Podcast appearances and mentions of judge friedman

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";

Historian Kevin Impellizeri shares a story of a video game controversy to his friends: Kate Lynch, Ryan Weaver, and special guest Jay Brandstetter from the internet history podcast I'm From the Internet.  This time around, as we await the long-anticipated release of Grand Theft Auto VI, we go back to the well of stories about infamous anti-video game lawyer Jack Thompson and take a closer look at his legal feuds with Rockstar and Take-Two.Topics discussed include: we nerd out over the Saints Row series, Bully, and early 2000s wrestling; the corrupting influences of Dennis the Menace and Home Alone; Jack fights a judge and nearly winds up in jail, and Jack Thompson: classic rock fan.If you liked this episode, you owe it to yourself to read through Jack's 2008 disbarment ruling. See: The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson, Case No. SC 07-80: 71, https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/375112/file/07-80_ROR.pdf.Be sure to check out the Peaceaholics' August 25, 2006, protest of Bully: TSP Episode 1: Peaceholics' protest of Rockstar,” softwarepirate, August 25, 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm6An_SPGQw. You can also read Thompson's full, unabridged rant against Judge Friedman over his Bully ruling here: “Thompson Verbally Attacks Judge,” Kotaku, October 13, 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20061030105555/http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thompson-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php. Be sure to check out Jay's show, I'm From the Internet, wherever you get your podcasts: https://shows.acast.com/im-from-the-internet-a-podcast-about-somethingawfulcom.More info, including show notes and sources at http://scandalousgamespodcast.wordpress.com. 

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff to discuss Judge Friedman rejecting the Defense Department's revised press rules, the D.C. Circuit denying Anthropic's petition for a stay pending review of the enforcement of its supply chain designation, Judge Sorokin rejecting the Justice Department's attempt to obtain Massachusetts voter records, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In  recent developments, a New York appeals court breathed new life into another gag order directed at President Trump. Prior to this, former President Donald Trump had been restrained from issuing negative remarks about court personnel in a ruling by New York Judge Arthur Engoron in early October. The development came as a response to an incident involving social media discourse directed at a member of Engoron's legal team by Trump. At the moment, the former head of state is knee-deep in a legal battle as he faces significant charges of business misconduct. These allegations are brought forth by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a key figure in the investigations shepherding this legal skirmish. In this protracted legal drama, every court session and social media flitter provide fresh material for the public and political pundits alike. A temporary pause on the application of Engoron's directive was earlier issued by Judge David Friedman of the appeals court. On November 16, Judge Friedman cast the spotlight on a fundamental question: might such an order be perceived as an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the former president? This respite, however, did not last, as the gag order was again confirmed in the recent ruling. Engoron's directive was said to have been circumvented by Trump even before the stay came into effect. The court had imposed a penalty on the former president amounting to $5,000 on October 20th due to the perceived breach. With the alleged disregard of the ruling continuing, further sanctions accompanied the initial fine only 5 days later.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SEASON 2 EPISODE 76: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) It is time for the government of the United States to ban “X” – the social media site still primarily known as Twitter - and to terminate all government contracts with its owner. Under Trump the government moved to ban TikTok as a security risk to the United States, so there is precedent for at least the attempt, because a process that has been accelerating for more than a year reached a climax Wednesday when owner Elon Musk answered a blatantly antisemitic tweet with the reply quote “you have said the actual truth.” Combined with surging anti-semitism throughout the website, and the use of Nazi hate speech and paraphrases of infamous Hitler quotes by the likely Republican candidate for president, the tinderbox of antisemitism has never been fuller or drier and Trump and Musk seem determined to light it ablaze – and with it, light ablaze the peace and security of this nation. Musk's bizarre running of the Twitter-X platform had already destroyed more than half its value and even more of its advertising. Yesterday afternoon, IBM announced it was pulling its already-scheduled ads for the next three months – the New York Times says that was a million dollars' worth. Rather remarkably, as of the close of business yesterday The New York Times had not yet cancelled Musk's scheduled appearance twelve days from now at a Times event it calls its “DealBook Summit” which it describes as the gathering of quote “the most consequential leaders in business, politics, and culture,” unquote… and, I guess, the most consequential leaders in antisemitism. As the snowball rolling down the hill toward her reached speeds of about a thousand miles an hour, Musk's hand-picked CEO Linda Yaccarino posted a comment at 3:45 PM Eastern that seemed crafted by the nation's finest satirical comedians, or maybe Tim Robinson in the hot dog suit and the “We're All Trying To Find The Guy Who Did This” meme. Quote: “X's point of view has always been very clear that discrimination by everyone should STOP across the boad – I think that's something we can and should all agree on. When it comes to this platform, X has also been extremely clear about our efforts to combat antisemitism and discrimination. There's no place for it anywhere in the world – it's ugly and wrong. Full stop.” If taken sincerely and literally, Yaccarino's only possible next action would be… to suspend Elon Musk's account. Musk has gone down a path from which he cannot backtrack. Twitter-X – at least HIS version of it – must be banned, and government contracts and other agreements – local, state, national - with his other firms: Space-X, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and xAI must be terminated. Today. There is no other option. B-BLOCK (17:50) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: The George Santos ethics investigation is in. He doesn't have any. Remarkable research that suggests the Republicans haven't ONCE needed his vote. Paul Pelosi's attacker is found guilty, as is a J6 insurrectionist that MAGA has convinced itself was actually a Black Lives Matter Antifa George Soros plant.(22:50) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: It's an ugly word and Caitlyn Jenner just proved she doesn't know how to spell it. It's the word "Congresswoman" and Trump Junior just proved he doesn't know how to pronounce it. And it may be the last words Charissa Thompson ever says as a sportscaster. The former Fox Sports football sideline reporter volunteers the startling information that several times she DIDN'T interview the coach at halftime and simply lied and made up what she thought he would've said. Unless...she made THAT story up too. C-BLOCK (30:30) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: One James Thurber short story, above all others, is in the college textbooks and high school textbooks and middle school textbooks. And there's a reason for it: "The Night The Bed Fell."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Bob talks with Judge Dan Friedman about the little known facts of the Maryland constitution.   #HCC #howardcounty #marylandsupremecourt #marylandjudges #judges

Judge Karen Friedman is the Director of Criminal Justice Innovation, Development and Engagement, at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, at the U.S. Department of Justice ( https://bja.ojp.gov/bio/karen-friedman ), a position she was appointed to by President Biden on January 3rd of 2022. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) was created in 1984 to reduce violent crime, create safer communities, and reform the U.S. criminal justice system, and helps America's state, local, and tribal jurisdictions reduce and prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and promote a fair and safe criminal justice system. BJA focuses its programmatic and policy efforts on providing a wide range of resources, including training and technical assistance, to law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, reentry, justice information sharing, and community-based partners, to address chronic and emerging criminal justice challenges nationwide. Judge Friedman comes to this important role after serving over 20 years as a member of the Maryland Judiciary sitting in Baltimore. In that capacity she served on every level of trial court and completed her service on the Baltimore City Circuit Court, the highest trial court in the state. She headed Baltimore's drug treatment court and sat on the judiciary's Equal Justice Commission's sentencing subcommittee. Judge Friedman is known in Baltimore for her expertise on the intersection of criminal justice with behavioral health, as well as for her innovative approach to sentencing and probation. She is looking forward to using the wealth of knowledge gained on the bench in Baltimore to help improve the lives of those affected by the criminal justice system. Judge Friedman earned her undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and her law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. She is also the host of the Justice Today Podcast, the official podcast of the Office of Justice Programs

Look who’s talking today on Rolonda On Demand! Baltimore Judge Karen Friedman lays down the law on how #COVID19,, the #BLM Movement, #mentalillness and the recent surge in #crime and #donesticviolence are affecting the #criminaljustice system. Plus, Judge Karen and I have an open and honest conversation about the historic bond between Blacks and Jews on the frontlines of #racialjustice and how that historic bond is needed now more than ever. In this episode of Rolonda On Demand, I continue my cool conversations about race, class and justice with Baltimore's Judge Karen Friedman who expresses grave concern over the rise of hate crimes, including anti-semiticism, most hurtfully and recently from Black celebrity, Nick Cannon. Judge Friedman cites the historic bond between Blacks and Jews and encourages continued bonding, learning each others' history and counseling in some cases over cancelling. Judge Karen grew up in Brooklyn, New York in an Orthodox Jewish family. She attended a right wing all Jewish Orthodox school but was raised in an “open-minded” family. She credits this open-mindedness for her success. While her brothers all became rabbis, Judge Friedman became a judge. Her mother maintained a business while her father was a business school professor. At the age of 19 Judge Friedman moved to Maryland and would go on to attend the University of Maryland School of Law. The connections she made at the law school and the friendships she forged proved to be a great asset to her in the future. When a Probate Judge died, she was asked to fill the vacant position, and was appointed Probate Judge by Governor Paris Glendenning shortly thereafter. Her career has since taken her to the District Court of Maryland and finally the Baltimore Circuit Court – the highest-level trial court in the state. Judge Friedman described the relationship between her public position and her faith throughout this account. Judge Friedman also talks about: How Class is as big a controversial issue as race in America. (18:36) Mental Illness and the Law (20:50) Have Prisons Become the Depositories of Society's Ills? (22:40) The Anatomy of a Troubled Kid from the Hood in Her Courtroom (27:20) The Rise of Domestic Violence Under Coronavirus Pandemic & Lockdown The Rise of Crime in America - To Say It's Down is "Completely False" (41:30) How Jews Have Also Suffered from Hatred & Stereotypes (45:30) This and so much more on today’s #podcast! Watch now on YouTube at https://youtu.be/PP_OKYC-m6I Listen now on iTunes at RolondaOnDemand.com! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features a previously un-aired portion of the season one episode “Long Road to Hard Truth: The 100 Year Mission to Create the National Museum of African American History and Culture.” On that episode, Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sat down with Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to talk about his book of the same title. During the recording of that episode, Judge Wilkins mentioned a personal experience that he went through in the 1990s, a lawsuit that he filed against the Maryland State Police. This lawsuit ended up being a game changer. Judge Friedman asked Judge Wilkins to share his story, which we now present in this standalone episode.

On this Thanksgiving Day weekend join Dr Jasser as he reflects on all we can be thankful for with all the blessings we have living in the freest nation on earth. Also this week a federal judge dealt an unexpected blow to the first test of a 1996 federal law against FGM (female genital mutilation). Judge Friedman declared the entire law banking FGM unconstitutional nullifying years of FBI work on the torture of young girls by radical Michigan doctors. Zuhdi discusses why conservatives cannot let radicals seek refuge in federalism. The federal government failed to protect young girls. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Stuart Friedman retired in early January, 2019, after three decades on the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Bench. He spoke with host Darren Toms about his education, law career and time on the bench. Judge Friedman also discussed the two things he's most proud of during his time as a Judge.

Judge Friedman is an Associate Judge on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, 8th Judicial Circuit. She was the first female orthodox judge in the state of Maryland and has been leader and role model for inspiring change. Among many accomplishments Judge Friedman was listed in Maryland's top 100 women by the daily record.