaming alerts and announcements. “Attorney General Davenport Files Civil Complaint Against Pennsylvania Gun Show Owner for Endangering Public Safety” (https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-files-civil-complaint-against-pennsylvania-gun-show-owner-for-endangering-public-safety/) So, that was what came up with the ad for Jimmy Stewart, and then there was this. Evan Nappen 06:08 Right. Showing a pretty good contrast. So, Davenport has filed this complaint against the Pennsylvania gun show owner for “endangering public safety”. They filed because they’re abusing the civil lawsuit. You know, this is one of the anti-Second Amendment ploys of trying to litigate the Second Amendment out of existence. And so, what they’ve done here is they’ve gone after Jordan Vinroe of JSD Supply and Eagle Shows. So, if any of you have ever gone to the great Pennsylvania gun shows, you know, they’re really good. Because first of all there aren’t any gun shows of any kind, really, in New Jersey. There’s some militaria shows, but there’s no gun shows. But Pennsylvania is, if you’re in New Jersey and you want to hit a really great normal type gun show, you go to Pennsylvania. And some of the largest, best shows are put on by this promoter. Teddy Nappen 07:24 The one that comes to mind, the Bloomsburg gun show. I think that was one we had gone to. Teddy Nappen 07:29 Yeah, Eastern Gun X. Eastern Gun X. Evan Nappen 07:29 Well, they have a whole series of shows. I believe they actually do some of the largest shows in Eastern Pennsylvania. Evan Nappen 07:30 So, they do some of these 1000 table, 2000 table, these really huge shows. And what happened is they’re going after him, claiming he is intentionally and unlawfully selling to New Jersey residents kits and parts to make ghost guns. Untraceable firearms that are illegal in New Jersey. So, what is this really? This really is a pretext to go after gun shows. This isn’t really about the ghost guns. That’s just their vehicle. This is really about trying to stop gun shows. If you go after gun show promoters, this becomes the idea of civilly litigating out of, essentially out of existence. If they can do it, they’d love to Page – 5 – of 13 do it. Gun shows. So, we really have not just a violation of the Second Amendment, where what’s going on in Pennsylvania is completely lawful in Pennsylvania. Ghost guns are the pejorative term for simply a privately-made firearm. Americans have been making their own guns since before we were even officially a country. So, private firearms are not the boogeyman. But, of course, they give it the boogeyman name of “ghost guns” and then claim they’re untraceable. Evan Nappen 09:14 Well, you know what? You tell me what firearm tracing has actually done to fight crime. Virtually nothing. It’s a lie that is perpetrated to give them a vehicle to make it look like they’re doing something about crime, which isn’t it, but more so to continue the agenda of oppression of Second Amendment rights. And here it is an attack on gun shows. That’s really what’s going on here. It’s not, you know, ghost guns, most gun. It ghost guns. Come on. First of all, anyone can build a gun with or without parts that you buy at a show anywhere. You can build a gun with pipes that you buy at Home Depot. Are we going to go after Home Depot because you can make slam bang shotguns easily, as we taught in the Philippines to do? Americans did that. You can. Evan Nappen 10:20 You know, “American Guerrilla in the Philippines”, a famous book, movie, etc. What do you think they made? Slam bang shotguns. You take two pieces of pipe. One pipe fits in the other. On the end cap of the larger pipe, you have a nail with the point facing down the pipe. The other one slides in it like a trombone. You put a 12 gauge shell in there, and you slam it down. And bang, off it goes. It’s called a slam bang shotgun. Sometimes called four winds shotgun. Teddy Nappen 10:55 Didn’t you? Evan Nappen 10:58 Yeah, I mean this is, and this is even in the Frankfurt Arsenal, the famous “Black Books”. They’re very easy. Evan Nappen 11:06 So, yeah, making a gun. They make guns in jails. They can make a gun. You can make them. So, this whole thing about privately made firearms and all is just a load of crap. Now, Jersey has banned “ghost guns” in a multiple ways. They talk about “unserialized firearms”. They talk about “manufacture of firearms”. They have different laws that address each of these things. All putting it under this category. And yet, under federal law, it’s not a problem to make your own firearm. Federal law even has regulations for if dealers get a privately made firearm, how to handle it and be able to actually lawfully sell it. They need to then take certain steps. We don’t have to get into that now. But it’s not a problem under federal law. It is a New Jersey, in this case, law that they’re attempting to use as a vehicle to bring the civil action against Pennsylvania. Something jurisdictioned in Pennsylvania, by claiming, oh well, you’re unlawfully selling to New Jersey residents. Teddy Nappen 11:06 Poor man’s James Bond? Page – 6 – of 13 Evan Nappen 12:23 Well, I’ll tell you what. How about we take a look at marijuana sales in New Jersey? Do Pennsylvania residents come into New Jersey and ever buy marijuana? Look, marijuana is unlawful for recreational use in Pennsylvania, and it’s federally prohibited. It’s still a federal controlled, dangerous substance. So, New Jersey acts to aid and abet and facilitate one of the largest unlawful drug distributions in the country. Whereas privately made firearms are not a federal prohibition. Not a federal prohibition. Should Pennsylvania sue New Jersey because of somehow Pennsylvania residents buying weed in New Jersey being facilitated by New Jersey? I mean, this is what they’re attempting to do. And yet here, not only is it not a violation of federal law, but it is really an attack on Second Amendment rights. And let me tell you that. Go ahead., Teddy. Teddy Nappen 13:30 I will also point out in the article. This is where the little trick is. If anyone ever listens to these people, they always do this trick where they start with a false premise when making their argument. “Ghost guns are frequently recovered at crime sites in New Jersey. Recent reports suggest that the number of ghost guns recovered in crime scenes increased eightfold between 2019 and 2022 — from 55 in 2019 to 433 in 2022.” Pause right there. I wonder. What happened around that time period where it caused people to want to have their own privately-made firearms and want to maybe 3D print and make their own? I wonder what little factor would have considered that. Secondly, all right, now show me the data of the amount of firearms recovered generally in crimes, and give me the percentage breakdown. Oh, it’s probably in the minuscule amount of percentages of firearms seized in New Jersey for crimes. Huh? I wonder. So, this isn’t that much of an epidemic, but we can’t show that, obviously. We won’t show that data. They just list off guns seized. Evan Nappen 14:43 Teddy, we are in a new day and age because of President Trump. And one of the things that President Trump did is actually create, through the Justice Department. They actually created in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department, the Second Amendment Section. Now let me tell you what the Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Federal Government Department of Justice. Let me tell you right from their website. (https://www.justice.gov/crt/second-amendment-section) The Second, Fourth, and 14th Amendments, the Police Patterned or Practice Act, and Executive Order 14206 protecting the Second Amendment rights, secure the natural firearm rights of law-abiding citizens, and ensure that such rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. The mission of the Second Amendment Section is to ensure that law-abiding citizens may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms. The Second Amendment Section will work diligently to investigate law enforcement agencies that engage in a pattern or practice of infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights. As well as be proactive in searching for litigation opportunities to secure such rights. Evan Nappen 16:19 The Second Amendment Section will also seek opportunities to advance a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment via statements of interest, motions to intervene, amicus briefs, and original lawsuits where applicable on behalf of Americans across the country. All attorneys within the Second Page – 7 – of 13 Amendment Section will advocate with zeal on behalf of the United States of America in furtherance of all objectives as tasked. And there, right at the website, at the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, the Second Amendment Section. You can go right online to that. We’ll have a link in the transcript. It says Section Information. Acting Chief Barry Arrington. “Report a civil rights violation.” So, listeners, if you see or hear or know of any civil rights violations on the Second Amendment, report them. Report them to the Federal Department of Justice. Evan Nappen 17:28 I think this is something that the DOJ should consider going on in New Jersey. Where you actually are seeing an effort to go after gun shows, which is our freedom of association, which is our ability. You know, if you can’t buy guns, then you’re not going to be able to possess and carry something you cannot obtain. Second, ghost guns are not a violation of federal law. Third, this is talking about interstate issues. This is New Jersey and Pennsylvania. What could be more squarely within federal jurisdiction than one state going after activities in another state because the state that is going after them has laws that infringe on the Second Amendment and trying to enforce it in another jurisdiction via this mechanism of being able to abuse civil laws. So, there is potentially a solution here. And not only just about what New Jersey is doing here, but what New Jersey does across the board in so many ways of oppressing our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 18:58 Now, this Second Amendment Section has done a number of things already. They sued California to halt the Glock ban. They sued Virginia over their unconstitutional weapons ban, assault firearm so-called ban. They sued them. They opened an investigation, by the way, into Philadelphia Police Department’s unconstitutional permit revocation process. They’ve sued Colorado for their ban on so-called assault firearms and magazines. They sued the District of Columbia for their ban, and they’ve gone after the Virgin Islands Police Department for unconstitutional practices in effective denials of permits. That’s just a sampling of what the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department is doing in the Second Amendment Section, and it’s time for New Jersey to be investigated. Because this has gone on for far too long in New Jersey. Our Second Amendment rights being trampled by New Jersey trying to do everything in its power to oppress Second Amendment rights. So, check it out, folks, and you will see that this is what happens when we say elections have consequences. Because this goes back to President Trump putting out his Executive Order, and you also have the Attorney General putting forward that they have their Second Amendment task force and setting up the Civil Rights Division. So, we can change how business is done. Evan Nappen 20:52 Because prior to this, the Government, even the federal Government, took at best a neutral position, but normally there was no infringement that was too much as far as federal enforcement. No problem. Turned the other, you know, turned away from it. Couldn’t care less. Those are no longer the days today, and this is where a wake-up call needs to come out on our Second Amendment rights. Let me tell you. Go ahead, Teddy. Yeah. Teddy Nappen 21:32 Page – 8 – of 13 Well, I was going to say. I was able to pull up Everytown’s research. (https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-trafficking-crime-guns-new-jersey-data/) In 2023, New Jersey’s law enforcement seized 4,619 guns. So, going off of the data that the A.G. put out, that’s 9% of those firearms were “ghost guns”. Nine percent. It’s even less from those numbers. It is the level of insanity that these individuals pull. They’re just making a boogeyman out of something. That’s why. Evan Nappen 22:06 They’re the boogeyman and a pretext to try to assert their agenda. It’s really what we’re talking about here. Absolutely. Well, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood where Teddy and I both shoot. We love WeShoot, and so will you. They have the top trainers for New Jersey. They have the full array from novice to advanced. They have some just great training programs. You can get your CCARE certification there. That’s what you need in order to get your New Jersey carry. They offer CCARE courses. They also offer the ability to get non-resident permits in other states. So, if you travel, you can take care of that through WeShoot. WeShoot is a great resource. It’s a resource that we’re very lucky to have. It’s harder and harder to find places to shoot, and without places to shoot, you can’t do too much with your guns. And WeShoot is there for you. Take advantage of it. Evan Nappen 23:25 It’s a wonderful place. They’ve got a great pro shop. Great people, super nice, wonderful folks. They will bend over backwards to help you, and I’ve seen it firsthand. They’ve helped so many people to improve their skills, to learn about firearms, to learn the right way, proper way, how to be safe, how to be secure, and make sure that everything is done correctly. So that you don’t end up being a GOFU. So, check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com. That’s their website, weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. Beautiful photography. They’re really first rate, and you’ll see why. They go the extra mile. Check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com. They’re conveniently located right in Lakewood, New Jersey. Easily accessible right off the Garden State Parkway. You can do it. Go over there, and you’ll say, “Wow, why didn’t I come here sooner? That’s weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 24:44 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey Gun Law. You don’t want to be a GOFU. You need the book. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. It’ll help guide you safely through the matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun laws, so that you can remain a law-abiding gun owner. That’s my purpose in writing it. You will see why it is the book used by lawyers, judges, State Police Firearms division, and beyond. If anybody who wants to know about New Jersey gun law, they always turn to New Jersey Gun Law by Evan Nappen. And if you want to get your copy, go to evannappen.com, EvanNappen.com. Order a copy, and you’ll have it within days. So, Teddy, what else do you have for us to discuss today? I’m going to toss the ball to you. Teddy Nappen 25:44 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. If anyone’s been watching the news or anything or seen all the push from the Left, the thing they keep trying to go back to is they’re trying to address the mail problem. That’s their actual quote from the election groups that they do. Where they’re trying to figure out how do we. Page – 9 – of 13 Evan Nappen 26:11 Is that Post Office mail or as in what is a woman, male? Teddy Nappen 26:16 You know. The white men, particularly, of the they have completely spurred off. One of the things that they’ve run into a foul, is you see this whole push where they try to reach issues, and they’ve gotten very, very quiet on the issue of firearms all of a sudden. Amazing, right? And even though you where you have like the James Talarico who’s still trying to tote gun control, but he’s trying to paint it off like, look, I’m for the Second Amendment. You know, I own a gun. All this. Evan Nappen 26:52 Oh, it’s the I’m for the Second Amendment, but. It’s always the but. Teddy Nappen 26:56 Always, but always, Evan Nappen 26:57 But we should ban guns. I’m for the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 27:01 But universal background checks, which will basically create a registry. Evan Nappen 27:07 But we should eliminate gun shows off the face of the planet. But we should ban any gun that’s over 12 inches long and call it an assault firearm. But ban any gun under 12 inches and call it a Saturday night special. Other than that, I’m for the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 27:23 Yeah, and you’ve been seeing that. Now you’ve noticed they’ve been losing a lot of ground to their “Democrat Socialists”. They’re just Marxists. If you look at the ideology of what they support, they are Marxists. Just go one to one. They are the same. They can’t dress it up any other way. So, I decided, you know what? Let’s see what’s on their page. What they actually feel about the Second Amendment. Because when it comes to Socialists now, they’ve kind of reached the they don’t know how to feel about firearms. They want to disarm the people because they believe in gun control, but they need arms for the revolution, always. So, it’s the gun owner dilemma for Socialists. Teddy Nappen 28:06 So, I go to their web page and what do I find? (https://www.dsausa.org/blog/the_second_amendment_is_a_threat_to_us_all/) This goes back to 2018, mind you. So, now they’ve gotten very quiet. “The Second Amendment is a threat to us All.” That is the opening title, and they still have it on there. This is their reaction to the Parkland shooting. So, America touts itself as being a meritocracy, and we laugh. But on firearm policy, it is truly need blind. No matter your age, race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation, your inalienable right to life is perfectly alienable to Page – 10 – of 13 keep guns pouring into public and private lives. Okay. Which is why we think the only way to guarantee that we dramatically reduce the acts of violence involving guns is removing guns from society. Pause. Logical fallacy alert, everybody! Ding, ding, ding, ding. Logical fallacy. Reverse Nirvana. If we got rid of all the guns, that would stop the crime. They always try to push that, and we have the oomph. Okay, yeah. Repeal the Second Amendment. That’s going to happen. This is from 2018. Nope, still haven’t done it. But they point to, I don’t know if you remember this guy Carl Rove? Evan Nappen 29:37 Oh yeah, Carl Rove, the pool shooter. Shooting at the pool? Yeah, yeah. After he’s anti-gun, but he uses a gun inappropriately even. Yeah, that guy, Mr. Hypocrite. Teddy Nappen 29:49 Well, they highlight his quote. The only way to guarantee that we drastically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove them from society. Well, okay then. Then they go through this whole twisted history where they point to the 1970s. NRA stopped being enthusiast group and became a defense industry lobby. Then the new blood came with the Gun Control Act of ’68, which aimed to restrict firearm ownership in response to the fears of the group. I love how they say this. The fears of the Black Panthers. Yes, that’s why the ’68 Gun Control Act was born. That was the only reason. They wanted to disarm the Black Panthers. No other reason of why they tried to push the ’68 Gun Control Act. Dad, do you remember that? What would you say from your view of what was the driver to the ’68 Gun Control Act? Evan Nappen 30:47 Oh my God! You know these people are just amazing, and as you see, they’re conflicted over their own platform. It's crazy, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 31:02 Yeah, and well, they go even crazier. They go through this twisted history of rights. They go through Heller, basically determining you know the rights infringed, and they use Scalia’s answer. In Scalia’s admission, if we repeal the Second Amendment, private citizens could still own guns. The right to do so is granted to them by God or the English, whatever you’d like. Both Brett Stevens and Carl Rover certainly wouldn’t mind. So therefore, we’ve rewritten the Second Amendment. They wrote an amendment. They actually wrote. They wrote their example, the 28th Amendment, Dad. Here we go. The 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they pushed for. The second article, the amendment of the Constitution of the United States, is hereby repealed. Okay, that gets to that. Two – manufacturing, transportation, importation into or out of any state, territory, or possession of United States delivery therein of a pump action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms is hereby prohibited. Three – article shall be inoperative unless it shall be ratified as the amendment to the Constitution by convention of several states, as provided by the Constitution within 10 years, the date of submission here off to the state by Congress. Well, they want a con con apparently. But just going back to that, banning pump action, semi-automatic and automatic firearms, removing that from the Second Amendment, Dad. Evan Nappen 32:33 Page – 11 – of 13 Okay. Teddy Nappen 32:34 You can have your gun, but they must be manually loaded. Evan Nappen 32:36 Couple things. Number one, the Second Amendment is not our rights. It’s a guarantee of our rights. The rights to exist, whether or not we have a Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment is a guarantee against the Government of infringing on those rights. So, what they’re saying is, we want to revoke the guarantee of your rights and replace it with a lame-ass guarantee that we’re rewriting that won’t do anything except give us the opportunity to walk all over your rights. So, that’s really what they’re saying. But the really interesting thing here is this proposal to repeal the Second Amendment is all the anti-Second Amendment gun rights suppressor folks are going to have left. Evan Nappen 33:23 We are on the path with the Second Amendment having been empowered by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. And now we have Viramontes and Grant that, in my opinion, are going to absolutely crush assault firearm semi-automatic bans across the country. They are losing ground left and right. There are over 3,000 filed legal actions challenging gun laws. They are on the run. They’re losing, and they know it. The only thing they have left is actually what they’re asking for here, and that is to repeal the Second Amendment. We will never let them repeal the guarantee of our rights, and that’s what we must insist upon. These are our rights, and they’re guaranteed. We want that guarantee enforced. And now that they see the guarantee is finally being enforced, they cannot stand it. They are losing, and they’re going to continue to lose. Teddy Nappen 34:31 I will say, I love the ending to the article where the individual. We are aware non-white and marginalized groups whose rights are routinely violated by the police may view this both as restricting and their ability to protect themselves or causing unwarranted searches and harassments for the criminal justice. We in no way support any measure that would increase the scope and scale of police violence. This provision outlined in amendment would have universal application. So, in other words, don’t worry. This affects everybody. There’s going to be no racial discrimination about enforcing these laws, Dad. Huh? Right. Cut to what was it? John Petrolino’s article where he pulled the data? Evan Nappen 35:19 Yeah. Exactly what we’re dealing with in New Jersey. Where blacks are already more than two to one discriminated against in just permit issuance. So, yeah, we know where this is. It’s just absurd. Teddy Nappen 35:31 Well, they literally go with the “trust me, bro”. It’ll be we’re not racist. We’re just gonna ruin it. We’re gonna screw it over for everybody. Evan Nappen 35:38 Page – 12 – of 13 But keep in mind, this is laughable right now, but it’s actually not. This is going to be the push that we’re going to see. It’s going to be a major push to repeal the Second Amendment. Because it’s all they have left, and that’s what we’re going to see. That and abusing the tort system in any way they can – civil actions. You know, to somehow create these abilities for trying to litigate guns out of existence. That and repealing the Second Amendment. That’s what they’re left with on their game plan. We just need to remain vigilant. Teddy Nappen 36:16 So, bear in mind. I will say, bear in mind, they still push for red flag in the other articles they’ve had. They still push for all the required measures where you have to get everything registered, and they’re still for limiting, removing ARs and anything they deem unsafe or scary. Evan Nappen 36:39 I hear you, and this is so typical. But we’re winning. That’s what’s important. We’re winning. Except when there’s GOFUs. GOFUs, as you know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. That’s where gun owners make big mistakes that cost them, technically, it could cost them their career, their family, their fortunes, their freedom. It’s bad news. So, you want to not be a GOFU. And what we like to do here is talk about GOFUs so that you don’t become one. You get to learn for free what others have paid dearly for. Teddy, what do you think the GOFU is this week? You know. What are we talking about? Teddy Nappen 37:26 Well, for me, the GOFUs are always about “stop talking to the police”. Evan Nappen 37:34 Oh my G-d. Stop talking to the police! Like, you know, we talk about basics. It is so basic. Shut up. You know you have a right to remain silent. Now, whether or not you have the ability to, I guess, becomes another question. But you have the right, and you need to stand on your right. You need to ask for your attorney and remain silent. You need to stand on your rights. And over and over again, we see clients that blow that and end up making their situation incredibly worse, incredibly worse. Because not only does anything you say can and will be used against you. Anything you say will be twisted against you. The safest, best route every time is standing on your rights. It’s that simple. And let me tell you, folks, if you’re ever read Miranda rights, oh my God, shut the f up! If you are read Miranda rights, sirens should be going off. Fireworks should be shooting. Flags should be waved. Shut up! Anyone who talks after Miranda, I just can’t even understand. They’re warning you. They’re telling you. Oh, you just wave your right. Oh, you’ll just talk to them. What are those silly rights they’re telling me about Evan Nappen 39:04 I’ll tell you one of the problems is – television. Television has conditioned many Americans to giving up their rights. Oh, I’ll just talk to them. I’ll just explain it. I’ll just yak away. And you know what? You end up burying yourself. Over and over and over again. I see it. I cannot believe it. If you are ever across one of those metal tables, being interrogated by police, and you’re talking, you are the world’s biggest GOFU. That should never happen. If you’ve been read Miranda, that talking across that table that should not be happening. If you let that happen, you’re a fool. You are absolutely a fool. I can’t make it any clearer. Page – 13 – of 13 Evan Nappen 39:55 It reminds me of Jan Davis. I don’t know if you know about her. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parachutist-plunges-to-death/) She was part of a movement to allow the ability to try to legalize base jumping at national parks. At Yosemite, she jumped off of El Capitan. Now, she was a pretty experienced jumper, and she did this as a protest. She was wearing criminal stripes outfit. You know the classic black and white stripes of the classic prison outfit, right? And it was to make a statement, of course. But it’s really a statement here because she jumped off El Capitan, El Capitan, and it was in 1999 as a protest against the ban. She was trying to make a statement that this is safe and should be allowed. She jumped, and ended up going splat. That’s right. Her parachute didn’t open. She couldn’t get it opened, unfortunately. My understanding is she had used some other equipment instead of her own. She didn’t know where the pull was on this particular one, and unfortunately, she ended up just going splat. Evan Nappen 40:19 To me, Jan Davis jumping off El Capitan there is what happens when you are read Miranda and talk. You ended up in a big splat like Jan Davis. That’s what you do. And keep in mind, she was wearing that prisoner outfit when it happened. So, folks, stand on your rights. Don’t be a good a GOFU. Don’t end up splattering yourself on the gun rights oppression and insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws. Should you ever be put in that situation – shut up! Evan Nappen 42:09 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 42:23 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E299_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

NRA, SAF, FPC and ASA launch a major constitutional challenge to the National Firearms Act. Mark Walters and Ryan Petty break down SCOTUS, Bruen, suppressors, AR-15s, the ATF, and why the future of the Second Amendment may be changing forever.

This week, we're looking at how the lower courts have handled AR-15 ban challenges in light of the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. To explain the consensus that's developed across the appellate courts and provide a different perspective, we have Georgia State University Law Professor Andrew Willinger on the show. Willinger is the former executive director of the Duke University Firearms Law Center, and he teaches a class on the Second Amendment. He's also been critical of the Court's Second Amendment standard and its application at times. He noted that every appellate court to decide an "assault weapons" or "high-capacity" magazine case has upheld restrictions on the devices. He said they've largely coalesced around similar reasoning. While the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to emphasize that step one of the Bruen test is meant to be a pretty simple filter, Willinger said most lower courts have actually upheld AR bans at step two. Willinger said they've identified things like 19th-century Bowie knife bans as the core historical analogue for modern AR bans. He said courts have padded those laws with much earlier and much later weapons restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act of the 1930s. He noted some courts have also used the similarity between AR-15s and military weapons, like the M-16, to uphold the modern bans. He rejected the idea that the consensus surrounding assault weapons bans in the lower courts is primarily a product of geography. Gun-rights activists have long claimed the fact that only a handful of deep blue states have these sorts of bans means only left-leaning circuits have the opportunity to review them. But Willinger argued that the judges involved in the decisions come from a fairly diverse background, with a number of them being Republican appointees. Still, Willinger said he doubts the Supreme Court will find the same way the lower courts have. He argued we already know that four of the Republican appointees would strike down the law based on their public statements. He said Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the only Republican appointees who haven't directly opined on the laws, but he also said he doesn't think they'll both split from the other conservatives.Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.

Episode 298-NJ Assaulting Our Rights… Again Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 298 SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun laws, assault firearm ban, Supreme Court, Vera Montes, Grant cases, Assembly Bill 442, semi-automatic rifles, detachable magazine, draconian penalties, property rights, gun rights, sensitive places, reparations, We Shoot USA, gun owner mistakes. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 This is Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is at it again. What, Teddy? Go ahead. What we gonna say, buddy? Teddy Nappen 00:31 Well, I was gonna say, you wouldn’t believe the stuff that they’re trying to cycle through on social media. They’re trying to now push the whole, “you’re afraid we’re going to take your guns away, and we’re afraid you’re going to take our children away. Which one is unfounded? Like it’s. Evan Nappen 00:53 Yeah! Which one’s unfounded, yeah. Well, being that the anties never give up, those that want to crush our rights and oppress us. New Jersey, of course, always has to lead the way on doing that. And so now, as we discussed last show, we’re all very excited at the Viramontes and Grant cases that are combined and have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. This means they’re finally going to get a decision out of the Supreme Court determining the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapon” ban. But what is New Jersey’s response when these things happen? They’re like the Iranians. When New Jersey makes their gun oppression policy, they act like the Iranians. They double down on threats. They double down on trying to convince us that they are just going to make life miserable for us, and they do it various ways. Evan Nappen 02:13 Their current response is essentially an assault firearm law radical enhancement. That’s right. So, here we realize that the entire concept of banning semi-automatic firearms is, my money is solidly on that is going up in flames. As we talked about before, this is finally, I believe, on the road to destruction. This whole political fight that has harmed so many good people. Ruined law-abiding citizens’ lives. Taken Page – 2 – of 11 their destroyed families’ fortunes, and taken away freedom and rights. This nightmare, I believe, is going to end. But it’s actually even more excitement over when that end might take place, that we’ll talk about in a little bit. In between, leave it to New Jersey to propose even more, even worse, even more draconian laws, particularly on the dreaded, intrinsically evil “assault firearms”. That’s right, New Jersey calls them “assault firearms”. Sometimes they’re called, in other jurisdictions, in federal law, “assault weapons”. Teddy Nappen 03:46 It’s a hoplosexual term. Evan Nappen 03:49 Yeah, you’re right. It’s a term that’s just concocted, so that they can make up lists of guns to ban and to make as far-reaching a ban to turn as many law-abiding citizens into criminals as they possibly can. So, New Jersey filed a new bill. It is Assembly Bill 442 . (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/A0500/442_I1.PDF) This is New Jersey’s incredible doubling down on their assault firearm law, and I wanted to just go through with you. This law, because whether it’ll pass or not, who knows? Even if it does pass, this stuff I believe is going down in flames and will no longer be anything they can pass laws about. Dead. Gone. Done. Evan Nappen 04:50 Sort of like what happens when you enrage a bull elephant. You know, African elephants and Indian elephants are different. African elephants are extremely ornery, mean, tough. Republicans, you know, picked the elephant as their symbol. Sometimes I think about when we get the good elephant, when we get the African version of the elephant, and they actually do what’s needed. I think we’re going to see that here through the judicial system, which now has plenty of great judges, thanks to President Trump appointing conservative judges. The bull elephants of Africa, they do not just kill you. They eliminate you! They crush you and crush you and crush you until there’s nothing left. You can’t even be picked up with a stick and a spoon. That’s how much they disintegrate when they are riled up and attacking. I suspect that we are going to see the African bull elephant happen to this entire agenda of “assault firearm bans”. Evan Nappen 06:10 But until then, let’s look at what they want to do. Because if it doesn’t go that way, if it’s somehow upheld that these things can be prohibited and banned, and our rights can be walked upon in this manner, here’s what New Jersey is doing to the current “assault firearm” definition. Let’s actually look at what they’re saying. So, of course, we have the current law that we’re all familiar with. It has a list of 67 guns, and then they say “substantially identical” and that had never been effectively defined. We had case law that said “substantially identical” means the 1994 Crime Bill definition, which was amazing, since that was four years after New Jersey passed their law. How our legislators knew that an unconstitutional law would be saved by a federal law that was passed four years later, I don’t know. Somehow the court put that forward. We’ve lived under that for now. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 But what they’re doing is they are now going to incorporate and define the specificity in the statute, the term substantially identical. By claiming that any of these above guns and platforms, you know, the 67 intrinsically evil semi-automatic firearms on that list, will now include under the term of “substantially identical” a semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine. That’s step one. Any semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features. So, currently we have a two feature requirement. This is now any one of these features, and your semi-automatic firearm that takes a detachable magazine becomes contraband. Becomes banned. Becomes unlawful for you to possess with no lawful way of possessing it. There’s no grandfathering in this bill. Evan Nappen 08:20 If you’re caught possessing it, the penalty is so draconian it defies belief. It’s up to 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory, mandatory, minimum three and a half years in State Prison, no chance of parole. If you get convicted of possession of an assault firearm, even right now in New Jersey, no less this expanded list that we’re going to look at in a minute, we are talking about the judge having no discretion whatsoever, and having to impose at least three and a half years in State Prison. And folks, if you have an assault firearm and you’re possessing one, if you get caught with it, you’re looking at that penalty right now. Hopefully we’re going to get all this won, and I honestly believe we will. But just in case it doesn’t, or if you get nailed before that happens, you’re looking at insanity in terms of a prison sentence. Evan Nappen 09:16 So how does this new definition with one feature? What are the single features that make a semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine intrinsically evil and must be banned at the second degree, felony level, where you’re looking at 10 years and a minimum mandatory three and a half in prison for just having any one of the following features? Number one, a folding or telescoping stock. Wow, you know how important a folding or telescoping stock is when it comes to fighting crime. I mean, a telescoping stock that moves one or two inches back or forth. I mean, that’s like an entire crime wave into itself, right? If you have that feature on your gun, you’re looking at the offense I just outlined. Teddy Nappen 10:09 Wasn’t there a case, Dad. Wasn’t there a case that you had where if you had a folding stock, it was deemed an assault firearm? Evan Nappen 10:17 Well, that’s exactly what it is. A folding stock or telescoping stock currently is, but wait. Teddy Nappen 10:24 Yeah. Evan Nappen 10:24 One feature, though – just one. Try another, a pistol grip. If you have any rifle semi-auto that takes a mag and it has a pistol grip, it’s contraband. It’s banned. You’re looking at draconian sentencing and Page – 4 – of 11 punishment for your possession. Even though you lawfully bought it from a dealer. Even though you had a firearms ID card and went through all the vetting, went through a NICS check. It doesn’t matter, doesn’t matter one bit. You’re going to State Prison. If it has a thumb hole stock, one feature, a thumb hole stock. That’s all it takes. It’s an assault firearm. A second hand grip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. A second hand grip. Every rifle has a forearm that’s a second hand grip. What are you grabbing it with? Your dick? No, this is outrageous. It’s stupid. It’s a hand grip. Well, if your semi-auto rifle has a hand grip, it’s an assault firearm. Evan Nappen 11:37 A bayonet mount. Oh my gosh, a bayonet mount. That’s because of all the drive-by bayonetings, of course. If you have a flash suppressor or a muzzle brake, if you’re just trying to tame recoil, it doesn’t matter. A muzzle compensator. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate. If you just have the threads on there. A flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, or a muzzle compensator. They want you having lots of recoil on your gun, lots of recoil. Can’t tame that recoil. They don’t want you to have any accuracy in your shooting or ability to shoot without muzzle rise. I mean, what the hell? Insanity. It doesn’t matter. A grenade launcher. Well, if you have a grenade launcher, that’s one thing. Having grenades, that’s another. And can you believe they want to prohibit us from having grenade launchers? What about all of us that go out grenade launching on the weekends? I mean, that really sucks, doesn’t it? Yeah. Evan Nappen 12:39 Then semi-automatic shotguns. Let’s look at shotguns. A semi-automatic shotgun that has any one of the following: a folding or telescoping stock, a thumb hole stock, thumb hole stock on a shotgun? I don’t know, maybe. I guess they’re out there. Who cares if it has a thumb hole? It doesn’t matter. Thumb hole stock. Maybe some of those trap guns have some of the interesting designs that we sometimes see. Well, they’re going to be an assault firearm under this bill. A second hand grip or a protruding grip held by the non-triggering hand. A second hand grip. Well, folks, if your semi-auto shotgun, and this just says semi-auto shotgun, it doesn’t have to be mag fed, so my friends, if your Remington 1100 or you’re Remington 1187 or you’re Benelli or you’re Browning, you’re A5 or your standard good old reliable semi-auto shotgun that you inherited from your grandpa, if it has a forearm on it. Gee, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a semi-auto shotgun that doesn’t have a forearm on it, where you grip it with your hand, that shotgun becomes an “assault firearm”. Evan Nappen 12:58 What are they doing with pistols? A semi-automatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable. magazine and has at least one of the following. So, basically every semi-automatic pistol that uses a detachable magazine, which is, oh, maybe 99% of all pistols, right? Hence, what semi-automatic pistols are, which are, except for some exceptions, a few exceptions, they’re magazine fed. I know the Keltec uses the stripper clip deal into a fixed mag. Maybe you have an old broom handle that uses a stripper clip into a fixed mag, but short of that, just about every pistol out there immediately has the ability to accept a detachable mag. And if your pistol has a folding or thumb hole stock, and of course they’ll view a pistol brace as that, because New Jersey can interpret it their own way. A thumb hole stock. A second hand grip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. There are, of course, Page – 5 – of 11 larger revolvers, some that utilize even a form of a horizontal forearm. We’ve seen different grips that can go on other types of pistols. Evan Nappen 14:07 So, attention all fuds. Attention all fuds who think, who cares about “assault firearms”? It doesn’t affect me. Well, guess what? All your semi-auto shotguns with forearms become assault firearms overnight, if this bill gets signed into law. A fixed magazine capacity exceeding six rounds. The ability to accept a detachable magazine. So, if you have any semi-auto shotgun that uses a detachable magazine. It doesn’t matter how many the mag hold. If it can accept a detachable mag, it’s instantly an “assault firearm”. Teddy Nappen 16:22 Isn’t there a mod you can do for Desert Eagles? Evan Nappen 16:24 Sure. There’s all that stuff out there. You’re right. A capacity, now, here’s this. It’s just absolutely weird. Listen to this. A capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip. So, if your pistol can hold, outside of the pistol grip, an extra magazine. It doesn’t mean that the magazine has to actually function. But if you have a handgun that has some capacity to hold an extra mag, then that’s an “assault firearm”. If your pistol has.. I don’t even.. I guess there are some.. Teddy Nappen 17:10 I think they’re referring to, you know, when you tape mags together, sometimes. Evan Nappen 17:14 I guess. Well, I don’t even know if that’s possible on a pistol. Or if you have some type of magazine holder that is somehow attached to a gun. I don’t even know what they are referring to. Maybe the Roneys. You know, where your Glock goes in the Roney, and you can have an extra mag up there that you can just grab. I don’t know. But if it can do it. Here’s a great one. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencers. Oh, a threaded barrel. So, now, because your pistol has a threaded barrel and you just want to have a compensator on there, or extra barrel weight. Single feature. It’s an assault firearm. Evan Nappen 18:01 Any handgun with a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more, when the pistol is unloaded. And then thrown in, I guess, for laughs, is a semi-automatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun, or firearm. A semi-automatic version of an automatic. So, what are semi-automatic versions of full automatic firearms? Well, that’s going to now include, well, obviously your semi-auto Thompsons that are legal. They’re going to be illegal. Any semi- automatic. Then the entire class of ARs, right? That, of course, will fall under that. So, this isn’t even handguns. That’s just as a general catch-all that it’s any semi-auto. And most semi-autos are versions of what are otherwise full auto or select fire guns. Just about every semi auto rifle out there, you know. Very few that aren’t that. I mean, you may find some exceptions, but good grief. Look at the stroke of coverage. That isn’t even a feature bill, that isn’t even a feature bill. Page – 6 – of 11 Evan Nappen 19:23 Even if you have a semi-automatic rifle that used any kind of magazine. It doesn’t have to be a detachable magazine, anything, or a semi-automatic version of an automatic shotgun, rifle, or firearm. Wait a minute. Broom handles that we talked about not having a detachable mag would seem to be legal. But under this new bill, now they’re illegal, because broom handles also had a happy switch at a certain point. And a semi- automatic version of it is now going to be flat out illegal, even though it doesn’t use a detachable magazine. So, you can see how far back and how far reaching and how broad this insanity is. Teddy Nappen 20:12 Wouldn’t it also meet the weight category? Didn’t they say, like, what is it, 50 ounces or something? Evan Nappen 20:18 No, I think it’s under on that, but look, I’m not sure. I haven’t weighed a broom handle in a while, but hey, it could be. The bottom line, folks, is this is what they see as important to do. They see this as something that has to get done to us. To turn us all into criminals. Doubling down facing what is going to happen in the courts, and that’s where I really want to tell you. As crappy as this bill is, as insane and stupid as this bill is, the bottom line is we are positioned beautifully for the death of this insanity, finally, finally. And that’s not just because of Viramontes and Grant being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but our own cases that are currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with the en banc panel. We’re going to see decisions coming out both on “sensitive places” and on “assault firearms”, and we’re going to see those decisions before we even see the Supreme Court rule in about a year on “assault firearms”. I believe within the next few months. Because we have a panel that appears to be one of the most respectful of the Second Amendments of any appellate circuit federal court out there, I believe we’re going to see our New Jersey suffering end sooner than even the Supreme Court’s death knell that should happen in June 2027. So, we have a lot to be positive about. The positive is this is really positioned to finally be crushed like a bull elephant smashing its prey into absolute oblivion, and I’m gonna be extremely happy when that day comes. And after that, my friends. Go ahead. What, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 22:30 Well, I’m just kind of thinking back to when you were starting off, Dad. Think to the New Jersey for the assault to the assault weapon ban, the original assault weapon ban, where that came into play, just thinking along lines of like what were the what was the arguments, and like what was the things they used as their tactics. Evan Nappen 22:50 Well, I can tell you, folks, the history. Back in late 1989. I actually become attorney in 1988. They passed the bill that became effective in May of 1990. New Jersey’s assault firearm ban. And I remember back then we did not have the Second Amendment established by Heller and McDonald and Bruen. We did not have the test of constitutionality with the historical analog requirements, etc. We did not have any of that. We didn’t even have a court declaring that the Second Amendment was an individual right. We all knew that it was a violation then of the Second Amendment, because we all knew what the Second Amendment meant. But we didn’t have the juice. The case law didn’t exist. Page – 7 – of 11 Evan Nappen 23:48 So, our approach at the time, which was initially successful, was going at the vagueness of the statute itself, which worked in Merrill. That’s how New Jersey’s law evolved when they brought the federal case over that. But we had arguments then, and it did turn thousands and thousands of citizens into criminals. and still does to this day. Looking now, years later, 30 plus years now later, we’re finally going to see the end of it. It’s been a long time coming, but we will win this. It took a long time, but what we’ve established in getting to this point will protect freedom for generations. And that’s something I’m proud of, because I was a small part of that. All of you that have fought for our rights are all part of it, and we’re seeing history right before our eyes. Evan Nappen 24:58 But you’ve got to know, you’ve got to understand that this law has been devastating to so many people. It has destroyed and harmed. It has caused far more harm than any firearm has actually caused in terms of the absolute destruction to law-abiding citizens. When you look at how small the numbers are for deaths and such from these particular guns, it’s minuscule compared to just how many people have suffered. And that’s why, my friends, after we get this victory, I want reparations for gun owners. That’s right. Reparations for gun owners who suffered under New Jersey’s tyrannical laws that destroyed, harmed, and took away rights. Listen, reparations here, we have real victims that are alive today, not generations ago. Alive now that have paid a price for this insanity by New Jersey, and they deserve reparations. We’ll be talking more about that after we destroy this horrible, most horrible of infringements. Calling it an infringement, actually, is almost doing it a disservice. It’s an atrocity, an atrocity passed by New Jersey. So, stay tuned. These are good times. I’m extremely cautiously optimistic for us, and you should be as well. Evan Nappen 26:43 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, an indoor range. It’s the range where Teddy and I love to shoot. It is a fantastic resource. You will love WeShoot. Many of you already shoot there. They have great training. They have great pro shop, and they can get you equipped. They can get you everything you need, so that you can stay sharp, focused, trained, and practiced with your gun,. Because if you don’t shoot your gun, what good is it? You’ve got to keep the skill set and keep your training. Make sure you’re on it. It’s super important. WeShoot is a great resource, right there in Central Jersey, conveniently off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. You can go to weshootusa.com. They have a great website. We love WeShoot, and so will you. Their training is first rate. Get your CCARE certificate so that you can get your carry. You can get advanced training or basic training. You can have the most fundamental. If you have someone in your family who doesn’t know a thing about guns, they can get their start the right way at WeShoot. If you have someone, maybe even yourself, that’s really advanced and want top of the line advanced training, they can provide you with those services there, too. They’re the best. So, check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 28:29 And while you’re at it, make sure you get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the bible of New Jersey Gun Law. It’s a book everybody uses, judges, lawyers, firearms division, you name it. It’s Page – 8 – of 11 the guidebook to help you from becoming a GOFU. You don’t want to become a GOFU and that’s one of the best ways of avoiding it. Knowing the insanity of New Jersey so you don’t get caught up in the traps that they lay for law-abiding gun owners. So, they cannot turn them into criminals, and then shout to the stupid general public to make it look like they’re doing something about crime when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it, except destroying their counter voter constituency. That’s the reality of what they’re about. So, be smart. Get a copy of my book at EvanNappen.com. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy today. Teddy, what else do you have for us? Teddy Nappen 29:33 As you know, Press Checks are always free, and there’s something that seems to be coming up more and more. As we know, the Left on their last legs when it comes to their attacks on our rights, particularly with the victories that we’re having, and the ones that we’re going to have in the Supreme Court, all the challenges. But I will give them credit as they get more and more creative and look for other ways to abuse. So, this goes back a year ago, and this was from Gun News Daily. This is under Platkin from the Office of New Jersey Attorney General. (https://gunnewsdaily.com/n-j-offers-free-decals-for-gun-free-zones/) They were offering free gun-free zone decals to establishments wishing to register as designated gun-free areas under the sensitive places law. So, they were actually trying to disarm you in the best way they can. Just getting a bunch of individuals who have their property, any place, storefronts, whatever, and say no. No guns allowed. Don’t defend yourself. And this brings into an issue that I find important. It is a clash of rights, where it is the argument of property rights versus our gun rights. And look, we’ve seen the abuse of property, where you have people coming on to it. You see the squatter issues, and you see many on that end. But when it comes to gun rights, which is our civil right, it’s something that I think is going to come to blows eventually, and I think this needs to be handled. Evan Nappen 31:06 Well, particularly after the Hawaii case, where now the vampire rule is unconstitutional. We’re going to see more regarding sensitive places when the Third Circuit Appeals decision, which should come out shortly on with Koons. The Koons decision on New Jersey’s sensitive places, and I’m excited to see what the panel has to say. But you’re right, Teddy. What they’ll try to do is they’ll try to pit property rights versus gun rights, and they’ll try to still encourage private entities to put up ” gun” signs. This way the clash between property rights and gun rights has to get figured out, because yeah, we have the Hawaii case that talks about places open to the public where the federal government cannot make a law regarding that. Evan Nappen 32:04 But a private entity still has the ability over their private property to decide who can go on it. So, they can say no shoes, no shirt, no service. They can say no animals, no whatever. There’s different things property owners, you know. But the line gets drawn over race because of civil rights. You can’t say no blacks or no Jews or no Hispanics. You can’t do that, but you can limit other things on your property. So, I believe strongly in property rights, and I also believe strongly, big surprise, in gun rights. But what happens is many times with rights there’s a clash of rights. Property rights and gun rights may have a clash here if a property owner doesn’t want guns on their property. Where do we draw the line? Does my right under the Second Amendment, my fundamental, God-given right to defend myself with the Page – 9 – of 11 most effective means, does that right that I have to do that, which is a right 100% established, no question about it. Does that right override or supersede a property owner’s property rights? And that’s where the antis will play that game. They’ll try to get property rights made superior to gun rights, but in reality, that should not be the case. It should be the opposite. Gun rights should be put on the very same plane as civil rights. It is a civil right, and I mean in the same way that you aren’t allowed to exercise racial discrimination, you also cannot discriminate against individuals that are exercising their Second Amendment right, their individual right to keep and bear arms. It belongs in the same class. Teddy Nappen 34:09 Just to go into, like, where the test would be needed for when it, if the Supreme Court ever took a case on this. Basically it would acquire the equal protection clause to where that falls into the category of strict scrutiny, where we’re in the grouping where it’s like you cannot discriminate race, religion, creed, and gun owner, effectively, where you well kind of like. Evan Nappen 34:31 I don’t know. I don’t know if that is a test that will be utilized or not. Because if it’s gun rights, then we have to go back to that historical analog, but when it comes to property rights and how far you can assert it, it’s somewhat of an open question. I can tell you this. Any business stupid enough to put a sign out there that no guns are allowed. So that you are effectively disarming every one of your customers. Get ready to get your ass sued off when a crime occurs in your place of business, and you disarmed the defender who could have otherwise defended themselves. You want that lawsuit? Because that’s what you’re going to get. That’s exactly what you’re going to get. So, think real hard before you put up a “no guns allowed” sign, because the “no guns allowed” sign is also saying sue me if a crime occurs here, and you couldn’t defend yourself. That’s also what that sign says, just not in writing on it. Teddy Nappen 35:37 Was there a case where someone was forced to disarm, and they were either shot or injured because they were disarmed? Evan Nappen 35:47 I believe there have been, but I don’t have them right at my fingertips. But I’ll tell you what. I don’t see a problem with that cause of action. I don’t see a problem because there is tort action in New Jersey called failure to provide adequate security. So, businesses have a duty to provide adequate security. If they ban someone who has a carry license from carrying a gun and protecting themselves, and they have a duty, which they do have, to provide adequate security, then I can well see an excellent civil lawsuit taking place under their duty to provide adequate security. In fact, making the premises less secure by taking away not just a permit to carry holder, but a trained permit to carry holder. And why do I say they’re trained? Because training, my friends, is part of getting your carry permit, isn’t it? In the Carry Killer law, what do they require? CCARE. You’re trained. Trained in what? Use of force. When you can and can’t shoot. Trained in what? How to shoot safely. You must pass and qualify. So, they are stopping state-qualified individuals who have a permit to carry from lawfully defending themselves, and then failing to provide adequate security to those people who they mandated disarm themselves. Good luck with that civil suit. Dumb ass business for putting that sign up. Good luck with that. Page – 10 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 37:34 I’m still waiting on New Jersey trying to force the where they require that class. I remember it was EveryTown was running those stupid classes for training them up for firearms, and it was just a long propaganda wing that they just go through all their talking points. There was barely any knowledge being taught in actually handling the firearms. I’m waiting for New Jersey to force you to take that particular course, so I guess that’d be another abuse to that as well. Who knows? Evan Nappen 38:07 And then those will be challenged too, but the good news is we’re making tremendous progress. I believe really great things are soon on the way here, and I mean within reach. It’s going to be great. But in the meantime, we still have GOFUs taking place, Teddy. We have Gun Owner Fuck Ups. GOFUs, as you know, are expensive mistakes that clients and others have made, and I want to always advise my beloved listeners, about these GOFUs. So that you can learn for free the mistakes that others have made. One of the GOFUs that we see a lot, and I mean a lot, folks, is not knowing what’s in your handbag. Not knowing what’s in your suitcase. Not knowing what’s in your briefcase. When I say not knowing, I mean forgetting that your gun is there. You may think, why would I ever forget that my gun is there? But oh my god, we get the airport cases. We get the folks that are visiting historical places where they have screening. We get cases where people are going to amusement parks. We have all these sporting events, entertainment events, etc. And they’re bringing their backpack, or they’re using a range bag or something that they had used to go to the range or something. Where they had traveled with a gun, and forgot. Evan Nappen 39:43 Folks, be extra careful. Just like Press Checks are free, it’s absolutely free for you to thoroughly and completely empty your purse, empty your bag, empty your suitcase, empty your briefcase, check every pocket. Make sure it’s empty, and then put in what you need. Make sure that you’re not carrying by accident a gun, a magazine, or ammunition. I’ve seen it all, and these things lead to criminal charges. Often they lead to you facing draconian penalties and losing your gun rights. Make sure that you double check any of these bags and make sure you know the places that you’re going as to whether you’re going to be security screened. Evan Nappen 40:40 I’ve had many clients say they walked up and they saw that there was a metal detector or screening taking place, and instead of just turning around, going back to the car, because they suddenly remembered they have it, they figure, well, I’ll just tell them about it. I’ll just be honest and say, look, I have it. What do you want me to do? GOFU. GOFU. If you do that, boom! Next thing you know, the police are involved. Don’t ever go through those security checkpoints of any type with any kind of firearm, accessory, ammo, or anything. It causes tremendous grief, and is one of the top GOFUs that we see every day. Evan Nappen 41:33 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Page – 11 – of 11 Speaker 3 41:44 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E298_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Send us Fan MailThe Supreme Court just agreed to hear challenges to state-level assault weapon bans — and this could be the most important Second Amendment case since Bruen. Jeff breaks down what's at stake, why the legal framework favors gun owners, and what every 2A supporter needs to understand about this moment. If you own firearms or care about the Constitution, this one matters.subscribe to my newsletterFollow this link and get $25 in ammo.Fountain Podcast AppFollow me on FountainFollow twitter @JeffDowdleFollow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdleConvention of States ProjectPresearch search engine sign up.Brave BrowserFind our Representativeemail me at jeff@livetoshoot.comSupport the showSupport the show

We Like Shooting - Ep 670 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) C&G Holsters (Code: WLSISLIFE) Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Blue Alpha Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Second Call Defense Giveaways!! GAW   Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GEAR CHAT Note Civmedical.com Note welikeshooting.com/gaw SOLDIERSYSTEMS Strike Industries Strike Modular Chassis for FN Herstal PS90 The Strike Modular Chassis upgrades the FN Herstal PS90 (and P90) with improved ergonomics, a refined grip angle, an adjustable cheek rest, internal cable management, and extensive M-LOK and Picatinny mounting options. It is machined from 6-series aircraft aluminum and offered in short (6.89″) and long (9.84″) handguard configurations to replace or upgrade the existing chassis. Pew.Locker Now Supports Imports Pew.Locker now supports imports. GRIFFIN ARMAMENT(Nick) Griffin Armament EZ-LOK Barrel Adapters EZ-LOK® barrel adapters The EZ-LOK barrel adapter is the smaller component of Griffin Armament's patent-pending two-part Rapid Index piston system designed for simplified suppressor mounting on Browning-style tilt-barrel pistols. It threads onto the barrel and mates with a separate EZ-LOK piston via an internal taper lock, allowing installation with a 3/4″ socket wrench and requiring zero specialized training. Available in 9 mm (shorter) and .45 (extended cylinder) versions across three thread patterns. MEDICAL GEAR OUTFITTERS Hockey First Aid Kit Stay prepared at every game and practice with our Hockey First Aid Kit. Includes trauma supplies, tourniquet, SAM splint, Save-A-Tooth kit, cold packs, wraps, and more for hockey injuries. Note Gideon optics guardian LR BULLET POINTS INSIDE SAFARILAND Intruder in a Box Ballistic Testing Target Intruder in a Box is an eight-layer ballistic testing medium designed to simulate human anatomy (skin, muscle, bone, organs, lungs) using cardboard, rubber, composite plates, fluid sacks, and air pockets. It provides a reusable, shelf-stable alternative to traditional ballistic gel for evaluating handgun ammunition penetration and terminal performance in self-defense scenarios. The 3×3 grid allows multiple tests per unit, with results shown for various pocket pistol calibers including .32 H&R Magnum, .32 ACP, and .22LR. GUN FIGHTS Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. BANGRANK A live cast ranking segment for anything and everything in the gun world, powered by questionable certainty, strong opinions, and audience voting. THE AGENCY BRIEF GOING BALLISTIC BEARINGARMS.COM(Savage) New Gun Control Group Wants To Shame Enablers Of Firearms Industry N1233077 New gun control group targets businesses linked to firearms makers to curb assault weapon sales. BEARINGARMS.COM(Savage) Everytown Attorney's Response to 'Vampire Rule' Decision Is Downright Hilarious Everytown attorney's reaction to 'Vampire Rule' decision highlights key impacts on Second Amendment rights. Cam Edwards' July 5, 2026 Bearing Arms article critiques Everytown attorney Janet Carter's statement downplaying the U.S. Supreme Court's Wolford ruling (paired with Hemani). The piece highlights the decision's favorable Second Amendment implications under the Bruen test, including presumptive unconstitutionality for laws implicating the right to carry arms for self-defense in daily life. Edwards finds Carter's claim that ‘the gun lobby' did not get what it wanted in Wolford to be inconsistent with the opinion's language and effects on gun-control litigation. REDSTATE.COM(Savage) Hundreds Of Patriot Font Demonstrators Hit Dcs July 4 Celebration And Minds Are Blown N2204027 Hundreds of Patriot Front members marched in D.C. during July 4, sparking controversy and political debate. GUNS.COM(Savage) Nics Over 11 Million Guns Sold In June Nfa Saw 177 Percent Jump In the lead-up to America's 250th, the Second Amendment was well exercised, according to the latest data for last month's gun sales. REVIEWS Review: Anonymous Coward from Oregon Hello lads,Im just here to prove the gun control theory wrong. People will always find away around “legit” firearms being taken away…. example: https://www.instagram.com/viraldaily_life168?igsh=MXhmOTZjYWFjYjNydQ== So yeah, come and take them… you'll either die and/or we'll make more

With multiple lower court rulings around so-called assault weapons, the Supreme Court is going to make one of the most important decisions on the 2nd amendment.SPONSOR: Lear CapitalCentral banks are buying gold at a near-record pace, and with persistent inflation, rising deficits, and ongoing money printing, more investors are looking to own something real. Lear Capital makes it easy to get informed with a free info kit, at no cost and no obligation.Call 800-707-4575 or get your free info kit at https://www.Nick4Lear.com-----GET YOUR MERCH HERE: https://shop.nickjfreitas.com/BECOME A MEMBER OF THE IC: https://NickJFreitas.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/nickjfreitas/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NickFreitasVATwitter: https://twitter.com/NickJFreitasYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NickjfreitasTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nickjfreitas3.000:00:00 – The Supreme Court takes up state AR-15 bans 00:01:23 – How we got here: Hawaii, Snope and the building pressure 00:04:07 – Viramontes v. Cook County 00:08:33 – Grant v. Lamont 00:10:35 – The gun control argument in three pillars 00:14:12 – Defensive gun uses: the stories that never make the news 00:18:14 – Text, history and the Bruen test 00:24:17 – The Second Amendment isn't just self-defense, it's securing a free state 00:27:19 – The math: 2 million defensive uses vs. 50,000 deaths 00:33:49 – The real fix: lock up repeat offenders 00:35:13 – Where gun bans always lead 00:37:11 – Prediction

Alan Gottlieb reveals how five decades of landmark litigation—from Heller and McDonald to Bruen and today's historic SCOTUS gun rights cases—transformed the Second Amendment and could determine the future of AR-15s and gun rights in America.

Ryan Petty, Justin Moon and Brad Premo break down the Supreme Court's historic Second Amendment victories, the future of AR-15 cases, Bruen, Heller and what's next as SCOTUS reshapes gun rights and constitutional law in America.

The Supreme Court has taken up a Second Amendment challenge to a pair of AR-15 sales bans. It's one of the most consequential in the Court's history of gun cases. To discuss it, we have someone who has been around for that entire history and played a major role in shaping the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. Lawyer Stephen Halbrook joins the show to explain that history and provide insight into how it will likely rule in the AR case. Halbrook said the legal landscape was very different when he first started studying the issue. At that time, the idea that the Second Amendment protects much of anything was out of favor with the lower courts. Instead, he said, the collective-right formulation was the most widely accepted. He noted it was a fairly small cohort of lawyers and academics that changed the legal landscape on the Second Amendment. He said the individual-rights formulation caught on quickly and culminated in the 2008 DC v. Heller decision. From there, the Court incorporated the Second Amendment right to own guns to the states in McDonald v. Chicago and then recognized the right to carry outside the home in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Halbrook said the Court added to its pro-gun precedents in the two cases it decided this year, and he expects it'll do the same again when it decides the AR-15 ban. He also provided some specific insight into why he believes the Court will go that direction and which justices are the ones to watch.Special Guest: Stephen Halbrook.

Episode 297- SCOTUS Win on Assault Firearms Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 297 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court, assault weapons, Second Amendment, gun rights, New Jersey, NRA, firearm laws, Heller decision, McDonald, Bruen, reparations, gun control, concealed carry, Thomas Jefferson, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 1 Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, I have to tell you, this is just one of the greatest moments in what I would have to say in our fight to destroy gun rights suppression. It is just a banner time right now. Absolutely, a crescendo at a moment here that I’m just so excited about. Truly, truly excited, no joke. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, meaning accepted the case, so that it means there will be an opinion, a decision, a rule made by the Court finally on so-called “assault weapons”. (https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/) Evan Nappen 01:27 Yes, we’ve done it. We have finally gotten to where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at the impact of the Second Amendment on this issue. I can tell you that I’ve personally been battling and fighting in the state of New Jersey since it was first enacted in May of 1990. Looking back to those days, I remember just thinking, man, hopefully we’ll one day get the United States Supreme Court to deal with this issue. But back then there was no Heller decision. There was no Supreme Court decision that even said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. We didn’t even have that back then. And when the anti-gun rights crowd embarked on this brand new approach, which it was at the time. Evan Nappen 02:38 To understand the history and where we are right now, why it just is so meaningful, you need to understand that the gun rights attack, the effort by our adversaries, to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, basically, in modern times, started after World War One. It was essentially imported here Page – 2 – of 15 from the U.K., from Great Britain. It had gotten its roots there, and it came across the pond like a cancer. It percolated to the point where by 1934 we ended up with the first National Firearms Act. Prior to ’34 but after World War One, you saw states passing state laws of what we commonly call gun control laws. And the gun control laws of those days first initiated through the ’20s, and we still have remnants of those laws still on the books, by the way, in New Jersey and other places. They were put forward by state legislatures and enacted, and those gun laws were mirrored and influenced and encouraged by what was taking place originally in Great Britain. Evan Nappen 04:22 These laws in America at that time period, and you may find this surprising, and it’s not meant to be bashing in any way of NRA. But they were even supported and promoted by the NRA at that time. The NRA had even put forward what were called the “model firearm laws”. They put model laws together that they wanted states to pass. The NRA saw its mission then in a naive, unfortunately, you know, very naive, as certain gun laws and such, that they would support. Now, since then, that’s not their position, and they’ve learned from this naive mistake. But it led to the 1934 Act, and we’ve suffered under that this entire time. It became the first national gun rights oppression law. Even at the time in the “American Rifleman”, you could read it, and they even praised it. They said, “Ah, and this is how they viewed it. You’ve got to understand, put yourself in the time. They said, “Ah, we’ve solved the gun problem in America.” We’ve passed this great national law, and now we’ve resolved it. We’ve solved it. We’ve addressed it. It’s done. And, of course, it was far from done. But for approximately 30 plus years, that was about it for our national laws on guns being passed. Evan Nappen 06:00 Then along comes the ’68 Gun Control Act, which built upon, to a certain degree, of course, built upon the NFA. We already had that national law and then the ’68 law. Then ’72 and then ’80s and ’90s, and etc. So that foundation got laid. And in between all this, what you mainly saw the fight as being, though, where the modern day focus, the modern day focus was handguns. I remember through the ’80s, before the invention, and that’s what it was, the invention of the “assault weapon” issue. It hadn’t been invented yet. Everything was, we only want to ban handguns. Handguns were the symbol of crime. Every news show on the major controlled networks, there weren’t any cables, you know. You just had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you had their nightly news. And anytime they talked about crime, whether there was a gun involved or not, they always showed a handgun on the news screen anytime they talked about crime. So the propaganda was put there. Everything was about banning handguns, and the main gun rights oppression group of the day was known as Handgun Control. Handgun Control was a big group. You had players at the time like Pete Shields and others, and this is where the push was. Then along comes Josh Sugarman, who puts out his manifesto. Teddy Nappen 07:50 Closet hoplosexual. Evan Nappen 07:52 Right. His manifesto of the assault weapons and their accessories. And even in his manifesto, he writes that the American public will be fooled by this, because they don’t know the difference between machine guns and semi-autos. This lays the groundwork for this. And lo and behold, we have California Page – 3 – of 15 with Patrick Purdy and the massacre that occurred in that incident, and that’s all the blood they needed to dance in. Then the assault weapon laws became the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, and everything weirdly shifted, weirdly shifted, so that handguns, with the growth of concealed carry, which has been an amazing success for gun rights support. Handguns are not the big issue for banning, except for, of course, a modern day focus on Glocks, because they’re easily convertible, right? Except for that. You don’t see the push like you used to ban handguns. Evan Nappen 09:00 Of course, Heller took care of that as well. Saying you can’t. It’s unconstitutional to ban handguns, too. But the push on semi-automatic rifles under the contrived created term of “assault weapon”. They took the German of Sturmgewehr, which was the true original assault weapon, a medium power round in a long arm that’s designed for urban settings. It is select fire, both full auto and semi-auto. And causing this, creating this, and putting it with that scary “assault weapon” moniker to scare the public and sell it. And it was to their credit, to a certain degree successful. It was successful in a number of states that passed state laws, including New Jersey. They passed one of the one worst, most destructive, horrible gun laws that have ruined good people. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit. Evan Nappen 10:06 And even a federal law at one point through the 1994 bill that was a crime, which they call the Crime Bill, but I call the bill that was a crime. We had the first national assault weapon ban. That law sunset and went away in 10 years, which was 2004, and they’ve not been able to reenact another federal ban since. But that ban did end up living on, by the way, in the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey adopted the language of that to save New Jersey’s assault firearm ban from being declared unconstitutionally vague. Now that was started by a case that I did, State v. Merrill, where I had the law declared unconstitutional for vagueness because of the term “substantially identical”, which was undefined. What does “substantially identical” even mean? How can something be substantially and identical at the same time? It’s like saying almost exact. Nothing is almost exact. It’s either exact or it isn’t. And because of the vagueness of that term, it was found unconstitutional by Judge Michael Farron, Monmouth County. We knocked out the case. Evan Nappen 11:21 That case was then brought into federal court by the gun rights groups, and that’s where the Attorney General, in order to save it, adopted the 1994 federal crime bill standard that was feature specific. We still live by that today in New Jersey, as to what makes a compliant gun or not, as to the definition of “substantially identical”. The court said, well, now that you know the definition, it’s no longer vague, and therefore it’s constitutional, which is, of course, a judicial lie, a fallacy, a falsehood. Because what that means is that somehow in 1990 our legislators passed an unconstitutionally vague law that did not have definition and somehow knew that in 1994 the federal government would pass a law that defines the undefined law in New Jersey. That’s just ridiculousness squared. But nonetheless it is law, at least as it stands in New Jersey now. We saw other states and other counties constantly push on the so-called “assault weapon” ban, a focus being on the big bad AR-15. We’ve had fight after fight. Page – 4 – of 15 Page – 5 – of 15 Evan Nappen 12:35 And as our battle for Second Amendment rights continued through the courts, we got the trifecta. We got the Heller finding of what we all knew in our hearts was true, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We got McDonald, which said this doesn’t just apply to the federal government, it applies to all states and localities. And then we got Bruen that laid out the test of constitutionality and gave us the requirement that carry permits must be issued, must be issued. With that buildup of having the trifecta, we’ve now gotten more cases from the Supreme Court that solidify this approach. And just now, in this moment in our lifetimes, the Supreme Court has finally accepted the challenge to the bans of so-called “assault weapons”. The name of the case. Teddy Nappen 13:36 Particularly those two cases. Evan Nappen 13:39 Yes, Viramontes v. Cook County, and Grant versus Higgins. Now, those cases, the Cook County case is the Illinois’ local county. It’s a local assault weapon ban ordinance, just an ordinance banning. And then the other case they took was in Connecticut, which is a statewide ban. Why do that? Well, what’s great is they’re going at anywhere and everything, whether it’s local or state. The challenge is across the board, as per McDonald. It’s incorporated both local and state. So we now have a certiorari grant combining two cases, and it isn’t just limited to Connecticut and this one local county in Illinois. Their decision will reach all localities, all states, and stand in the future with our win, that I am confident we will win, to stop future federal laws on this. Here’s the actual. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 14:52 I will point out that this is just something the we. I always keep an eye on, like all the arguments the Left always do. I always love the ad hominem attack, where they say. Well, this is just some Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which is they are a party to both cases. (https://saf.org/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-saf-assault-weapons-cases/) They’re the ones that brought the cases. Second Amendment Foundation was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition. They brought the Vermont. Evan Nappen 15:16 And second Amendment Foundation. Teddy Nappen 15:17 And Second Amendment Foundation, along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They always try to say. Evan Nappen 15:21 Teddy, there are also individual plaintiffs that are very important, that have standing, that have gone this distance. So, this is actual people and organizations. Teddy Nappen 15:32 Yeah, astroturf. Page – 6 – of 15 Evan Nappen 15:32 Yeah, well, astroturf, that’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 15:36 Yeah, but that is. Evan Nappen 15:37 I mean. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 15:40 Just to take that in. Throughout history, just look at the cases throughout, like some of the major Supreme Court cases. I think it was, what was it, either.. I think it was like maybe Plessy versus there was one regular Supreme Court case where it was brought by the, the.. it was about segregation. It was the train companies, where they’re trying to make sure they didn’t have to make extra cars for separating blacks and whites. And it was brought, and they actually set it up to have the case, to get the individual arrested for the segregation. It’s not the first time you’ve had organizations, and that’s throughout all, like a vast majority of cases where you have other. Evan Nappen 16:22 Listen, Teddy. Astroturf? Rosa Parks was a setup. Rosa Parks at the back of the bus, racial segregation. What do you think? It was engineered to make the challenge! Yeah, so don’t give me that. You want to put the issues forward and get the issues decided. Good, good. They have actual plaintiffs. They have actual people that are suffering under these laws, and they have organizations that represent vast amounts of members. It’s fine. It’s real. The assault firearm bans are real, and in New Jersey, their impact has been one of absolute destructive power. But let me just tell you what the court, just to close this, so we know exactly what they’re going to decide. Here is the question presented that they have granted certiorari on. Here it is, ready? Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess the AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. This is great! One of the criteria that the antis are going to use, is they’re going to say, well, it has to be arms that are commonly possessed. Well, the AR-15 is the most commonly possessed rifle in America. As a matter of fact, folks, there are more AR-15s than there are Ford F150 pickup trucks! Let that sink in. Teddy Nappen 18:08 That was the other argument I’ve been seeing from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/06/assault-weapons-bans-supreme-court-2a/) They just did their whole, you know, boo hoo, whining, and crying. It was from Chip Brownlee. Guess the first thing they highlight? This is the fight for the dangerous and unusual AR-15. Like that’s the common use. That’s the spin that they’re going to use. They’re trying to lay the groundwork on, is that whole idea of. Evan Nappen 18:34 Well, you know why? They don’t have historical analogs under the Bruen test anymore, that can help them. Their analogs have had their legs cut off. The one they loved was about the Black Codes, where they banned blacks from Bowie knives and guns, or whatever. And Alito, just in the recent opinion, made it clear that’s a tainted relic. It can’t be taken seriously. So, forget it. That analog is out the Page – 7 – of 15 window. They just revealed, based on research by Stephen Halbrook, that the precedent claimed for carrying – as a matter of fact, this was even in Kuhns. One of the precedents relied upon by the court was a law that never was a law. It was simply something in some Frenchman’s book that talked about it. But the actual law was not how they’re citing it at all. Their analogs are fraught with fraud, fraught with being completely tossed in the garbage can, and they know it. When it comes to that Bruen test of history, text and tradition. In order for a law to be upheld and found not to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Government has the burden of showing the past analogs that there were other laws that were like that law that make this new law acceptable. And they don’t have that. They do not have it. So, they’re falling back, Teddy, to it’s not common use. Well, that’s falls flat on its face. They’re falling back on what? What’s the classic? Why don’t you tell us? What’s the classic when all else fails for them to cry about? Teddy Nappen 20:34 Blood In The Streets. That’s Blood In The Streets. They always cite two BITS. We have to consider the gun violence when considering this. All that goes right to Brown. Evan Nappen 20:43 Public policy. They always go back to the public policy arguments, public policy, and guess what? That doesn’t cut it! That doesn’t justify infringement of the Second Amendment. That argument is dead in the water. It’s not the test. It’s not a balancing test. Balancing tests aren’t allowed. Done, dead, gone. You can’t balance public policy. Can’t do it anymore. They know they’re going to be crushed, and I cannot wait for that day. I cannot wait till, at the latest, it’ll be next June. We’re going to have a decision that removes finally. I know it in my bones. Gets rid of, ends this travesty called the “assault weapon” ban. Let me tell you something. These laws have destroyed good people. These laws have created more harm than they claim the firearms themselves have created, especially in states like New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:00 It isn’t just that an individual can’t have that gun or this gun. It’s the aggressive insanity of enforcement destroying people’s lives. If you get convicted of possession of an “assault firearm” in New Jersey, right? An AR-15 that has a bayonet mount on it and a pistol grip. You are now guilty of possession of an “assault firearm” because of a bayonet mount. You’re looking at 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. No chance of parole. Three and a half years – minimum mandatory, folks. No way around it. No way. If you’re convicted of that, the judge has zero discretion. You can be Mother Teresa, and you’ll have to get three and a half years minimum mandatory in State Prison because you had a gun that had a bayonet mount and a pistol grip. You can only have one offending feature, and the pistol grip is one offending feature, right out of the box. And you had two because your other one was a bayonet mount. You know how important bayonet mounts are to crime. I mean, come on. What about all the drive-by bayonetings we have to take care of here, right? Folks, that’s how they.. Teddy Nappen 22:00 I think you also. Just looking at the future, because from the facts of where everything’s lined up, yeah, we’re going to win. And just seeing that right now, the way things lay out, I look to. Page – 8 – of 15 Evan Nappen 23:45 Well, we don’t want to be overconfident, but we. Teddy Nappen 23:48 I understand. Fine, cautiously optimistic. Evan Nappen 23:52 But I am cautiously optimistic. I am incredibly cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on optimistic. Teddy Nappen 23:59 I always look to what is left of their, what would be the next step, then on there on the gun right suppressionist? Because the only thing I could think of is they’re just going to try to put. Evan Nappen 24:09 Wait, wait, wait. Hold that thought for a minute. I just want to finish about the other destruction that has occurred. Like I said, it’s not just that you get arrested and you’re charged with assault firearm. Then you’re thrown in the Gulag, and they want to hold you until your trial. You’re going to spend at least a week, even if your lawyer can get you out before your trial. You have that fight. Then they use it as a licensing disqualifier. If you had an assault firearm, you’re banned from ever having guns again. It doesn’t matter. It’s an assault firearm. On top of that, they have made assault firearm possession not releasable under the Gulag. Remember, we’ve talked about this. It becomes a criteria where there’s a presumption for you to be held in jail. Presumption in favor all over this nonsense. So, you see it’s far-reaching, and what happens when someone inadvertently gets involved in this? Your life gets destroyed. You lose your career. You lose your family. You can lose your freedom. You lose your gun rights, and it’s devastating to people. And then there are those that are doing hard time because they are otherwise lawful possessors. It doesn’t matter. They’re doing the time, having their life destroyed, and having been turned into felons. Evan Nappen 25:40 So, let me just say this. After this decision is a tremendous win for our gun rights and for civil rights, because it’s in the same category as the First Amendment, folks. It’s in the same category as a fundamental right under the Bill of Rights. What I want to see after that decision is reparations to gun owners. That’s right. Reparations to gun owners. You know, they talk on the other side about reparations for slavery to generations later that were never slaves, and they want reparations. Here we will have reparations to individuals who are still alive and have suffered. To anybody that had to give up one of their guns that never should have had to. To those that went into the Gulag and suffered that never should have. To those who have done State Prison sentences that never should have. To those who have lost their gun rights, who have had their families, their lives, their freedom, and their fortunes, all destroyed. Reparations to them. Wait till after this decision comes down. Then we push for reparations. We don’t let it end. Oh, sure. Is that difficult? Will it be hard? Yeah, but it’s no more hard, and frankly, less, way less, of an ask than those asking for reparations for slavery, where we don’t even have the victims of that alive today. Page – 9 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 27:09 It’s also very easy to quantify, because you go into just the legal fees that were brought, the time in jail. Plenty of people have sued and won on those cases. So, it’s something you can actually determine, as opposed to generational racism. It’s ridiculous, as ridiculous sounds, but to this end, where someone who had their life destroyed because of the gun control that they have pushed over the years. Evan Nappen 27:39 That was utterly a violation of our fundamental rights and Second Amendment civil rights. It absolutely is going to lay groundwork for at least tremendous litigation, and really we should have eventually a federal reparations law requiring states to pay that ever had these laws. To compensate individuals who suffered under their tyranny. So, Teddy, you had something else to mention. I know you did. Teddy Nappen 27:39 Yes. So, the one thing I was looking at, whenever I always look to our opponents, because I try not to think of them as being stupid. Even though they are pretty retarded on a lot of different fronts, but they always keep pushing. And I remember this term for it, of what they were described. The Left and the Marxists are line steppers. They go with the idea of what can we get away with, what can we push for, because they always go for that. It’s always just progressivism for progressive sake. Cut to trans ideology. Cut to, you know, we’re going to take your children away and then transition them. Cut to any form of the Left in its insanity. Teddy Nappen 28:16 I always think what will be the next push, and I can see it right now. Repealing the Second Amendment will be the next step. Evan Nappen 28:16 100 percent. Teddy Nappen 28:36 Yes, that will. That’s the only. The only thing I can think of is what they did to Penny, what they did to all the other self-defense cases that we’ve had. Fine, you can have your firearms, but if you ever use them, we will drag you through the courts. We’ll make your life a living hell. We will make it so that people will want to murder you and come to your house and dox you. That’s the only thing at this point. That’s all they have. They are the party of violence, that is shown. You have doxing websites they run. That is the only two avenues I can see for that, and also suing the gun shops into oblivion, which we need to do something with the, I think, what is it, the PLCAA, where it’s the protection. Evan Nappen 29:59 Yeah, PLCAA. (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) Right. Teddy Nappen 30:02 We need to improve and expand PLCAA, and just say no. Stop wasting the state’s money. So, I don’t know what the test would be, but we need to. Page – 10 – of 15 Evan Nappen 30:12 Well, the fight will definitely change, and you know, the gun rights oppressors are not going to give up. But. Teddy Nappen 30:21 Of courses not. Evan Nappen 30:21 It will absolutely take away one of their actually most successful modern gun rights oppression tax. This will be one of. This will destroy what has actually been one of their areas of success, to be honest. They have succeeded in multiple states, and even at one point federally over this. This will destroy it, kill it, and they’re going to be knocked back on their heels very hard by it. And then we need to finish the job. Evan Nappen 31:00 Repeal Hughes Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:01 We need to go at reparations and make it so that when any of these governments decide to embark on rights violations, that down the road we make them pay. We just don’t kill the law. We just don’t knock it out, so that it no longer has effect. We have to make them pay for what they did to good people, and we do that through reparations. Teddy Nappen 31:29 We should also repeal the Hughes. Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:31 That’s going to build. Once you get this case, then, of course, the rest of NFA, any other hardware bands, all these things are going to be on the table. We will have even stronger, better case law to take it all out as the house of cards built by the gun rights oppressors collapses. Hey, and by the way, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and that is, of course, where we get our training. And I want to tell you that they are offering New Jersey concealed carry, so you can get your CCARE so you can get your carry permit out of Jersey. They have a new price for their CCARE. It’s incredible. It’s only $225! You can sign up at WeShoot and get their carry course, and it is great. You’ll get your PTC certification, and they really set the gold standard there at WeShoot. You’ll be able to get re-qualification, too. This is the training that police departments use. They’re also USCCA and NRA backed courses. It’s all combined. This is where you can reserve and get it done, so you can get your carry. Evan Nappen 33:03 Particularly now where we’re knocking out “sensitive places”, as we just did with the Wolford case, which actually impacts New Jersey “sensitive places”. We’re going to see more and more availability of where we can carry, and every carry permit holder is another vote for carry. Probably by now, we are well over 100,000 carry permits in New Jersey. You know, it used to be 600. Literally just 600 carry Page – 11 – of 15 permits. Not 600,000. Six hundred. And now we’re in the 100,000 or damn close, if not over it, of permit carriers. I just showed you how their oppression law was so successful before, and after Bruen, it’s dead. Evan Nappen 33:50 So, go to weshootusa.com. Check out We Shoot, and I know you’ll love WeShoot, too. They have great training, and not only can you get your New Jersey permit certification, your CCARE, but they also offer special training to get that for seniors, 65 or older. They have a special deal for seniors – only $185. You can get your training there. They also offer New York City non-resident carry. They are offering New York City non-resident carry. They have it at a fantastic new low price of $289, and you can get your New York City carry, which also covers New York State non-resident carry permit. They’ll do all the training, and this is really great. Anthony Zalo will be doing this course. It spans two days, and it covers firearm safety and storage, pistol ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, federal and state law, live fire training. If you’re seeking even more certifications, they offer Maryland Wear and Carry Certification, as well as Washington, D.C. carry permits for just $150 each. On Tuesday, August 4, they will be holding their New York resident and non-resident carry courses. Evan Nappen 35:37 WeShoot also has Civilian Shoot House Training. This is really cool. Their Civilian Shoot House Training, so you can understand how to clear rooms, move with purpose, and make decisions under pressure. This is great for homeowners and parents and security team. Anybody who’s serious about protecting their home and community, check out WeShoot’s Civilian Shoot House Training. They have that scheduled out. You can sign up for Friday, July 31st for that Training. They also have adult CPR / AED and Stop the Bleed, so that you know how to treat wounds. They’re offering that training on Monday, July 20. And for new shooters, they have great training called “From Nervous to Bullseye”. If you’re entry level, you want basic training. Here’s what you can do. They’re also offering weekend classes, and you can “Hit Your Weekend Target” with their great instructors – Grant Gallagher, Tony Zollo, and Lance Hubeny. They’re all there. Sign up at WeShoot. They are a phenomenal resource. We’re talking here about WeShoot in Lakewood. They offer USCCA and Sig Sauer Academy – “Close Quarter Defense Fundamentals. I mean, can you believe this? Just fantastic training. Make sure you check out weshootusa.com. You’ll love the range, you’ll love the pro shop, and you’ll love the people. They are the best. Go to weshootusa.com today, and take a trip down to Lakewood. They are right there in Central Jersey, conveniently off the Parkway. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 37:40 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of Jersey Gun Law, and you need to get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com and get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’ll help keep you from being a GOFU. Hey, we are now celebrating, of course, the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This is a great moment in our history where that fantastic, earth shattering, world changing, humanity changing, document was signed and began the birth of our wonderful America, the greatest country on earth. I have nothing but reverence for our Founding Fathers and our Founding documents, and celebrate 100%. Page – 12 – of 15 Evan Nappen 38:48 Let me tell you about the author. Of course, the Committee of Five technically authored The Declaration, but the majority of the credit is given to, and I hope you know this, Thomas Jefferson. But let me tell you about how great Thomas Jefferson was. Not just because of his phenomenal presidency, his assertion of our national reputation against the Muslim pirates, the pirates of the day, standing up to them, and also the Louisiana Purchase, and so many amazing things under Jefferson. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence. But let me tell you something else about Thomas Jefferson. I want you to know, when it comes to firearms, Thomas Jefferson was one of us. He couldn’t be more one of us. Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest gun owning founding fathers to live. Evan Nappen 40:04 And let me read you, especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The man who wrote that and made us so where we are today, we can be proud and free. Listen to some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, specifically about guns. Here’s a great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Yeah, he said that. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. That’s from Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution draft of 1776. Here’s another phenomenal quote by Thomas Jefferson. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Let that sink in, folks. He preferred dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. He wrote that in a letter to James Madison in 1787 . Here’s another great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” That’s right. Enemies, foreign and domestic, my friends. You heard what Jefferson said. Evan Nappen 41:40 “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Pure common sense spoken by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, quoting the 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria. Here’s another quote from Thomas Jefferson. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Let that one sink in, folks. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Peter Carr from August of 1785. Evan Nappen 42:27 “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; and they may exercise it by themselves, and that is their right and duty to be armed at all times. Let all those quotes from Thomas Jefferson sink in. Think about them as we celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the man that was the chief engineer of that document and how that man viewed our Second Amendment rights. Page – 13 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 43:43 I will also say, like, I don’t know if you did. Did you ever get to go to Monticello? Did you and Mom get to go? Evan Nappen 44:09 Thanks for mentioning it. No, that is on my bucket list, and I’m going there. My wife went. You’ve gone. Teddy Nappen 44:18 No, I didn’t. I didn’t get to go. Evan Nappen 44:20 What? You didn’t either? Teddy Nappen 44:20 Nope. Just Mom. Evan Nappen 44:21 Teddy, you and I have got to go. Teddy Nappen 44:23 Just Mom got to go. That’s why. Evan Nappen 44:25 This is just wrong. I’ve got to go to Monticello. I’ve meaning to get there. And it’s bugging the hell out of me. Teddy Nappen 44:33 If you ever do go there, they have his pistols. His famed pistols that were, I think, gifted to him. (https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/firearms) Yeah, his famed twin pocket pistols that were gifts from, I believe it was a pair of Turkish pistols received from General Isaac Zane in place of a monetary bequest. Evan Nappen 45:07 Bequest. He gifted him these pistols. Teddy Nappen 45:11 Okay. Evan Nappen 45:12 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 45:14 It was also kind of interesting that Jefferson loved to go out and do competition shoots. He would do a lot of them, and he was a fairly good marksman. There were marks in his letters showing that he noted Page – 14 – of 15 in his accounts, I won a shooting in one of six, it was a muster with Captain Jacob Moon’s Albany County Militia Company. He lost two to six, but as he grew older, his limited exercise. He moved more to firearms and hunting over his horseback riding. He even had designs, and there was accounting of a double-barreled gun lock that he had drawn. So, there’s various other bits in his accounts. Evan Nappen 46:01 Like I said, he’s one of us, man. One hundred percent. Hey, this is wonderful, an incredibly important part of our heritage and our tradition. Jefferson stands tall. All the Founding Fathers were, of course, gun owners and knew the importance of arms, but Jefferson is special, without a doubt. Jefferson is special. Evan Nappen 46:32 And you know, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU. This is a GOFU that every time in the practice of gun law, there’s something new. Some other GOFU that I’d not even heard about before, and it just blows me away. It constantly gets crazier and worse, and I want everyone to understand this GOFU, which is, of course, a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where individuals are now experiencing expensive lessons, or have experienced expensive lessons that you can hopefully avoid for free by listening to Gun Lawyer. Evan Nappen 47:16 So, this week’s GOFU concerns the following. We have a couple, a husband and wife, that are not getting along well with one another, and okay, it happens, right? It happens. Well, it ends up where at some point there’s a fight, and like the old kind of comedy issue you’ve seen on TV, where often it’s the woman, it doesn’t have to be, but often is, throws the husband’s clothing or the belongings out the window to get out. That kind of a thing. Well, in this case, apparently his firearms were tossed out onto the lawn. I guess it sends a message as to throwing out things that the other party believes they care about. But whatever. I’m not going to get into the psychology of it. The bottom line is that this takes place. What happens? Well, it ends up where the police get involved. The police get involved because it falls under the so-called banner of domestic violence. Anytime there is domestic violence, police are called in over any claim of domestic violence, and it’s so broad. Remember, domestic violence could be anything, even harassment, which the essence of which is doing something to purposely annoy another. Now, I know none of you have ever purposely annoyed your spouse or your boyfriend or your girlfriend, but if you did, then you arguably committed domestic violence for harassment. Evan Nappen 48:57 Anyway, that can bring the police into your lives, and this is where you get to live the famous saying of Ronald Reagan. “We’re here from the Government, and we’re here to help.” And, of course, that was one of the best, most sarcastic things that Reagan ever said. Because we’re here from the Government and we’re here to help, is of course the exact opposite. And that’s what happened here. The Government gets involved, and both parties are questioned over various allegations. It doesn’t matter what. The bottom line is that the domestic violence forms are filled out where the issue is documented, and the wife is asked, do you want a restraining order? And she wisely says no. This is internal. They’re squabbling, or whatever. She doesn’t need a restraining order. The husband, who related his whole side of everything there too, is asked, “do you want a restraining order? And he wisely said no, as well. Page – 15 – of 15 Evan Nappen 50:11 So, now you have a couple that are trying. They’re going to do whatever, but they don’t want restraining orders. They don’t want the Government in their life. They’re not interested in that. But what happens? The Government files Red Flags, TERPOs, Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Orders on both of them. Neither of them wanted a restraining order. Neither one wanted it, but it didn’t matter. The Government now files to take away both of their gun rights. To take away their guns and put them on a list of extreme risk. This puts you on a database that could even arguably be accessed by TSA or others that you’re a danger. It has farther reaching collateral consequences than just taking guns and taking away your gun rights. Putting you into the court system now to have to individually fight TERPOs, because we’re from the Government and we’re here to help. That, my friends, is the GOFU. Keep it in mind at all times about being from the Government and there to help. Especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 51:37 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that. Speaker 3 51:50 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E297 Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

If you prefer to watch the video you can find it at the bottom of this webpage. Episode Sponsors: Happy 250th Birthday America Sale – https://www.concealedcarry.com/hba – One of our biggest sales of the year kicks off July 2nd for Guardian Members and July 3rd for non-members. All customers that place an order during the sale will receive an exclusive challenge coin commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s birth! Don’t miss it! Guardian Nation – https://www.guardiannation.com – To save the BIGGEST during our Independence Day Sale, you’re going to want to be a member of Guardian Nation. Our members always save the most with an across the board 10% discount, even on top of already discounted products during the sale! About This Episode: We trace the history of the right to keep and bear arms from English law in the 1300s through modern U.S. Supreme Court cases. We discuss the Statute of Northampton, the Stuart era, the English Bill of Rights, and how these developments shaped American constitutional thinking and the Second Amendment. We then cover the colonial period, the Revolution, and post-Civil War developments, including restrictions on enslaved Black people, the Black Codes, the 14th Amendment, and cases such as Dred Scott, Cruikshank, and Miller. We end with major modern laws and decisions, including the NFA, the Gun Control Act, FOPA, Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi, as well as current cases involving AR-15 bans and magazine limits. As always, any questions or suggestions for future episodes can be submitted to podcast@concealedcarry.com! Thanks for Listening! Thanks so much for joining us this week. Have some feedback you'd like to share? Leave a note in the comment section below. If you enjoyed the podcast the biggest compliment you could give us would be to subscribe to future episodes via a podcast app on your phone or via iTunes. You can find past podcast episodes by clicking here. Video Recording: Press PLAY on the video below to watch the video recording! {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","@id":"https://www.concealedcarry.com#/schema/video/4252451","name":"S14E1: Freedom Bought, Freedom Maintained – 700 Years of Receipts","description":"Concealed Carry Podcast brought to you by HK - "S14E1: Freedom Bought, Freedom Maintained - 700 Years of Receipts" Episode Sponsors: -Happy 250th Birthday","thumbnailUrl":"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4SYCYvnkH8/maxresdefault.jpg","uploadDate":"2026-07-01T19:54:25-06:00","embedUrl":"https://www.concealedcarry.com/player-embed/id/4252451/?autoplay=0","duration":"PT02H11M21S"}

Ryan Petty joins Mark Walters to break down the Supreme Court's historic Second Amendment victories, the future of AR-15 cases, Bruen, Heller and McDonald, and why the next SCOTUS term could permanently reshape gun rights in America.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two historic Second Amendment cases challenging AR-15 bans. Mark Walters explains Grant v. Higgins, Viramontes v. Cook County, Bruen, Heller, and why this could become the most important gun rights ruling in modern history.

Send us Fan MailWith a recent injunction preventing the Constitutionally-dyslexic Virginia State Police and all attorneys general across the state from enforcing the illegal "assault weapons" ban that is set to steal power from the People of Virginia on July 1, the violent Democrat communist AG, Jay "Two Bullets" Jones, who has talked about shooting political opponents and their children (with "two in the head"), is urging all local police to enforce it regardless, since they are not specifically named in the injunction. But the Virginia State Constitution is also in play, and Bruen principles may slap the entire law down.The recent Wolford decision that shot down Hawaii's so-called "Vampire Rule" for concealed carriers has now become a potential catalyst for striking down New Jersey's own "assault weapons" law with Bruen principles, not to mention the other ten states with such illegal laws.WJS GunsGun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, moreFreedom GunsFirearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes Sicarios Gun ShopFirearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!The Gun Site9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classesSHOOTINGCLASSES.COMOnline business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting RangesGlover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.Wealth management servicesControl Jiu-Jitsu/MMAJiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FLCounter Strike TacticalBest Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949Go2 WeaponsManufacturers of AR platform rifles for military and civilian. Veteran Owned and OperatedEar Care of MelbourneNeed hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!Quantified PerformanceQuantified Performance, LLC is focused on building safe, high performing keepers and bearers.Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showThe Watch Floor - YouTubeAskari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)

Historic SCOTUS Second Amendment victories explained. Mark Walters is joined by Jared Yanis, Cam Edwards, NRA-ILA's John Commerford and the AAR Roundtable to break down Bruen, constitutional carry, gun rights and what's next for America.

Historic SCOTUS Second Amendment victories explained. Mark Walters is joined by Jared Yanis, Cam Edwards, NRA-ILA's John Commerford and the AAR Roundtable to break down Bruen, constitutional carry, gun rights and what's next for America.

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down Hawaii's broadest gun-carry restriction. To discuss the outcome of the case, we have the lawyer who won it on the show. Wolford v. Lopez was Alan Beck's first case at SCOTUS, and it turned into his first win. He said he was very happy with where the Court came down and sees it opening several new avenues for Second Amendment challenges. Beck said the majority sided with his view of Hawaii's requirement that anyone carrying a gun get explicit permission to enter publicly accessible private property, which he explained critics have dubbed the "Vampire Rule" because vampires also need permission to enter. He said the Court performed the Bruen test the way he asked and expected, by treating step one as a simple filter rather than an exhaustive historical review. Then they examined and rejected Hawaii's use of anti-poaching laws (and even a Black code) as historical analogues for its modern law. He rejected the contention from several justices and outside commentators that the majority significantly changed the Bruen test, especially at step one. He said the Court did the test in line with how it had previously done it. Although, he argued many lower courts had been misapplying that step, and the Court walking through step one in more detail than before could be in response to that. Beck said, even without the Court changing its test, further clarifying how to do step one could upend several recent lower-court cases. He noted how new the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence is, and said people shouldn't expect every new case to make massive new updates to its test. Instead, he said it will likely take decades for the Court to fully flesh out the Second Amendment, just as it did with the First. He also revealed what direction and new cases he plans to pursue in the wake of the Court's latest Second Amendment holdings. Beck said he's already started working on getting Hawaii to change some of its other gun restrictions.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-offRelevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcriptsCommentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfTyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdfRamos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

Join Mark Walters and NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford as they examine one of the most controversial judicial philosophies surrounding the Second Amendment. Learn why the Bruen framework continues to shape gun rights litigation across America

The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any redress if government officials literally throw your rights into a trash can. We then turn to United States v. Hemani, where the Court found that a federal law barring gun possession by unlawful drug users violated the Second Amendment and revealed that some of the Justices are surprisingly open-minded about marijuana's role in American society. Key Topics[00:07:07] - Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections[00:08:02] - The facts of Landor's case and the prison's decision to ignore prior religious-hair protections[00:10:52] - RFRA, RLUIPA, and the path from Employment Division v. Smith to modern religious-liberty litigation[00:14:54] - The Spending Clause theory behind federal funding conditions and why the remedy question matters[00:19:54] - The majority's reasoning: why money-damages suits against officials were held unconstitutional here[00:21:33] - Sabri, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the debate over third-party liability[00:26:04] - The parade of horribles: transgender sports, vaccines, and other funding-condition hypotheticals[00:33:03] - The constitutional background: “general welfare,” the spending clause, and the comma-versus-semicolon debate[00:38:49] - Why the Court granted the case and whether the facts pushed the legal outcome[00:42:13] - Hemani and the federal statute banning gun possession by unlawful drug users[00:44:05] - Historical analogies, habitual drunkards, and how Bruen and Rahimi are functioning together[00:47:17] - Discussion of the Court's analogical method and its practical limits in lower courts[00:54:26] - Justice Thomas's concurrence on jurisdictional hooks after Lopez[00:55:31] - Justice Jackson's concurrence on Bruen and Justice Alito's surprising marijuana comparison[00:57:51] - The real-world use of marijuana versus alcohol at the founding, and why the analogy is controversialRelevant LinksDivided Argument: https://www.dividedargument.com/Podcast merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/Podcast commentary and blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/RLUIPA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rluipaRFRA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religious_freedom_restoration_actDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/554/570New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/597/1United States v. Rahimi (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/602/230South Dakota v. Dole (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/203Sabri v. United States (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/541/600

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez delivers another landmark Second Amendment victory. Mark Walters explains Justice Alito's opinion, Bruen, concealed carry rights, Hawaii's failed gun restrictions, and what comes next.

Mark Walters and Jared Yanis break down the Supreme Court's unanimous Hamani decision, explain why Bruen just got stronger, discuss future Assault Weapon Ban cases, ATF Form 4473 changes, Wolford, and what every gun owner needs to know today.

Mark Walters welcomes AWR Hawkins and Neil McCabe to discuss the Supreme Court's Hamani decision, Bruen, Assault Weapon Ban cases, Florida gun rights victories, Colorado and Oregon gun control, and the latest political developments from Washington, D.C.

Dr. John Lott joins Mark Walters to analyze the Supreme Court's unanimous Hemani ruling, why Bruen just got stronger, shocking research showing Canada's violent crime rate may far exceed U.S. levels, and the latest battles over gun rights nationwide.

Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 295 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court ruling, Second Amendment, marijuana prohibition, gun rights, NRA, ACLU, Justice Thomas, Commerce Clause, firearm regulation, self-defense, Bruen framework, gun violence, international gun laws, warning shots, New Jersey gun law. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, just now we just got word of the Supreme Court handing down the ruling in the Hemani case, and this is really quite a startling win. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Not necessarily because it was a win, but because it was a unanimous win! What we have is the U.S. Supreme Court in a nine to zero opinion essentially determining the unconstitutionality of marijuana creating a gun prohibitor under federal law. So, for these years you’ve had issues, and we’ve talked about it on the show, where folks that had even a medical marijuana weed card, or they used, or they had any kind of history of prior possession/conviction for misdemeanor marijuana. All that has caused just a lot of folks to not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In the past, we actually coined the term from the show, “Bang or Bong, you can’t have both”. Because of how they, they being the Government, how the Government was interpreting this. To the degree where federal dealers were issued memoranda from ATF telling them that they could not sell to these folks that admitted to using all this regarding marijuana and laid out this as enforceable prohibition. Evan Nappen 02:15 And by the way, this is also the thing that Hunter Biden was prosecuted for. Hunter Biden’s gun case is essentially this issue as well. So, we’re happy to say, and not necessarily for any reason because of Hunter Biden, but because it is a win for the Second Amendment. To see a unanimous decision. Let that sink in, folks. Every judge on the Supreme Court agreeing with an enforcement of the Second Amendment. Just that alone, regardless of the issue, is really great to see. Just that. Here there were interesting bed fellows, as they say. We had the lawsuit challenge, etc., the legal action, joined the NRA and the ACLU on the same side. So, we had both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side arguing for this. To not prohibit individuals from Second Amendment rights. So, this is very significant, and it’s interesting. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:39 Judge Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. In the facts of this case, Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, and because of that the Government claimed that he’s automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Hemani admitted that he owns a gun, despite the ban, the Government was now seeking to prosecute him. To imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. This case here posed that question, whether the Government’s prosecution of Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment. A unanimous decision found that it was not consistent with the Second Amendment. So, Teddy, what do you think about this decision? Teddy Nappen 04:40 Well, for me, as soon as this case came out, I had to look. What did Judge Thomas say? Because he’s the funniest of them all. Evan Nappen 04:49 Well, that’s true. Teddy Nappen 04:50 I had to go right to his opinion. And of course, Justice Thomas, being the greatest justice to have ever lived, and the fact that he is an originalist to perfection. Of course, he said we did not go far enough! Particularly, and I love how he writes this. “I agree with the Court that 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join it’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents . . .” It appears to exceed Congressional enumerated power and regulate interstate commerce. He attacks the commerce clause throughout this. He even highlights the fact that the Government, if the firearms possession by the drug user had previously traveled through interstate commerce, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or cross state lines. He cites Alderman. His dissent is on the denial of certiorari, where this conversion of congressional authority under the commerce clause to a general police power is sort retained by the states. Evan Nappen 06:12 You see, this is really important, Teddy. Because what Judge Thomas is doing there is he’s going beyond. He’s looking at the power grab, the overreach of the power of interstate commerce. And ever since the expansion of that Wickard versus Filburn. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) Ever since the expansion of that, it basically empowered the Government, the federal Government, to do anything it wants, as long as they can make some tenuous argument that it somehow affects interstate commerce. And I’m really glad to see that he’s out there, at least as a voice trying to pull back that insane power grab that occurred back under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Nappen 06:58 As you’re reading through his opinion, too, he takes a bat directly to the congressional authority. He bashes the commerce clause directly of how. How is it that something travels, like, how does that fall Page – 3 – of 12 under interstate commerce when it’s not traveling between the states? He is going at it hard, outlining each bit case by case, showing the abuse by it. He even highlights how, I love this line, the gun possession statute issues in Lopez is not a regulation of economic activity, but a law to combat “crime and violence”, even at the local level. Literally calls it out. How is this economic activity when you’re just doing this for regulating crime? Evan Nappen 07:48 Oh yeah. Well, you know, in the decision, this is very interesting, they, they being the Court, outline their ruling, and why. And I think you’ll find it very interesting here, where they talk about that Mr. Hemani. He admitted his use of marijuana, and he knowingly possessed the gun in his home, being an “unlawful user of the substance”. And if you look at that, it seems to fit exactly what the law is prohibiting. And what the actual holding of the Supreme Court held that the Government’s prosecution of Hermani under 922 unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. And here in the holding it actually says the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, but they had that in quotes to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. So, there’s even an affirmation of the right to self-defense. They are citing Heller with that. Evan Nappen 09:15 Though, like most individual rights, it has its limits to determine when the Government infringes on the Second Amendment. The court begins by asking whether the amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects it. That’s citing Bruen. To overcome the presumption, the Government bears the burden. The Government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, and the burden is on the Government to have to show it. The Government need not point to a historical twin or precise historical precursor that’s from Rahimi, that’s the Rahimi case. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government may reason by analogy. This is where the battle comes in, in our fight for our Second Amendment rights Evan Nappen 10:35 Now, it says further, the Government accepts this framework, and they proceeded to argue from it. So, this is very exciting in terms of the test being applied. The court looking at the Government’s argument of traditional habitual drunkards losing their rights, and the court, through the opinion, just absolutely distinguishes between this marijuana ban and historical precedent concerning habitual drunkards. Then they also put into play about the decision being narrow. And here’s where, Teddy, what you just said about Justice Thomas, he wants it to be broad. But the decision itself says it’s narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm. Then it also talks about whether individuals convicted of felonies could be prosecuted. So, they tried to contain it narrowly. But if you step back and just look at the big picture in regards to a nine to zero opinion on a gun rights issue, that to me is probably the most outstanding thing about it. We got the whole Court on board. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:21 I will say, if you go to Jackson’s “concurrent opinion”, she doesn’t even talk about the case. She literally spends the entire thing bashing Bruen. I was reading through it, and she literally just spends the entire thing in full. She says I write to emphasize my scrutiny. The court applies to the, we adopted Bruen be his “history and tradition metric”, which more rational way of assessing the Constituent’s regulations. Bruen is unworkable, and it creates such a vulnerability of inconsistent, arbitrary application. Oh, like most gun laws? Evan Nappen 13:01 Yeah. Well, keep in mind the politics here. She’s purposely trying to attack Thomas over Bruen. And yet, what she can’t stand is that she’s ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. But in so doing, it means that Bruen is being empowered here. She’s like the computer on Star Trek. She’s going to explode that it’s now affecting the issue of marijuana, and the ACLU is on this side. Yet, how could she actually use, you know, Thomas’s brilliance here, even though it’s what she believes is the right thing to do, but can’t give credit. So, it’s like, you know, she’s just exploding over it. But she still has to side with the full unanimous majority, and that’s why it is that astounding. Because even a justice like her, who is so blatantly politically and hardly viewed as an educated jurist here by comparison to so many of the others on the Court. This is what you see happen. So, it’s pretty good there. Evan Nappen 15:19 Like applying the Constitution instead of, “It’s a living document”, which it isn’t, and start applying that whole. Teddy Nappen 15:41 Fine, just no, just no, fine, fine. No 19th Amendment, got it. Like it’s so ridiculous. So, they only apply it when they choose to. Evan Nappen 15:53 Hey, but even with all that said. It was still nine to zero, in favor of 2A. So, for that we can be happy to see. And of course, we’re now waiting for Wolford, and that is a “sensitive places” decision, which should also be very interesting on how they rule on “sensitive places”. Teddy Nappen 16:14 Do you remember the commemorative for the Heller? The revolver they did. Evan Nappen 16:19 Yes, I have one. Teddy Nappen 16:21 I want, whoever is the top AR maker, I want them to do a commemorative to the case when we finally get the constitutionality on the assault weapon ban, and finally getting those removed. That would be awesome. Like, just seeing that. Who do you think would be making that? Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 16:39 Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of guns. Well, you know, that’s funny. You know I have that Smith & Wesson when Heller came out. Teddy Nappen 16:47 Yeah. Evan Nappen 16:47 And Smith did a limited run of the 38 J-frame Smith and Wessons, and they are engraved on the side with the Heller decision and scales and all. It’s a pretty cool gun, and they came out with it pretty fast, right after the Heller decision. But I actually got Dick Heller himself, the Heller of the Heller decision, to sign the gun. So, I have a Heller commemorative Smith signed by Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 17:23 Don’t you have one for McDonald too, as well? I could have sworn there was a commemorative for that also. Evan Nappen 17:30 Yeah, yeah. I do, yeah. McDonald. But I also have a very collectible commemorative knife, Teddy. It’s a full kitchen knife, and it’s actually signed by Bobbitt. Remember the Bobbitt case? I have a knife that is signed by John Bobbitt there. And what he wrote on the knife, in addition to his name, he wrote “always sleep on your stomach”. Pretty good. Always sleep on your stomach, you know. Signed by Bobbitt. So, it’s a big kitchen butcher-style knife, a big chef’s knife. It’s definitely a great collectible. Teddy Nappen 18:18 I wanted him to write “Mr. Happy Went Missing” from the Weird Al. Mr. Happy. Evan Nappen 18:33 But he wrote: always sleep on your stomach. Okay, if anyone could give that advice, I guess it’s him. So, yeah, well, getting these things signed. Well, Dick Heller signed the gun, Bobbit signed the knife, and I’m not.. Forget it. I’m not going, not doing it, not doing it. So, hey, by the way, Teddy, where’s our favorite ranger that we shoot at? Come on. Teddy Nappen 19:07 Of course it’s We Shoot, obviously. Evan Nappen 19:09 That’s right, we do. We go there. We have a blast, and so will you. WeShoot is an indoor range right in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s conveniently right off the Parkway. A beautiful facility, top of the line, modern. A great place. Great training, great pro shop, great people. It’s where we got our certifications for our carry, our CCARE certifications, and other training as well. You need to check out WeShoot, WeShoot. It’s at wewhootusa.com. Their website is really great. They have beautiful photographs, and they pride themselves in their photography. Make sure you also check out the WeShoot girls. They always have fantastic firearms that they are displaying. And there are sales and specials and deals. Page – 6 – of 12 WeShoot is just great. So, check out weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It’s a superb resource, you know. We/ve got to really use and protect our ranges, especially in New Jersey, where it’s so crowded and it’s tough to find really great places to shoot. But WeShoot is there filling an important need in protecting our rights. What good is having a gun if you can’t shoot it, man? So, check out weshoot usa.com. Evan Nappen 20:52 Also, I want to shamelessly promote my book on New Jersey gun law, which, by the way, is called New Jersey Gun Law. You can find it at EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the guidebook, the key resource to helping you not become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pride in that, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Those that have it know its value. It’s designed as your easy-to-use reference to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com. EvanNappen.com. Get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, I know that you have Press Checks, and I think there’s a pretty fascinating Press Check story that you are going to share with us. What is this story? Tell me. Teddy Nappen 21:58 Well, we got our first from. Again, Press Checks are always free. This is from “Not the Bee.com”, Joel Abbott. (https://notthebee.com/article/babe-wake-up-british-tourists-are-starting-to-appreciate-the-second-amendment-?from_social=twitter) So, everyone’s been seeing the World Cup. I don’t typically follow soccer or anything on that, but you see all the Europeans coming in. I love that video of the Japanese tourist who brought trash bags and picked up their trash after their game. Evan Nappen 22:25 They’re very conscientious. That’s very, very good. Teddy Nappen 22:28 I know, as opposed to the Knicks fans who decided to burn down a bus, but whatever. Evan Nappen 22:34 Hey, listen. Mom would approve of the trash bag thing, you know that. Teddy Nappen 22:38 Oh, I know. Evan Nappen 22:40 Even just at our house, if we did that. Teddy Nappen 22:43 And the recycling. Can’t forget about that. Evan Nappen 22:44 That, too. Page – 7 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 22:46 But the one thing that seems to be catching on, because you have all the vloggers and people coming to want to experience America as they’re going to see. They’ve been going to gun ranges and to rent a gun places. Evan Nappen 23:00 I know. Isn’t that great? Teddy Nappen 23:01 They’re appreciating our Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 23:03 It’s actually spreading the understanding to these disarmed, oppressed peoples, and they’re suddenly seeing the light. Particularly, we see the UK folks. They’re like, wait a minute. How did we lose this right? Teddy Nappen 23:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 23:20 How did this happen? Teddy Nappen 23:22 And it’s very interesting. It’s almost like those videos you always see where it’s the liberals going to the range, and they actually like, oh my right, yeah, you see all these people like, why were they’re waiting for, like, wait, you guys can just do this? They’re always shocked and awe from everything. But one in particular, this was a British guy, Spencer Towering. He does videos. We’ve been totally pacified in the U.K. through the removal of our arms, our right to bear arms. It’s caused a big problem for us. Now our Government is basically turning it into an absolute, tyrannical feminine leadership that is gradually eroding our rights, and there’s really not much we can do about it. Well, there’s one thing you can do. You know, just kind of look to the founding of our nation, and then get some ideas. Or they could look to the risings in Scotland, and try not to, you know, go with, try to not to put the Bonnie Prince on the throne. It didn’t work. Evan Nappen 24:22 You know, the British even went after an IT consultant. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:29 Because he posed with a gun in the U.S. and posted it on LinkedIn. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 24:34 Yep, just for posing with it. Evan Nappen 24:36 For posint with a shotgun, an 870 shotgun. Teddy Nappen 24:40 Yep. Thirteen weeks of hell he went through for sharing a photo of something that wasn’t even taken in the U.K. This is why. Evan Nappen 24:54 This was pointed out by “Not the Bee”. So, “Not the Bee is a pretty cool aggregate on news sources. And this is. Teddy Nappen 25:06 Frankly, far funnier than the article. Evan Nappen 25:09 “Not the Bee” is real stuff that you can’t believe is actually true when it is. As opposed to the “Babylon Bee”, which is parody. “Not the Bee” has real stories in it that you think should be fake, but they’re not. It’s like unbelievable. But this one here is not as outrageous, to be honest, because this is what makes it so great about having rights, you know, and why we got to protect them. We see what it’s like for the folks that live in countries that they claim to make believe are free when they’re not. I mean, we’re still fighting for freedom here, but I mean to think that, you know, claim England is free. The U.K. is free? That’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 26:00 I’ll point it to you right now. The two you always hyped. I’ve got to highlight this to people all the time. Literally, arresting a woman for thought crime. Evan Nappen 26:09 Right! Teddy Nappen 26:09 Arresting a young girl for fighting off a pedophile with an ax and a knife. Going after her. Proven, by the way, that was another article that came out where he was in fact trying to go after minors. He had two prior accounts. But let’s just say the Labor Party didn’t want to mention that part. And the final bit, and I saw this one. For every officer, they’ve arrested like 20, done 20 arrests for hate speech online, whichever, whatever they make up. Like it’s they’re done. They are so gone. Evan Nappen 26:34 It’s a shame, the formerly Great Britain. But maybe this kind of experience of them seeing America and what it’s about. Not just from a slanted media, but from actually coming here and experiencing America. I mean, just in terms of brisket sandwiches that they’re going crazy for. American food. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 27:11 Even that, like just going into Europe. Anyone ever gone to Europe? You turn on the news, and imagine your only news station was CNN and MSNBC. That’s it. Yeah, that is all they have. They have the state-run everything and news networks. There is no alternative voice. There’s no alternative tech. They ban Rumble and other outlets. So, they can just control the media, and this is what it leads to. Just authoritarian states. Evan Nappen 27:35 It’s crazy. So, I was looking at this, and you also indicated to me about kind of a crazy international story, Teddy, Teddy Nappen 27:56 Yes. Let’s just say, you know, at times like this, you should buy a holster. This was in Brazil, where a female suspect, when she was stopped by the military police from Goaz, carried out a body search. Evan Nappen 28:17 Now, this is in Brazil, right? Teddy Nappen 28:19 In Brazil Evan Nappen 28:19 In Brazil. And this is an actual story that is from a “legitimate” news source, right? What’s the source? Teddy Nappen 28:28 Yeah, it’s right from the Daily Star. (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/moment-female-suspect-pulls-loaded-37287603) Evan Nappen 28:31 Yeah, okay, and they even have video. They’re showing reports. So, this is actually legit. This is not a parody or a joke? What happened here with the woman? Teddy Nappen 28:42 The officers located the pair, carried out a stop and search. They showed the armed passengers struggling to remove the firearm from inside her “intimate area”. Physically trying to pull out a loaded pistol from her vagina. Evan Nappen 28:58 And Teddy, this is not small. They show the gun, and it’s the actual firearm, folks. This is the gun, and they even name the gun, a Taurus 92. That is essentially the Beretta M9, you know, but made by Taurus, a Taurus 92. Basically that 15 to 17 shot, depending on the size of your mag, and that you don’t live in New Jersey. A full size Taurus 92. Or also our military carry gun until the SIG replaced it of the Beretta M9. That full size nine. She pulled it out. How did she? Ouch! Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 29:51 You know, I don’t even know how that happened. I don’t think Taurus and Victoria Secret should have partnered up for the Victoria concealed. Evan Nappen 30:02 And I think they mentioned that it got stuck. It was stuck. Teddy Nappen 30:05 Yes, it was stuck. Evan Nappen 30:07 It was stuck, and I can imagine why it was stuck, considering the size of a Taurus slash Beretta 92. Teddy Nappen 30:15 Yeah. Evan Nappen 30:15 And it was loaded as well. Teddy Nappen 30:18 What she should have done was got some rem oil, and that would have helped solve it. Evan Nappen 30:22 Well, you know, New Jersey has a requirement for your holster to have to cover the trigger guard and the frame and all that. Technically, she might actually have been in compliance if she was under New Jersey gun law, given the requirements for a holster. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen 30:41 Well, it has to cover the majority of the firearm and the trigger. So. Evan Nappen 30:49 I mean, this was pretty crazy. Teddy Nappen 30:53 Yeah, pretty crazy. Evan Nappen 30:54 But it makes sense in Brazil that there would be a Taurus, since they’re made in Brazil. So, those would be a Brazilian gun. Teddy Nappen 30:56 You know, I’ll give Taurus credit for the gorilla ad campaign that they. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 31:06 Well, Taurus makes other guns, like the Judge. You know, the Judge, the Raging Bull. She didn’t do a Raging Bull. At least she didn’t do the Raging Bull. I mean, it’s bad enough with the Taurus 92. Teddy Nappen 31:21 It might have been easier with a Public Defender, to be honest. Evan Nappen 31:24 Right. That’s what she’s gonna need now. After putting a Taurus, being caught with a Taurus 92 there carrying, carrying illegally, no less inappropriately. Now, she’s going to need a public defender to defend her possession of a Taurus. Teddy Nappen 31:43 and a gynecologist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Uhuh, maybe she could call the consulate. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. That’s a crazy, crazy story. But hey. You know, just think if she had a North American Arms mini revolver or something, that you know, but a Taurus 92. Oh man. Teddy Nappen 32:05 I love the mindset of like, okay, this is a good idea, right? Just on the impracticality of like, okay, if I’m ever like, you know, the deal goes bad, and I need to draw this quickly. Evan Nappen 32:25 I don’t know what. Yeah, where? And then if she was hiding it up there, why did she surrender to the police when she was hiding it? If that was hidden, I mean, do they? I don’t think. Teddy Nappen 32:39 I think at that point she was just looking for the excuse, because it was probably just had enough. Evan Nappen 32:44 This just has got to go. Here, just take it, take it. Oh boy. Well, Teddy, that is definitely something to consider in the news on carry, carry news, in terms of method. Now, we have the GOFU, which is a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Now, I think this last, the last story might qualify as a GOFU, but we need to bring it down to a little bit more of a commonality of things that often happen, and that we often see. That are mistakes made. Teddy Nappen 33:27 Too many times. Evan Nappen 33:28 Too many times. One of the things we want to really be clear as to a GOFU here is the warning shot. Warning shots are basically mythology. You should not be firing warning shots, because the firing of a Page – 12 – of 12 gun is essentially what’s construed as the use of deadly force. If you’re using deadly force, you have got to be justified in using deadly force. So, we do not in any way recommend the warning shot. In New Jersey, the discharge of the firearm without lawful purpose is an automatic virtual per se felony, as Murphy’s new law has declared it essentially. So, you have the discharge law. Then you have the issues of undercutting your own arguments for use of force. If it was a threat that was justified in using deadly force, why are you firing your firearm without using it to stop the deadly force? Where you feel you can fire it as simply a warning, is it that imminent danger, or is it not that imminent? There’s just so many downsides and negatives to warning shots. Evan Nappen 34:59 Plus where is the round going? There are cases where you hear, “oh, it was a warning shot, and that’s why I hit them. You’re trying to excuse either the bad aim or whatever under some guys, a warning shot, not a good idea. So, make sure you get your training. Make sure you learn the rules on the use of deadly force. It’s critical that you do that. You can really get jammed up if you don’t understand that dynamic. It’s critical, and it is often not intuitive because of how bad these things are shown on television all the time. Television is not a good education source for learning when you can and can’t use deadly force. If we’re talking about made-for-TV dramas and TV shows and movies, and all that, not a good idea to learn your gun law from there. Evan Nappen 36:04 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 36:14 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E295_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. John Lott joins Mark Walters to analyze the Supreme Court's unanimous Hemani ruling, why Bruen just got stronger, shocking research showing Canada's violent crime rate may far exceed U.S. levels, and the latest battles over gun rights nationwide.

The Supreme Court's unanimous 9-0 Hemani ruling isn't just about marijuana and firearms. Mark Walters explains why this landmark SCOTUS decision strengthens the Bruen standard, reinforces Second Amendment protections, and could reshape future gun rights cases nationwide.

“If you're not prepared to protect your rights, someone else will decide how you live.” Episode Summary In this episode of The Gun Experiment, we sit down with Peter Tilem, Second Amendment attorney and bourbon buddy, to chop it up on the latest legal battles, gun rights issues, and regulatory absurdities coming out of New York and beyond. We cover the implications of the new so-called “Glock ban,” why courts are so slow to tackle assault weapon and magazine bans, and New York's relentless push for tighter firearm regulations—including a new three-day waiting period. We also dive into free speech rights in schools, the expanding use of AI surveillance in cities, and the dangers of proposed hunting and fishing bans. Call to Action Subscribe and leave us a comment on Apple or Spotify Follow us on all of our social media: Instagram   Youtube Grab some cool TGE merch Askmikeandkeithanything@gmail.com Be sure to support our show sponsors; they are a big part of making the show possible. Show Sponsors HSM Ammunition: Trusted ammo for every shooting application. Available at Cabela's, Bass Pro, Shields, and more. Check them out at hsmammunition.com Spartan Armor Systems: Reliable, American-made body armor for armed citizens and law enforcement. Visit spartanarmorsystems.com for your personal protection needs. Key Takeaways New York's “Glock ban” is more bark than bite but shows a continued legislative obsession with targeting gun owners. Waiting periods and carry insurance bans in NY are likely unconstitutional and face tough legal challenges post-Bruen decision. The courts are a slow, inefficient fix for bad laws—winning elections and being active in local politics is more effective. Selective law enforcement (both liberal and conservative) is a slippery slope and citizens can't always rely on prosecutorial discretion for protection. Hunting and fishing rights are under political attack in some states—protecting these traditions requires active involvement and coalition-building. Surveillance technology and AI in cities continue to advance rapidly—at the expense of personal privacy and freedom. Guest Information Peter Tilem Founder of New York TAC Defense Second Amendment attorney with Tilem & Associates Learn more: newyorktacdefense.com Keywords New York gun laws, Glock ban, Second Amendment attorney, New York TAC Defense, firearm waiting period, assault weapon ban, magazine ban, Supreme Court gun cases, law enforcement discretion, AI surveillance, hunting rights, school free speech, gun insurance ban, NY SAFE Act, Spartan Armor, HSM Ammunition, 2A legal defense, gun owner rights, podcast for shooters, gun regulation updates, Peter Tilem

This week, we're talking about a new legal agreement that would end Florida's waiting periods on gun purchases. To discuss the ins and outs of the agreement, we have the gun-rights lawyer who negotiated it on the show. That's Matt Larosiere. He filed a Second Amendment suit against the law alongside Mountain States and the National Rifle Association. Larosiere said Florida's waiting periods, which can range up to five days in parts of the state and apply to all kinds of gun sales, are unconstitutional. He argued there is nothing in the historical record that looks like modern waiting periods, as required by the Supreme Court's Bruen standard. He also said the state can no longer justify them on the idea that they give law enforcement space to complete a background check. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R.) apparently agrees. Instead of defending the law, Uthmeier offered to agree to a judgment blocking its enforcement. He doesn't think there's a viable path to defend the law's constitutionality. That's been a bit of a trend for Uthmeier recently, as he also recently declined to appeal a ruling against the state's open-carry ban. Larosiere agreed the moves are symbolic of Florida's odd gun politics. After all, the state still has a number of gun restrictions rare in red states despite Republicans controlling the government for years and years.Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

Episode 294-AG Green-lights Red Flag Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 294 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey, ERPO, gun confiscation, due process, public awareness campaign, gun safety, Second Amendment, red flag law, wellness check, gun rights, gun violence, civil rights, gun storage, gun laws. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what have you discovered in your travels? Teddy Nappen 00:30 Well, first off, you can stop pestering me. I finally watched Project Hail Mary. Evan Nappen 00:36 I love that movie. It was fun. Didn’t you like it, man? Teddy Nappen 00:40 I thought it was. I will give it credit for a movie that’s almost three hours long. You stay. You don’t want to like check your phone or anything. You’re actually very engaged. And I was like. Evan Nappen 00:51 True! Teddy Nappen 00:51 The last 40 minutes, I’m like, okay, everything’s solved, what’s left for plot? And then they actually made it more interesting. Evan Nappen 00:59 Yes! Don’t, don’t spoil it for people. Teddy Nappen 01:01 No, no spoils. Page – 2 – of 14 Evan Nappen 01:02 It’s a good one, and it is a very interesting statement about Government. Teddy Nappen 01:12 I was thinking also Stoicism. Evan Nappen 01:14 Yeah, yeah, yeah. They did a great job. I really enjoyed it. So, anyways. I love talking about movies. However, this is Gun Lawyer, man, and we talk about important New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 01:32 Fine. Evan Nappen 01:33 And beyond the borders of New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 01:38 We’ll open with this: the Attorney General’s a jerk. Evan Nappen 01:42 Wait a minute! Don’t go disparaging our beloved Attorney General. But why are you not happy with what the Attorney General has done? Teddy Nappen 01:51 Well, I love when they’re advertising, effectively legalized swatting, in this latest article. Right from the Attorney General’s Office. ” Attorney General Davenport, Office of Alternative and Community Responses launches gun safety public awareness campaign”. (https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-office-of-alternative-and-community-responses-launch-gun-safety-public-awareness-campaign/) I want to meet the marketing team that comes up with these titles. Evan Nappen 02:14 Which always, if it’s Gun Safety Public Awareness Team, let me guess. They’re using their office to promote citizen self-defense so that citizens are no longer victims, but can defend themselves against criminals, right? Isn’t that what they’re promoting? And helping citizens to understand their use of force and self -defense, and complete dedication to the Second Amendment, right? Am I correct? Teddy Nappen 02:41 I think you forgot this is with New Jersey, but yeah. Evan Nappen 02:45 Oh, what did they do instead? Tell me. Page – 3 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 02:47 Oh, so from the article that they put out, Attorney General Davenport of the office has launched a multi-year public awareness campaign to raise awareness about the life-saving potential of New Jersey’s Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). Evan Nappen 03:06 Ah, the Red Flag. Teddy Nappen 03:07 Wow! Evan Nappen 03:07 So, they believe that it is life saving. Try life destroying! If you’re a gun owner and you get hit with one of these ERPOs, as we talked about on a prior show, simply talking to Chat GBT led to this. Where not only were the guns seized, not only is your house searched, but you’re taken away for a “wellness check”. And with his inability to give a urine sample, they shoved a catheter up his penis. All over the wonderful ERPO situation. Isn’t that great? How that all works out. So, there’s a lot of downside, unless you don’t consider forced catheterization up your penis, a downside. I don’t know. Today you don’t know. But these are the kind of things that can come from ERPOs and wellness checks. It’s just astounding. Astounding. Teddy Nappen 04:19 What is astounding is I love how they twist it. Just reading the article, you can feel it. I always go back to that line from “Untouchables” – “Let’s do some good.” They actually think this is going to solve problems. Or right here from the Attorney General. ERPOs are a proven tool for preventing tragedies. How do I know? I pulled it out. They didn’t actually say that. We are committed to using all the tools at our disposal. Evan Nappen 04:52 This is what they put out. But the reality of it is, it’s a tool for disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights, and it’s a tool of confiscation of guns. It is a tool of gun rights suppression. It is designed for that purpose. There is no due process up front. These are granted ex parte. The person who is served with the ERPO has no clue that it’s coming their way, has no opportunity, before the damage is done to talk or speak or make their case to the judge. This is just gun confiscation in its rawest form with benefits. And the benefits are taking you away for a so-called “wellness check”, while you’re at it, to search and seize giving them the opportunity to review your guns, to take your guns, to search your house, to invade your Fourth Amendment rights as well. All done under this guise. Evan Nappen 05:40 This is something we in the firm here deal with these all the time, and the public awareness campaign is designed to get more people to jump on this. No matter how weak the claim is. No matter whether it’s for reasons that are unproven. It doesn’t matter! They want these ERPOs, which, when they initially issued, are called TERPOs, Temporary Extremist Protection Orders. Only after the issuance of the TERPO do you finally get a hearing where you get to try to fight to challenge it from becoming a final, Page – 4 – of 14 what we call a FERPO. And if it takes place in Burlington or Bergen County, then you, of course, are getting a BURPO. I’m just kidding about that. They don’t call them BURPOs, but it is a pretty bad, rotten, terrible law. It is the most extreme ERPO law in the country, and it is just rights violation from the get-go. Teddy Nappen 07:32 Well, also, if you’re going through the article, they’re talking about the public awareness campaign they’re going to be doing. They say the ERPO awareness is leading up to the National Gun Violence Awareness Month in June. I thought June was also Pride Month, but you know they kind of go hand in hand with the recent mass shootings. It’s one of those. Evan Nappen 07:58 It’s like National Brotherhood Month. Be glad we don’t celebrate it the rest of the year. Teddy Nappen 08:04 I know. You know what? Evan Nappen 08:05 That’s the old Tom Lehrer joke. Teddy Nappen 08:07 You know what? I’m very aware of the gun violence. That’s why people want to be armed to defend themselves, but continue. Then they go on about using like billboards, bus shelters, radio platforms. Oh, by the way, everything will be in Spanish, too. They were very bold in that, and they made it very clear it’ll be in English and Spanish. So, okay. Evan Nappen 08:30 Well, the propaganda that gets generated out of New Jersey is intense, and it is going to create more and more confiscations and misery for law-abiding gun owners and their gun rights. That’s the reality of what is going on. They have these very cute images on this article. I see where they are going to promote this operation, and it’s like they’re meme articles. Because of an ERPO, they’re still here. They show two people, then they have another one. Because of an ERPO, he’ll graduate in June. Really? Then there’s another one. Learn the facts about ERPO. Stop gun deaths. Need to talk. . . blah blah blah. Evan Nappen 09:27 Okay, you know what? We could do our own memes here. You know, we could have, because of an ERPO, this person, this law-abiding gun owner, just had their life ruined, just had their home invaded, just had their family heirloom guns seized, just had to go through an expensive court process just to get back to square one. Because of an ERPO, the person was taken in for a completely unnecessary wellness check, and had medical procedures done to them against their will. Because of an ERPO, they just have a big dick pic with a catheter in it, and say, because of an ERPO, I was forced to endure this. How about that for a nice image? You know, this is what reality is when you’re in the practice. You see these laws and what they actually do to people, and what doesn’t get told is what I’m telling you Page – 5 – of 14 now. The actual effect of it. Not this fluff and propaganda and claims being made that are not how we have experienced ERPOs in the practice of law. There’s an extreme risk protection website, Teddy, by the way. (https://www.njoag.gov/erpo/) Teddy Nappen 10:53 Yeah, they have the link. Evan Nappen 10:53 It talks about ERPOs, and it has a Q and A in it. Let’s take a look at the questions, the Attorney General’s answers, and what I think are the real answers. “Is ERPO the same as a ‘Red Flag’ law?” It’s very similar to what a lot of people know as Red Flag law that exists in other states, even among states that use the name ERPO. There are some technical legal differences. Be sure any information you get about ERPOs is specific to New Jersey. Yes, the similarity ends with New Jersey not having any due process upfront. It’s not just a Red Flag law. It’s a bright Red, no due process upfront law. Other states that may have Red Flag laws do it where you get due process up front before the order is even issued. Not in New Jersey. So, yeah, it’s different. It’s different in an extremely gun rights suppression manner. “Why are ERPOs needed?” Well, an ERPO is an immediate step that can be taken to stop a violent situation before it starts, by temporarily removing firearms from a person who’s at risk of harming themselves or others. Evan Nappen 12:10 Yeah, it’s also an immediate step that can be taken to SWAT somebody and an immediate step that can be taken when information is misconstrued. It’s also an immediate step that can be taken without even truly determining whether there is an actual risk of harm to oneself or another, because the one person they’re concerned about never gets an opportunity up front to actually explain whether there is or isn’t such a risk. “Why do people file for ERPOs?” Because they’ve seen warning signs that someone close to them is at high risk of using a firearm to harm themselves or others. Filing a petition for an ERPO provides safety for everyone involved and gives the person in crisis an opportunity to seek help. Really? Well, so-called warning signs, again not evaluated up front, high risk, again not evaluated up front with any input from the person who becomes the victim of this ERPO. Filing a petition for ERPO provides safety for everyone. No, it actually doesn’t provide safety for everyone. In fact, it endangers law-abiding gun owners. There are cases on record, Teddy, about individuals being swatted over false ERPOs, and they end up getting killed by police because they don’t even know what’s going on in this raid. They had no clue, right, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 13:42 It’s one of those things that’s very disgusting, just the very insidious nature of this. It is legalized swatting, and there’s no way about it. Like, you can just make something up, say someone said something or did something, and they’ll hand them out like candy. Then you get your life destroyed, just going through the process. And I love, I love the article. Their whole thing in it, where they’re saying we need to dispel the myths. The whole, yeah, dispel the myths. Page – 6 – of 14 Evan Nappen 14:16 To create an entire myth about what it is. “What’s a temporary ERPO?” A judge can issue a temporary ERPO if they believe the at-risk person is an imminent threat to themselves or others. Isn’t it amazing that a judge can do this, believing the at-risk person is an immediate threat to themselves or others with never speaking to the so-called at risk person. Never talking to them in advance. And a TERPO is in effect until the hearing for a final, which is typically scheduled within 10 days. And let me tell you, yeah, there’s a railroading, after your life has been turned upside down, of the hearing on the final having to take place in 10 days. After all the damage has been done, after your house has been raided, after you’ve been forced into a wellness check, after you’ve had your property seized. And do you think it’s cared for real well when it’s seized? After you’ve had this entire ordeal, then within 10 days of it, you’re supposed to have a hearing. Are you ready for that hearing? You don’t even know what hit you. How are you going to be prepared and do that? It’s railroading you into a FERPO, instead of giving due process up front on the TERPO. Teddy Nappen 15:37 The article tries to paint it like the court judges may issue them after carefully reviewing the individual circumstances, and prompted by the petition filed by a relative, household member, or law enforcement officer. The ERPO is issued only after several factors are considered. Whether they have been arrested, charged, convicted, disorderly persons, domestically. Evan Nappen 16:01 One of those factors, Teddy, as we’ve reviewed. One of the factors is has recently acquired a firearm. That’s actually a factor for an ERPO. That you’ve gotten a gun, that means that you got a pistol purchase permit and got a gun, or went to the gun dealer and bought a gun. That’s now an ERPO factor, as a fact to take your gun, is that you just got a gun. It’s literally a factor in the law. Teddy Nappen 16:27 Well, the article ignores that factor. Gee, I wonder why? Evan Nappen 16:31 They don’t list all the factors, because they’re so outrageously vague and unbelievable. And again, done ex parte. “What is a final ERPO?” Before a final ERPO is issued, this is all from their Q and A, a person at risk will have a chance to present evidence and testimony to the judge. If the judge believes they’re immediate threat of ERPO, so what does it say? Before the final. That’s the only time you’re going to get your chance is after the TERPO, the temporary order has issued. “How long does a final ERPO last?” It stays in effect until the person who filed the petition or the person at risk asks the judge to end it. If the at-risk person is seeking to end the order, they must prove to the judge they’re no longer a danger to themselves or others. So, the burden of proof switches to the victim of the ERPO. The person whose rights have just been taken away from them and had their life turned upside down. The burden is shifted for them to have to prove, in effect, their innocence. Prove they’re no longer a danger. Go ahead and prove the negative. Good luck with that. Page – 7 – of 14 Evan Nappen 17:47 “What information goes into the petition?” You’ll need to provide specific information about dangerous behavior or threats you’ve witnessed. If the person owns any firearms, provide all information you may know about firearms they own or have access to. So, now you have the ratting out, the giving of the information, the revealing of any firearms, so that they may be confiscated. Backdoor gun confiscation. Let’s have an entire propaganda campaign designed to do this. Even in their Q and A, all the gun information goes. “Does it cost money to file?” No, there’s no filing fee. There’s actually something you can do in Nwe Jersey that they won’t charge you for, and that’s if you aid and abet New Jersey in the seizure of guns in the disenfranchisement of an individual’s gun rights. They won’t charge you for that. Isn’t that nice of them? Evan Nappen 18:47 “Is the person arrested or taken into custody?” No, but they will eventually be required to appear in court. Ahh, let’s talk about that. Person arrested or taken into custody? Well, when they do the combo with the wellness check, you’re taken in. And they say, if you don’t voluntarily go, we’ll make you go. Oh, we just searched your home for guns, and we found that one of your magazines holds 11 rounds instead of 10. You’re getting arrested. Or any other condition that they want to turn into criminality, you’re going to be arrested and taken into custody. And if there’s any type of other allegations made, you’ll face those charges. Evan Nappen 19:37 Remember, this isn’t just done in a vacuum. So, it’s extremely misleading to say a person isn’t arrested or taken into custody when very often that’s exactly what happens. We’ve seen it because of the collateral damage that occurs from the TERPO. “Does an ERPO go on a criminal record?” No, it’s a civil matter, not a punitive punishment. You see, they don’t consider taking your guns and taking your gun rights punitive or punishment. No, this is just civil. Its purpose is to give the person in danger of harming themselves or others, an opportunity to address the crisis. You see, this is being done for your own protection. We’re doing this just for you, gun owners. We’re doing it to help you, because we love you so much. It’s not punitive at all. Evan Nappen 20:34 Except you go into a database that declares you to be an extreme risk. Do you think being in that database is going to help you get a job? Do you think being in the extreme risk database that ERPOs put you in is going to be helpful to you? Do you think that’s going to help you travel, let’s say on an airplane? Do you think it’s going to help you anytime a background check is done on you? So, does it have an actual criminal record? No, because there’s no criminal conviction. So, it would not be a criminal record. But notice it doesn’t say, do you get a record? Because the answer to that misleading way it’s presented is yes. You’re damn right. You will have a record. You will have a record of having an ERPO and being put in a database and on a list of being an extreme risk. But they don’t bother mentioning that in their Q and A. Teddy Nappen 21:39 Oh, this is what happens. Page – 8 – of 14 Evan Nappen 21:41 Go ahead, Teddy. What? Teddy Nappen 21:42 Well, what I was going to say is one thing that does point, like jump at the article with me. All this can be made possible from a competitive grant award from the “Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program” (SCIP) Grant which is administrated through the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. (https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-office-of-alternative-and-community-responses-launch-gun-safety-public-awareness-campaign/ – last paragraph) So, the insidious nature of SCIP. Oh, you know what happens whenever you get thrown in, because you think, oh, he may have said he said something like, oh, he’s had some bad thoughts. We need to get him into the crisis intervention unit. He needs to be evaluated. So, the doctors who evaluate you, who think you’re crazy or think you’re extreme, throw you into the nut house as well. That same group is pushing for Red Flag. Amazing! Evan Nappen 22:27 They are, because it goes together with it. And then it says, “What happens to firearms when an ERPO is approved?” Firearms, ammunition, and license to purchase, own, and carry must be surrendered to law enforcement. What also happens is you get put on the ERPO list. And if you fail to have guns turned in, if you fail to file that order, you can be criminally charged for contempt. Then you become a prohibited person after that to ever possess firearms and ammunition, very similar to being a convicted felon. But notice none of that is explained either. Then it says, “When are firearms returned?” When a judge terminates the order. Well, let me just tell you right now, that’s not in the law. We have cases on this right now. You can go in to court, and you can win a TERPO. But the TERPO was defeated after your guns were seized and you went through all that. There’s nothing in the statute that orders the guns themselves returned. So, if the Attorney General is now saying that firearms are returned when the judge terminates the order, great! Because we have cases right now where this very answer and question I want to explain why it hasn’t happened to our clients. Because it’s not in the law! And fighting to get it back afterwards, after you win the TERPO, where a FERPO is not granted, it’s exactly what a client we had on a couple shows ago. He talked about that very thing, that very problem. They asked, How is ERPO different? Go ahead, Teddy, what? Teddy Nappen 24:20 Well, I was going to say is the thing that if you kind of go through all this, looking at like the article, what they’re talking about, they are just doing all their best to muddy the waters. Trying to like no, no, no, no, it’s perfectly fine. We’re just going to take the firearms away, and then it won’t be a problem. Then if everything’s calm and the State has deemed you not an extreme risk. What do we mean by that? Well, we’ll determine that from a political judge. Evan Nappen 24:54 Ask any gun owner that’s gone through this, and they’ll tell you it’s a nightmare. This is designed to create more nightmares for New Jersey gun owners. Here, “Do ERPOs stop violence?” Evidence suggests ERPOs are an effective violence prevention tool, particularly in cases of suicide or mass shootings. Suggests it. They don’t prove it. Instead we have tremendous violation of due process rights Page – 9 – of 14 in this “suggestion” of what people go through. No actual hard evidence that it even accomplishes what it is intended to do. And of course, potential suicide or mass shootings. Well, of course, if someone’s hell bent to kill themselves, last I heard, a gun wasn’t the only way to do it. If the person is determined to engage in criminal acts, a piece of paper will not stop that person. So, who is it really affecting? The law-abiding citizens. They’re the ones who pay the price. Evan Nappen 26:04 And then last question here, “What happens if the petition for an ERPO gets denied?” Now, notice this is really interesting. The last question is, what happens if ERPO gets denied? It says, if the municipal court denies a petition for a TERPO, the person who filed it can request an immediate hearing in Superior Court. If the Superior Court judge is the one who denied the TERPO or denies the final, the person who filed can appeal to the Appel Division within 45 days of the denial. Notice what they don’t say. What happens if a petition is granted? Do they tell those people that they have a right to appeal? Do they mention the appellate rights of the victim of the ERPO? No, they don’t. They only tell the person who filed the ERPO of their appellate rights. Evan Nappen 26:58 Well, let me tell you. If you are hit with these, you have appellate rights. You have the right to challenge it and appeal it. They don’t mention that on their website. It’s supposed to be so informative. To cut through the so-called misunderstandings and misinformation out there about ERPOs, but they don’t even tell you about the appellate rights for those that suffer under this non-due process red flag law. New Jersey is probably the most extreme example of ERPO in the country. If not the most extreme, then tied for it. If somebody else is out there that I’m not aware of, that has copied New Jersey’s model. Teddy Nappen 27:58 I’m just waiting for them to up the ante, where they’re going to combine it with the gun owner gulag, where we’re not only going to arrest you, we’re not just going to ruin your life and take your firearms, we’re going to hold you until trial, and the hearing also takes six months. I’m just, it comes back to the old article that you first wrote, just death penalty to gun owners. They’re at that stage. The left hates us that much, that that’s where they would see the justice, like when it comes to the justice. Evan Nappen 28:24 They’re never satisfied, and it’s always take, take, take. Then the amount that they want to take, they call a compromise. And then they come back for more “compromise” where they take more. Then they say, well, that’s a great compromise, now we want more. It’s never giving. When do you see rights expanded and respected? When do you see rights restoration to New Jersey gun owners in the broader Second Amendment sense? Only when they’re forced to do it kicking and screaming, such as with carry permits, because of the Bruen decision. They knew they had to issue them, so they created the Carry Killer Law. So, yeah, we’ll issue permits, and we’ll try to make it as impossible as we can for you to actually use the permit by creating 25 “sensitive places” in an absolutely bizarre and confusing matrix. Create all these other requirements upon anybody who chooses to have a carry permit. So, it’s always take rights, take rights, take rights. And even when they’re forced by case law to have to restore freedom, they try to find some other gambit to take freedom yet again. This is the pattern of a gun rights suppression Government. That’s what we’re dealing with here, and that’s what we see. Page – 10 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 30:05 I’m trying to remember. It was a comic artist, like, where he was a free speech advocate, Frank Miller, and there’s a famous comic image that he painted where it was speaking out against the censorship going on in the comic book industry. It’s a picture of a woman, and there are band aids covering her eyes, covering her ears, and then one about to go on her mouth. The hands with the hand blob going, this last one’s for your safety. It just, it’s that insanity twist of believing that this will actually make the community safe. Actually thinking that this will solve the problem when all it does is exacerbate it and good luck to every actual career criminal. If that’s quote unquote red flag, we’re Evan Nappen 30:57 And that’s if we are giving them the benefit of the doubt. That they’re actually doing it because they really want safety and are simply misguided or wrong. But I don’t believe that after practicing gun law for over 40 years in the state of New Jersey. I believe it’s an agenda. It’s an agenda of gun rights oppression, and its foundation is simply that of being evil and wanting to go after rights. I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt as to their intention. Their intentions are to destroy our rights. If they could repeal the Second Amendment, they would do it. Look at how draconian every gun law is in New Jersey. Look at how they don’t grandfather magazines. Look at how extreme the penalties are. Look at how they created the gun owner gulag. I mean all this that they do. I just don’t believe it’s for some noble cause. It’s more about their hatred of us, and that really is what fires them up. That’s what the Left is all about, hatred, and they hate us. And this is how their hate is translated into these so-called do-gooder laws. It just is a better explanation from my experience in seeing what the gun laws do to good people, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 32:27 Yeah. Evan Nappen 32:29 But let me tell you, it doesn’t mean that we can’t have guns, that we can’t enjoy our guns. We can still keep fighting, and we don’t want to give up. We’re making progress, even though New Jersey is the toughest environment. And this is where it’s very important that you have a range to go to, and the range where Teddy and I shoot is WeShoot. WeShoot is in Lakewood. They’re a great indoor range. They have great training and a great pro shop. You can get your certification you need, your CCARE for your carry. It’s really just a great place. WeShoot has some pretty cool stuff they’re offering in June. Here they have a Smith & Wesson Performance Center Bodyguard 2.0 Carry Comp with blue titanium finish. It is a stunning evolution of the Bodyguard platform, a very popular platform. It features all these performance center enhancements with an integrated compensator and that really cool blue titanium finish. So, check it out. I think you really dig that bodyguard. They also have a Sig Sauer P211 Comp GTO. Now, this is Sigs latest high performance masterpiece. This gun blends race gun speed with premium craftsmanship, and it just takes it to another level. They also have Henry Big Boy Steel X. Now, the Henry Big Boy is a modern lever action. It’s a powerhouse with a threaded barrel, and that’s okay. On a lever action, you can have a threaded barrel on your lever action, side loading gate, and rugged steel construction, proving that tradition and innovation can ride side by side, and so check out those. Page – 11 – of 14 Evan Nappen 34:29 By the way, Molly Friedman is joins “The Many Faces of 2A”, and she’s reminding us that the Second Amendment belongs to every American from all walks of life. WeShoot is running some great June promotions beyond those really cool guns. There’s 25% off all heritage firearms, $200 off a family membership, 10% off all new firearms, 15% off all used firearms, and 15% off private lessons. So, this is great. Get down to WeShoot. WeShoot is in Lakewood. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their website, beautiful photography. Also, pay a visit there in Lakewood, you’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 35:27 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, and explains what you need to know about New Jersey gun law. It’s used by well, everybody, that wants to know about New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy today, so you can hopefully not become a GOFU, because New Jersey loves to make GOFUs. Teddy, what else do you have that you may have discovered in your travels? Teddy Nappen 36:05 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. One of the things that is, again, we always want to do our opposition research to see what they’re currently the gun rights oppressionists are pushing or crying about. If we go to our good friends at TheTrace.org, they put out an article. “Trump’s Justice Department Is Suing Cities and States to Dismantle Gun Laws. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/06/trump-doj-civil-rights-2a-local-gun-laws/) So, again, this is where we always have to make. Evan Nappen 36:41 Make sure our listeners know that The Trace is Bloomberg’s mouthpiece, the anti-gun Bloomberg mouthpiece. So, they’re oppo research for sure. So, what do they say? Teddy Nappen 36:55 Yeah. So, they’re whining about the fact that they no longer have the strong arm of the United States government to go after our rights. Instead, oh my god, the Civil Rights Division is fighting for the Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 37:11 Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You’re telling me that the Civil Rights Division of the US government is actually fighting for the Constitution? Teddy Nappen 37:20 I know. Amazing. Evan Nappen 37:21 When did that happen? Page – 12 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 37:24 Well, apparently, and this was a big shocker, even to The Trace, where they even talk about the article. I love how there’s this. This department was used for fighting civil rights discrimination for black voting and school segregations. It has never been a focus on gun rights, said former attorney of the division, who focused on red lines, which can’t wait to hear all that wonderful things that went on with redlining. Evan Nappen 37:54 Well, so what? I mean, the Second Amendment is also a constitutional right and a civil right, and they absolutely should be protecting all civil rights. They particularly should not be going against any civil right. So, under Biden and prior administrations, they weaponized these agencies to actually go against Second Amendment rights. And now the agencies are actually doing their job and enforcing Second Amendment rights, and The Trace apparently can’t stand it. Plus, they’ve lost so much money that they used to get from the taxpayer. I mean, this is the effects of an election having consequences, and it’s President Trump and his administration that are making these great changes. You see it taking place here, and they’re upset about it. Teddy Nappen 38:49 And this is for, like, any every time I hear the black pillars go, like, he’s not doing enough for the Second Amendment, are you kidding me? Having the Civil Rights Division fighting all of these blue on-on strongholds, fighting for our rights, taking down. This is how we lost our rights through salami tactics. This is how it piece by piece, sure enough. And I love this timeline, mind you, of the Spamberg together talk. Actually, mentioned this in the trace arc about Spanberg signing the assault weapon ban. The Assistant Attorney General Dylan posts on X, see you in court. Imagine having an Assistant Attorney General in your Government saying we’re going to fight to defend your rights. When was that ever in any administration? Evan Nappen 39:41 Take on the state that’s stomping on Second Amendment rights. But, Teddy, you mentioned the black pillars. Just so our listeners know, what does that term mean? The black pillars. It’s not about race at all. What does that term mean? Teddy Nappen 39:56 They’re the horseshoe right. They’re the ones arguing that Donald Trump hasn’t done enough. He hasn’t met any of his promises. And look, no one is perfect. No one can. He is not a king. He can’t just snap his fingers and say, all right, we’re going to send in all the National Guard and point the guns at all the governors and force them to sign bills recognizing the Second Amendment. Like that’s not how that works. It’s about fighting in the system. Going after these policies state by state through the courts, because believe me, they’ve had all their politically appointed judges. I mean, they just did an Executive Order. He did an Executive Order stopping the massive funding to the H1b allowing them to get houses. A judge stopped that through a judge blocking, blocking. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 40:49 The activist judges are always causing him problems, and he has to go to higher levels to overturn. We see it every time. They are the appointees, normally from the prior administrations, and this is where Trump’s breaking the mold of the old government ways. And these judges can’t believe that somebody would actually have the balls to do that, and yet he does. Hey Teddy, I want to mention about this week’s GOFU. It’s very important. As you know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups, and we want to make sure that our listeners learn these expensive lessons for free that others have learned. I’m going to have you tell us what you think is a good GOFU for this week for us to discuss. Teddy Nappen 41:48 So, this is something that I’ve been seeing with all the primaries coming up. I always like to imagine all the Democrat candidates just get handed the talking points, like it’s a sheet, like, okay. What gun control thing are we pushing for? For some reason, they’ve all dragged out the “safe storage” as the next big dog whistle of an issue that they’re trying to make relevant. Safe storage, we need to push for it. It was Tallarico, you know, the vegan. Whatever. This guy is are moron, but he pushes for “safe storage” laws requiring safe storage of firearms to keep everyone safe. Evan Nappen 42:30 Now, under Heller, you’re not required to lock up your safety. Heller addressed that in the original decision, but New Jersey does have a law that says you cannot allow a minor to access a loaded firearm. So, when it comes to minors accessing your guns, New Jersey also makes transfer laws, so that you can’t transfer temporarily a firearm, even your spouse or family member, unless you’re at the range or while hunting. There are issues with transfers, and there are issues that have to do with storage. But what they’re looking to do here is create what is mandatory storage requirements, so that, you know, while someone’s breaking into your home, you just got to ask the hot home invader, you know, that’s doing a hot robbery. Just give me a second, so I can get my gun out of the safe, okay? I’ll be right with you while they’re going to rape and kill your family. So, this is a problem. Evan Nappen 43:42 But the GOFU component, particularly in New Jersey, is making sure that you don’t have unauthorized parties access your firearm. You never let a minor access a loaded firearm unless it’s where you’re within an exemption. Where they’re under your direct supervision, but you know, just leaving it at home unlocked, where a minor can access it, you’ve got criminal potential problems there. And then on storage of your firearm, under the Carry Killer law, you’ve got to make sure that if you’re going to use that exemption, that your gun is unloaded and locked. You know, secured in that manner. Otherwise, you can get charged for improper storage of your firearm in violation of the Carry Killer law and sensitive places. Evan Nappen 44:43 These are the areas where storage in New Jersey takes on a legal component, where you can end up with a GOFU. But what you’re talking about is also very important, because it’s another foot in the door by the antis to try to abuse the storage laws to disenfranchise and take away gun rights. New Jersey has done that to a certain degree here in the Carry Killer law, and some of the other laws that they put forward about having to secure firearms. It’s designed to create disenfranchisement of Second Page – 14 – of 14 Amendment rights, arrests, and even at minimum taking away gun licenses over the use of these rules that they again put forward in the name of public safety and do it even contrary at times to the decision in Heller. Evan Nappen 45:48 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 45:59 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E294_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

We Like Shooting - Ep 665 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) C&G Holsters (Code: WLSISLIFE) Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Blue Alpha Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Second Call Defense Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT (Nick) Nick's Dumb 6.5 Creedmoor Nick's Dumb 6.5 Creedmoor DERYA RELEASES THE RAN AND RAN Derya RAN and RAN-X Series Lever-Action Rifles Derya announced the official launch of its RAN and RAN-X lever-action series, featuring modernized designs with factory-integrated aftermarket upgrades including threaded barrels, M-LOK forends, and adjustable stocks. Available in .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt, the series will be showcased at GunCon 2026. Derya has launched the RAN full-size and RAN-X compact pistol lever-action series in .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt. The rifles feature a mono-block steel receiver, threaded suppressor-ready barrel, M-LOK compatible forend with Picatinny rail, fixed front and adjustable rear sights with optics rail, and rebounding hammer. The RAN offers wood or patented adjustable aluminum Ironwolf stock options while the RAN-X uses a 12″ barrel with Steelfang PSB Ironwolf grip system at 22.95″ overall length. BULLET POINTS SOLDIERSYSTEMS Roni Nano Roni Pistol-to-Carbine Conversion Kit Houston, TX – Roni Corporaton, the leading designer and manufacturer of the renown Micro-Roni, PDW-style pistol-to-carbine conversion kits and other fi … The Nano Roni is Roni's most compact pistol-to-carbine conversion kit that installs a handgun into a chassis in seconds without tools, transforming it into a pistol-braced PDW. It includes a complete system with chassis plus accessories such as magazine holders, light mounts, Picatinny rails, charging handles, optics mounts, slings, and a belt holster. Initial compatibility covers multiple Glock models with additional Glock, SIG Sauer, Taurus, and Canik models planned; available in black, OD Green, and Flat Dark Earth. THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS Can You Shoot 5.56 Through a .22 Suppressor? – The Truth About Guns Can you shoot 5.56 through a .22 suppressor? Usually no. Here's why pressure, heat, and gas volume matter so much. The article addresses whether .556/.223 ammunition can be safely fired through a standard .22LR (rimfire) suppressor. In the general case, it is not safe or recommended. Most dedicated rimfire suppressors are engineered only for the much lower pressures, smaller gas volumes, and reduced heat produced by .22LR, .22WMR, or similar rimfire cartridges. NSSF NSSF Releases Most Recent Firearm Production Figures (ATF AFMER 2023) Over 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles in Circulation WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, released the Firearm Production in the United States including the Firearm Import and Export Data 2025 Edition (reporting 2023 data) to its members. The report compiles the most up-to-date information based on data sourced from the Bureau of Alcohol, […] According to the NSSF article dated January 15, 2026, ATF AFMER data shows 2023 U.S. domestic firearm production at 8,466,729 units, a 15.4% decrease from 2022. Total firearms made available for the U.S. market in 2023 were 13,574,653 (handguns 8,176,535; rifles 3,899,907; shotguns 1,498,211). Cumulative civilian firearms in possession 1990–2023 reached 506.1 million, with modern sporting rifles (MSRs) in circulation estimated at over 32 million. GUN FIGHTS Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. BANGRANK A live cast ranking segment for anything and everything in the gun world, powered by questionable certainty, strong opinions, and audience voting. THE AGENCY BRIEF Agency Update 1. AGENCY BRIEF: RUBY RIDGEWhat Ruby Ridge really was: a federal pressure campaign over a minor, technical gun charge that turned into a botched siege, unconstitutional rules of engagement, and the killing of a mother and her child. The setup started in 1989. The ATF wanted an informant inside Aryan Nations circles in northern Idaho. They targeted Randy Weaver, an Army veteran living off-grid with his family. Weaver had racist beliefs and associations, but constitutional limits matter most when the person in the government's sights is unpopular. The ATF used an informant to cultivate Weaver and buy two shotguns. The agency claimed the barrels were cut a fraction of an inch below the 18-inch legal minimum. Whether Weaver cut them at the informant's request or sold them as-is is heavily disputed. What is confirmed is what happened next: the ATF did not arrest him to protect the public. They used the federal firearms charge as leverage to pressure Weaver into becoming a paid snitch. Weaver refused. Because he refused, the ATF pushed the case to prosecutors, and Weaver was indicted in late 1990. Then came the bureaucratic failure. Weaver's court-appointed attorney was sent a notice with the wrong appearance date, and Weaver missed his hearing. Instead of resolving a government paperwork error cleanly, the system escalated. The U.S. Marshals launched an 18-month surveillance operation on his remote cabin. In August 1992, an armed reconnaissance team of Marshals encountered Weaver's 14-year-old son Sammy and family friend Kevin Harris in the woods. A firefight erupted. Exactly who fired first remains disputed, but the results are not: the family dog was killed, Sammy Weaver was shot and killed while running back toward the cabin, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan was killed. The FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was called in to take over. Instead of containment, the FBI adopted modified, unconstitutional rules of engagement. In plain English, agents were told they “could and should” shoot any armed adult male seen outside the cabin. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi fired two shots. The first wounded Randy Weaver. The second shot, fired as Weaver and Harris retreated, passed through the cabin door and hit Vicki Weaver in the head while she stood in the doorway holding her 10-month-old infant. She died instantly. The legal aftermath demolished the government's narrative: A federal jury acquitted Kevin Harris of murder on self-defense grounds. Randy Weaver was acquitted of all original firearms and murder charges, convicted only of failure to appear and a bail condition violation. A 1995 Department of Justice review found the FBI's modified rules of engagement unconstitutional. The federal government paid over $3 million in civil settlements to the surviving family. Despite Senate hearings and state-level indictments, no federal agent ever served a day in prison for the killings. 2. WHY IT MATTERS Ruby Ridge is the ultimate case study in how federal agencies use technical firearms violations to manufacture leverage, and what happens when their targets refuse to bend. This operation was never about public safety. It was about coercion. When Weaver wouldn't play ball, the agency's objective shifted from investigation to punishment, kicking off a predictable escalation ladder: Use a regulatory charge as a trap. Demand intelligence cooperation, and turn refusal into a target on the citizen's back. Treat a procedural court-date mistake as a fugitive manhunt. Deploy paramilitary recon teams for a paperwork warrant. Rewrite deadly force rules on the fly to authorize a shoot-on-sight posture. Once federal agencies invest that much time, manpower, and ego, the institutional pressure to justify the operation takes over. They stop seeing citizens with rights, and start treating them as enemy combatants on American soil. 3. THE 2A ANGLE For gun owners, Ruby Ridge is the blood-soaked warning label on every “it's just a paperwork violation” argument. The underlying charge was a National Firearms Act measurement. That is the exact kind of regulatory trap Washington loves to describe as narrow, reasonable, and harmless. But in practice, technical gun laws give agencies the legal cover to ruin lives. That is the modern lesson for FFLs navigating zero-tolerance revocations, home builders facing shifting administrative definitions, and ordinary owners one bad pistol-brace ruling away from becoming a federal case file. Apply the Supreme Court's Bruen standard to the government's actions. There is zero text, history, or tradition from the founding era of a permanent federal bureaucracy measuring the barrels of defensive weapons to coerce citizens into acting as informants, and then militarizing a warrant service when the citizen refuses. The Founders would not recognize a system that turns a man into a felon over a quarter-inch of steel. Heller proved that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. But rights on paper mean nothing if the enforcement state can use a minor regulatory allegation to justify surveillance, coercion, and deadly force. The strongest takeaway from Ruby Ridge is that when the federal government wields broad, discretionary power over firearms, abuse is not a glitch. It is the natural result. When agencies can turn a fractional barrel measurement into a capital siege, the process itself becomes the punishment. Being technically compliant doesn't protect you; it just makes you useful until you aren't anymore. GOING BALLISTIC AMMOLAND SHOOTING SPORTS NEWS(Savage) NRA, FPC, SAF v. Maryland (SB 334 Glock-Style Handgun Ban) NRA, FPC, and SAF filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland's SB 334, arguing the state's Glock-style handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition,...

From Connecticut's new Glock ban and Virginia's sweeping gun control agenda to Delaware's controversial permit-to-purchase law, the war on gun rights is escalating nationwide. After the landmark Bruen decision reaffirmed Americans' right to bear arms, gun-control advocates didn't quit—they simply changed tactics.

If you care about gun rights, the Second Amendment, constitutional carry, self-defense, Supreme Court rulings, Bruen, R-15s, Glock pistols, firearm ownership, government overreach, constitutional freedoms, and the future of American liberty, this episode is REQUIRED listening.

In this explosive episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters welcomes Paul Markel of Student of the Gun for a hard-hitting discussion on the rapidly expanding effort by anti-gun lawmakers to ban some of America's most popular firearms.

We Like Shooting - Ep 664 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Blue Alpha Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Guests: Tom Bowers – Bowers Group – https://bowersgroup.com Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT Foxtrot Mike ISU-9 Foxtrot Mike ISU-9 INSTAGRAM(Savage) Stuff and Things o”ST”-14 Groza Kit for PSA Krink 5,048 likes, 78 comments – stuffandthingsinc on May 25, 2026: "The time hath come.". The o”ST”-14 Groza Kit from Stuff and Things is a simplified engineering copy of the Russian OTs-14 Groza bullpup conversion, designed as a bolt-on kit for PSA Krinkov/AK-74U pattern firearms in .300 Blackout or 5.56. The reel from stuffandthingsinc announces that Grozas are shipping this week and displays kit components including the carry handle with installed rear sight, grip module with installed trigger, and linkage. It is an all-metal kit with black phosphate finish that requires no permanent modification to the host firearm (though some fitting may be needed due to AK tolerances). PROOF RESEARCH(Nick) Pxt A New Era of Rifle Barrel Technology The PXT story began around 2018, as the U.S. military pushed to extract greater performance from existing weapons platforms. That effort led PROOF into medium-caliber cannon barrel development and forced a complete reassessment of rifling profiles, twist rates, pressure, projectile behavior, and barrel… BULLET POINTS PEW REPORT Glacier National Park Grizzly Bear Attack on Anthony Pollio On or about May 3, 2026, 33-year-old Anthony Pollio was killed by a bear on the Mount Brown trail in Glacier National Park. A can of bear spray was found near the site. The article contrasts this with the 2014 Mount Brown Trail incident where Brian Murphy successfully stopped a charging grizzly using bear spray followed by one shot from a .357 Magnum revolver at 7-10 feet, after which the bear went down and stopped moving. The .357 Magnum round did not kill the bear but incapacitated it temporarily. No recorded deaths in North America when a handgun was fired in defense against a bear. PEW REPORT Arsenal Inc. Open Letter to NSSF on Virginia Assault Weapons Ban Arsenal Inc., a Nevada-based firearms manufacturer and importer (associated with K-VAR.com), published an open letter dated May 22, 2026, responding to Virginia's newly signed assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban effective July 1, 2026. The letter frames the law as an unconstitutional restriction that creates legal uncertainty, compliance burdens, and business paralysis for citizens, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, ranges, and trainers nationwide, citing precedents in California and Washington. Arsenal Inc. announces immediate heavy discounts and prioritized shipping for Virginia customers through June 19, 2026, while calling on the NSSF and the broader firearms industry to provide coordinated legal, grassroots, and public support, treating the issue as national rather than state-specific. PEW REPORT AI Could Render the Federal Ban on Creating a Gun Registry Obsolete Article discusses a University of Wyoming Firearms Research Center working paper arguing that AI systems could create ‘registry-equivalent knowledge' by extracting, linking, and inferring firearm ownership data from ATF's existing 921 million digitized records (including Form 4473s, out-of-business dealer records, and NICS metadata containing names, addresses, and serial numbers). This would bypass the intent of 18 U.S.C. § 926(a) prohibiting any system of registration of firearms, owners, or transactions, especially as federal AI policy integrates more data. No specific firearms, accessories, or field gear are mentioned. GUN FIGHTS Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. WLS IS LIFESTYLE Pistol Grip Angle: Ergonomics and Natural Point of Aim Considerations does grip angle matter on pistols. GOING BALLISTIC BEARINGARMS.COM(Savage) Washington State Gun Control Laws Fail to Curb Crime on Seattle's Aurora Avenue Seattle residents struggle with rising crime despite Washington state's gun control laws. Washington state has enacted multiple gun control measures including waiting periods, red flag laws, universal background checks, high-capacity magazine bans, and assault weapon bans. Despite these, residents near Aurora Avenue in Seattle report uncontrolled drug dealing, prostitution, and shootings, with minimal response from city officials. Neighbors have erected reinforced barriers and posted “No Gunfire” signs while the mayor's office announced increased patrols by the Gun Violence Reduction Unit and community-led efforts; the article argues the focus on lawful gun ownership over criminal enforcement, combined with local taxes driving out FFLs, has left residents scrambling for protection and exercising Second Amendment rights. BREITBART(Savage) Indiana Police Chief Earl D. Mayo Faces Felony Charges for Allegedly Selling Guns from Evidence Room The police chief of New Chicago, Indiana, Earl D. Mayo, is facing felony charges over accusations that he sold guns from police investigations to a pawn shop. Earl D. Mayo, 45, Chief of the New Chicago, Indiana Police Department, was arrested in Clark County, Ohio and charged with seven felonies (two counts of theft, two counts of official misconduct, one count of attempted obstruction of justice, and two counts of unlawful possession of anabolic steroids) plus one misdemeanor theft count. He is accused of selling guns seized during police investigations to a pawn shop. A 47-year-old woman, Taneka Roshawn Borders, faces related charges of attempted obstruction of justice and possession of anabolic steroids for allegedly attempting to repurchase one of the guns on his behalf with $600. BEARINGARMS.COM(Savage) Virginia Governor Spanberger and AG Jay Jones Respond to Prosecutors Refusing to Enforce Assault Firearm and Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Virginia officials respond as prosecutors refuse to enforce new gun and magazine ban laws. Multiple Commonwealth's Attorneys and sheriffs across Virginia have publicly stated they will not enforce new laws banning the sale, manufacture, transfer of assault firearms and magazines over 15 rounds, plus a public carry prohibition on assault firearms, citing unconstitutionality. The measures take effect July 1. AG Jay Jones and a spokesperson for Governor Spanberger issued statements urging enforcement, emphasizing the laws were passed by the General Assembly to reduce gun violence. BEARINGARMS.COM(Savage) The Left Seems to Be Waking Up to Racist Gun Control Laws – Bearing Arms (Tom Knighton, May 26, 2026) Exploring racial bias in gun control laws and the ongoing fight for equal Second Amendment rights. This Bearing Arms opinion column discusses a Slate article by Aymann Ismail detailing his multi-year struggle to obtain a Firearm Purchaser Identification in New Jersey due to discretionary permitting practices by the Newark Police Department. The piece highlights historical racist motivations behind many early U.S. gun control measures (targeting non-whites and Catholics) and draws a through-line to modern subjective permitting systems that produce racial disparities in approval rates. It references the 1868 Camilla Massacre in Georgia as the origin of a now-invalidated ‘public gathering' carry prohibition and argues that the Supreme Court's Bruen decision properly eliminated such discretionary laws prone to abuse. GUNS.COM(Savage) Firearm Freedom Act (H.R. by Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-FL) to Repeal Hughes Amendment The Firearm Freedom Act would eliminate the legacy Hughes Amendment that bars the purchase, ownership, and transfer of newly manufactured machine guns made after 1986. The Firearm Freedom Act, introduced by Republican Rep. Jimmy Patronis of Florida in May 2026, seeks to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The Hughes Amendment prohibits the purchase, ownership, and transfer of newly manufactured machine guns made after 1986. The bill is endorsed by Gun Owners of America; no cosponsors, passage status, or court cases are mentioned in the source article. PEW REPORT GOA and GOF File Lawsuit Challenging Virginia SB749 Assault Weapons Ban and SB727 Public Carry Ban Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and 2A journalist John Crump filed suit against Virginia SB749 and SB727. The bills criminalize purchase and transfer of commonly-owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines while restricting public carry/self-defense; both take effect July 1. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment and injunction, arguing the measures violate the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. PEW REPORT Nebraska Woman Injured by Shotgun Accidentally Discharged by Dog in Vehicle, Scottsbluff On Saturday in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, a woman standing at a traffic light near a convenience store was struck in the arm by a shotgun pellet after a dog in the back seat of a nearby truck triggered the discharge of a loaded shotgun. The injury was non-life-threatening; she was hospitalized. Police determined the vehicle had a damaged door from the blast and noted that Nebraska law prohibits transporting a loaded shotgun. PEW REPORT Maryland SB 334 (2026) – Criminal Law – Firearm Crimes – Machine Gun Convertible Pistols (Glock Ban) Governor Wes Moore signed SB 334 into law....

Virginia's new gun control agenda just triggered one of the biggest Second Amendment legal battles in America. In this explosive episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters breaks down the massive federal and state lawsuits targeting Virginia's sweeping gun ban legislation, while top Second Amendment leaders and self-defense attorneys reveal what happens next. Guests include: Rachel Moss John Comerford AWR Hawkins Phil Van Cleave Topics covered include: Virginia gun ban lawsuits explained NRA, GOA, SAF and VCDL legal action DOJ Civil Rights Division involvement AR-15 bans and Supreme Court implications Self-defense law and social media dangers Prosecutors using online posts against gun owners Castle Doctrine and home invasion defense Constitutional carry, reciprocity and 2A rights ATF changes under new leadership Why this fight could reshape gun rights nationwide This may become the MOST IMPORTANT Second Amendment battle since Bruen, Heller and McDonald. Gun owners across America are watching Virginia because the outcome could impact AR-15 ownership, concealed carry rights, magazine bans, self-defense law and the future of the Second Amendment for decades.

Virginia's new gun control agenda just triggered one of the biggest Second Amendment legal battles in America. In this explosive episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters breaks down the massive federal and state lawsuits targeting Virginia's sweeping gun ban legislation, while top Second Amendment leaders and self-defense attorneys reveal what happens next. Guests include: Rachel Moss John Comerford AWR Hawkins Phil Van Cleave Topics covered include: Virginia gun ban lawsuits explained NRA, GOA, SAF and VCDL legal action DOJ Civil Rights Division involvement AR-15 bans and Supreme Court implications Self-defense law and social media dangers Prosecutors using online posts against gun owners Castle Doctrine and home invasion defense Constitutional carry, reciprocity and 2A rights ATF changes under new leadership Why this fight could reshape gun rights nationwide This may become the MOST IMPORTANT Second Amendment battle since Bruen, Heller and McDonald. Gun owners across America are watching Virginia because the outcome could impact AR-15 ownership, concealed carry rights, magazine bans, self-defense law and the future of the Second Amendment for decades.

Virginia's new gun control agenda just triggered one of the biggest Second Amendment legal battles in America. In this explosive episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters breaks down the massive federal and state lawsuits targeting Virginia's sweeping gun ban legislation, while top Second Amendment leaders and self-defense attorneys reveal what happens next. Guests include: Rachel Moss John Comerford AWR Hawkins Phil Van Cleave Classic AAR Roundtable Topics covered include: Virginia gun ban lawsuits explained NRA, GOA, SAF and VCDL legal action DOJ Civil Rights Division involvement AR-15 bans and Supreme Court implications Self-defense law and social media dangers Prosecutors using online posts against gun owners Castle Doctrine and home invasion defense Constitutional carry, reciprocity and 2A rights ATF changes under new leadership Why this fight could reshape gun rights nationwide This may become the MOST IMPORTANT Second Amendment battle since Bruen, Heller and McDonald. Gun owners across America are watching Virginia because the outcome could impact AR-15 ownership, concealed carry rights, magazine bans, self-defense law and the future of the Second Amendment for decades.