Podcasts about lawful commerce

Episode 268-Tresspassing on Our 2A Rights Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 268 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun rights, Assembly 6211, criminal trespass, sensitive places, carry killer bill, Supreme Court, trespass law, private property, research facilities, utility company property, school property, fourth degree crime, defiant trespasser, gun attorney, national reciprocity. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, the New Jersey gun rights oppressors are at it again. They have a bill that is apparently moving forward. It is Assembly No. 6211, and apparently they’re trying to jam it through before the end of the year here. (https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/A6211/bill- text?f=A6500&n=6211_I1) You know, it’s on the fast track, apparently. We’ll see. This bill is to make and criminalize the going into a place that you would otherwise be legally allowed to carry, but for giving a, putting up a sign that says “no carry”. Now, the Attorney General, as you may be aware, in New Jersey, is giving away these free signs. You know, prohibiting guns on premises, but the law regarding that falls into trespass. It’s not actually part of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” in the Carry Killer bill. Evan Nappen 01:34 Because in the Carry Killer bill, there was an extreme property ban that basically said about private property, that any private property you had to have a sign that gave you permission to have your gun. In other words, there needed to be a sign out on any private property you were going to go into with your gun. And that would include businesses and anywhere else that said, essentially, hey, we love guns. Bring in your gun, you know, in so many words. Now that was shot down by the court in the federal litigation, you know, which was brought to you by the State Association, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They challenged it in federal court in front of Judge (Renee Marie) Bump. And what happened was the judge basically ruled, and this is a current law in New Jersey, that when it comes to private property, if it’s open to the public, it’s not a prohibited area. You don’t have to get prior permission if it’s open to the public, unless it’s somehow otherwise a prohibited place. So, you know, if you want to walk into 7-11 with your gun, it’s open to the public, and they don’t need to have a sign that says guns are permitted. You’re good to go. And that’s how it currently is. Page – 1 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:02 But as you may be aware, Hawaii passed a similar law, and it got upheld there. It didn’t get knocked out the way we did in New Jersey. They said, oh no, you need their prior permission. This law is now upheld there, and the Supreme Court of the United States has taken up that case. So, we’re going to get a SCOTUS ruling on the legality of that type of anti-gun and oppression-type law that they love to pass. We’re going to probably get some great, I’m hopeful, to get some great law out of the Supreme Court that we can use to fight other sensitive places. But what New Jersey is now doing, and this is something they try to do, they’ve done it in other areas, is they try to figure out sneaky end runs. Sneaky ways to oppress our rights. Sneaky ways to get around laws that protect our rights. Evan Nappen 04:11 So, you know, they’ve done it and attempted to do it with PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, where they’re not, under federal law, dealers and manufacturers and stuff are supposed to be protected. But New Jersey created this whole consumer protection angle that they’re exploiting to try to get around that so they can try to litigate, you know, gun shops and manufacturers out of existence, using and abusing consumer protection laws. Well, now what they’re going to do here with this bill is abuse the trespass laws in such a manner. Because it’s not the classic “sensitive place” that was in Carry Killer bill, but instead, they’re amending the trespass law in New Jersey to pull this off. Evan Nappen 04:59 Here’s what they’re doing. It falls under N.J.S. 2C:18-3, which is New Jersey’s trespass law. And this is to create criminal trespassing while carrying a firearm. You see how they put criminal trespassing while carrying a firearm. But really what it’s doing is criminalizing carrying a firearm into private property that says no guns, which is contrary to essentially the sensitive place victory that we had. It probably is going to be further decimated by the Supreme Court in its discussion, but nonetheless, New Jersey now has the following offense. So, if it passes, and they’re pushing to pass it, a person commits an offense if, knowing that the person is not licensed or privileged to do so, the person enters or surreptitiously remains, so just go with enters. Don’t worry about your staying, you know, secretly there. But enters any research facility, structure, so there’s a comma after research. So, that’s a standard research facility. It’s not just about research facilities, research facility. Evan Nappen 06:24 But they hide this stuff in there so that, you know, it’s way broader than it’s initially appearing. Research facility, structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, or in or upon utility company property, or in the sterile area or operational area of an airport. So, buried in this presentation of saying, oh, we’re protecting research facilities, utility company property and airports, is the very broad structure prohibition, just stand alone structure. It’s not just structures of a research facility or a utility company or an airport. Then it says an offense under this subsection is a crime of the fourth degree. That’s up to a year and a half in State Prison, by the way. If it is committed on a school property, see, school property is part of this. Why? Because that goes to that structure, you see. Oh, well, of course, we want to keep guns out of school. So, that’s okay. That’s where they’re right. This is their whole way of sneakily selling this. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:37 An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree, if it’s committed in a dwelling. So, this makes anybody’s home now part of this. An offense under this section is a crime the fourth degree, if it’s committed at a research facility, a power generation facility, a water treatment facility, public sewage facility, water treatment facility, public water facility, nuclear electric generating plant or any facility that stores, generates or handles any hazardous or chemical compounds. So, again, they add all that in, but don’t lose sight that all structures are still covered, even though they’re doing a laundry list of these other things to conceal what they’re doing. Don’t fall for their trick here. An offense under this subsection is a crime of the fourth degree, if it’s committed upon a utility company, and an fence is a crime of the fourth degree, if it’s committed in a sterile area or operational area of an airport. Otherwise it’s a disorderly person. Evan Nappen 08:35 So, oh, okay. If it’s another structure of some sort, you know, a dwelling, it’s just a DP, right? Wrong. Because here’s what they do. A crime of the fourth degree under this section shall be a crime of the third degree. So, they’re going to bump it up now to five years in State Prison, right? If the person possesses a firearm while committing the offense, regardless whether they have a permit to carry or not. And then get a load of the next line. A disorderly person’s offense under the subsection shall be a crime of the fourth degree if the person possesses a firearm. So, now they’re making it essentially a felony, felony, level, you know, New Jersey fourth degree. A year and a half in State Prison if you trespass in this manner. Evan Nappen 09:24 But wait, they’re not done. Because you may say, well, I would never just go into a place that I wasn’t allowed to go into. But here’s where they add in even more of the fun stuff that they use to oppress our rights. Defiant trespasser is a person that commits a petty disorderly persons offense, if the person possesses a firearm while committing the offense of a disorderly person’s offense, regardless of whether the person is a holder of a permit to carry. It doesn’t matter if the person is not licensed or if you’re knowing you’re not licensed, or enters or remains in the place, okay? And then it says. This can be given by, and here’s the punchline, folks, posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruders. That puts into place those free no gun signs, so that businesses and other places can post these signs. Now creating a fourth degree crime for taking your firearm into these places that have the “no gun” posting. Evan Nappen 10:40 Now, it claims that there’s an affirmative defense if the structure was, at the time, open to members of the public. But here’s the catch. The actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access or remaining in the structure. Oh, well, one of those conditions is no guns. So, again, they come back and get our gun rights. It makes believe it’s a defense, but it really isn’t, because of the condition that the sign creates. And that puts you back into the felony level gun rights oppression mode. Then it goes in even further to say the conspicuous posting of a sign prohibiting or otherwise indicating that it’s not permissible to carry a firearm in the structure or place shall give rise to an inference that an actor who accesses or remains in that structure or place while carrying a firearm knowingly was not licensed or privileged to enter or remain. It’s virtually like a presumption, but they’re calling it an inference. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 11:56 So, right away, if that signs there, you’re going to be subject by that inference to arrest for having your firearm. Did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining. So, again, there’s a sign, and you didn’t comply. FOURTH DEGREE FELONY for you, and you lose all your gun rights and get thrown in the Gun Owner Gulag while you’re at it. Three, did not reasonably believe that the owner of the structure or place where the other person in power to license access would have licensed them to do it and remain. So, this is their latest move, folks, to criminalize going on to property and pushing their “No Trespassing” angle. Because if the Hawaii case, depending on how it’s decided, invalidates these, in essence, the private property sensitive place prohibition, their new gambit is now doing it by way of the trespass laws. So, the gun rights oppressors are out doing their evil in their oppression of our rights. We need to stop Assembly No. 6211. It is going to be causing a lot of problems if that passes, and if it does, really what we need to do is get a website that shows every business that says “no guns”. And make sure that nobody goes to those businesses. Nobody gives those businesses any money, first of all. Teddy Nappen 13:49 I would, I would actually take it a step further. I want to do a sticker campaign where, if you see that sign, you sticker that puts on it says, rob me. Evan Nappen 13:59 Yeah, right, that’s pretty funny. Teddy Nappen 14:01 Well, I mean. Evan Nappen 14:02 Well, here’s what it is. Teddy Nappen 14:03 Pretty much, there are sending that message. Evan Nappen 14:04 Well, pretty much. They are making it much more dangerous because basically anybody seeing that sign of “no guns” knows that it is their prime target to be robbed, because they don’t believe in guns. They’re just advertising the fact that they’re helpless, defenseless, and it’s really rather stupid. But on the other hand, I’d like to see stickers out there, and there are signs and stickers that I know are available, where guns are welcome. You put the sign that you welcome lawful carriers and that ends up protecting you and others. And on the same website, we should list these places that welcome guns, and those are places that our business needs to go to. We need to use the power of our dollar to make them pay or to benefit those that try to stand up for our rights. So, this is their latest attack. We want to make you aware of it and stay vigilant. If you belong, which hopefully you do, to the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, you will probably receive the email alert about this very thing. Also, NRA and others, I’m sure, will be putting it out there, but this is what we’re up against here in New Jersey. Page – 4 – of 11 Evan Nappen 15:33 I have a couple other things to talk about real quick here. I want to mention that Toms River is now the 13th municipality to nullify carry permit fees. So, if you live in Toms River and you apply for a carry, they are going to refund the $150 to you that New Jersey requires that you pay. That’s really great. Congratulations to Toms River for joining the other 12 states, that these states, I mean other towns, not states, sorry, other towns. They are now the 13th town to do it, municipality. The other thing interesting about Toms River is that they have approved over 1600 post-Bruen carry applications. Toms River is apparently the second largest number of approved post-Bruen permits. I’m getting all this from an article from our good friend, John Petrolino, at Bearing Arms. (https://bearingarms.com/john- petrolino/2025/12/11/toms-river-marks-13th-nj-municipality-to-nullify-carry-permit-fees-n1230887) John Petrolino does great research and writing, and he has a particular focus, as well, on New Jersey. This is really interesting stuff, and it’s great to see the municipalities. The other municipalities, by the way, so, the list is Englishtown, Howell, Toms River, Beachwood, Butler, Dumont, Franklin Borough, Hardyston, Hopatcong, Medford Lakes, Vernon, Cresskill, and Redington. Boy, it feels like I’m reading a school closing list almost, doesn’t it? But those are the municipalities that have decided to refund all or part of permit fees. So, good work to those towns and those that helped to get that through. Evan Nappen 17:28 And by the way, I want to mention that John Petrolino has another article in Bearing Arms. He’s very much on top of these issues, and it’s titled, “Are We Closer to Getting a True Accounting of New Jersey Carry Permits?” (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2025/12/10/are-we-closer-to-getting-a-true- accounting-of-new-jersey-carry-permits-n1230878) And what John has done is filed under essentially the Freedom of Information legislation that New Jersey has, their version of it, which is the Open Public Records Act. And he’s looking to get the number of carry permits determined. And although we have some numbers, the problem is that it lists approved applications, but that’s not necessarily the number of currently valid permits to carry. Additionally, the carry permits do not include retired law enforcement permitting that occurs under 39-6. So, he’s looking to get the numbers of RPOs out there that have carries as well, because they’re still civilians, even though they’re retired police, and those, too, are carry permits. And knowing this information is important, as it shows more and more folks out there exercising their rights and carrying to defend themselves and others. Evan Nappen 18:55 I also want to point out another interesting headline here that I caught. This, too, is from Bearing Arms and is by Cam Edwards. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/12/11/north-carolina-womans- lawsuit-gives-scotus-a-chance-to-establish-national-reciprocity-n1230888) I think this is really exciting. You know, we all want to see national reciprocity. And there is a bill pending, you know, HR 38, and we may see some action on it. They’re pushing it in the federal, in the Fed there for Congress to get it passed. But the problem is, of course, the Democrats, who always want to oppress our rights, and it seems that when it gets most likely to the Senate overcoming cloture, the filibuster, the Democrats are going to again kill anything that expands our ability to enjoy our Second Amendment rights. Now, maybe it’ll go through. Maybe some will see the light. There’s always a chance, and it would be great. I’m not getting my hopes up for it to pass until we get the 60 votes of solid Second Amendment Page – 5 – of 11 supporters in the Senate, but it’s good to at least get on record those oppressors of our Second Amendment rights for election time. So, if it doesn’t pass there, that’s still worth the effort. Evan Nappen 20:14 However, what is interesting is we may be able to get national reciprocity from court action, from judiciary, from challenges brought up to the Supreme Court. And this is very interesting. Because the article, “North Carolina Woman’s Lawsuit Gives SCOTUS”, which is, of course, Supreme Court of the United States, “a Chance to Establish National Reciprocity”. So, that’s exciting. What happened was Eva Marie Gardner was driving in Montgomery County, Maryland, and her car was allegedly hit by an assailant, who ran her off the road before exiting his vehicle and rushing towards her. She said she screamed for him to get away, but when he continued advancing, she drew her pistol in self-defense. She never fired a shot. When the police arrived on the scene, they ended up releasing the man who ran her off the road and arrested Gardner for illegal possession of her firearm. She now lives in North Carolina but had a valid concealed carry permit from Virginia. However, Maryland doesn’t recognize carry permits from other states, and she was ultimately convicted despite raising Second Amendment claims. Evan Nappen 21:39 So, she filed on her own after fighting this, after the Maryland Supreme Court denied her case. She took the case to the Supreme Court, filing a cert petition on her own behalf, asking for this consideration. And apparently one of the judges in the Supreme Court took a great interest in it and asked for the State to file response. And because of that, this is exciting, Gardner also filed a full faith and credit argument. You know, that one state needs to recognize another state’s documents, and not only that being a Second Amendment protection. Evan Nappen 22:26 And, you know, ordinarily, a pro se petition has very little chance of the Supreme Court taking it, but because one justice took an interest in it after Maryland waived its right to respond, you now see that some top litigators in the Supreme Court are taking up her case. The Second Amendment Foundation is also filing an amicus, and this is really good stuff. So, there is a chance here, based on this pro se petition from this woman who defended herself and then, of course, became victimized by Maryland’s anti-gun law that doesn’t recognize any other states outside permit. This may be the case, if SCOTUS takes it, that can force national reciprocity by way of our constitutional rights, and that would be fantastic. It will negate the need for Second Amendment legislation to pass, or maybe pave the way for it to pass, who knows? But that is something exciting that we’re going to be keeping an eye on, and we hope to see success. And, man, I will be ecstatic, and I’ll be the first to be telling you if SCOTUS takes a national reciprocity case. Evan Nappen 23:57 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. Teddy and I just re-qualified down at WeShoot for our New Jersey carries. We did our CCARE. It was great. We love WeShoot. It’s a great place to shoot with great training. And they are running some awesome specials. They, of course, have the BUL Armory UR, which is a double-stack race gun. And they have the Springfield Saint Victor V2, which is really cool gun. It has next-gen ergonomics, flat-faced trigger, and top-tier reliability for defense or Page – 6 – of 11 range work. And they have a Ruger LC Carbine. And they’re running some super sales. It’s their last sale of 2025, and you should check out these sales that are going to go from now until the 24th. They’re offering a two-hour private lesson with 20% off. They have 1,000 rounds of nine millimeter for only 245 bucks. That’s a great deal. They have carry classes at 10% off. They have 200 rounds of .223 for $119.99. They’re offering 5% off gift cards at $100 or more. They’re offering 500 rounds of .380, for 149.99. They have Radical Firearms FR15 for only 499.99. They’re offering $300 off double action defense pistols. They have the ATI AR-15 for 399.99, and they’re offering $500 off Phoenix Trinity Firearms. So they are running some great sales. Evan Nappen 25:53 And guess what? It doesn’t end there. They’re doing 10% off all Glock pistols they have. WeShoot pistol bags for 9.99. Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 for 385. And 10% off Vaulttek Safes and accessories. They have 15% off Stopbox Safes. 25% off all used guns. 25% of all used guns. 15% off Byrnas. 10% off Savior Gun Bags, etc. They are running just tremendous sales. And that’s not all of them even. So, listen, get down to WeShoot, and check out these great sales. They’re running great prices. The sales extended. They’re offering even super deal on individual membership and upgrades. Go to weshootusa.com. They’re right there in Lakewood, easily accessible off the Parkway. It’s where Teddy and I shoot, and you’ll love to shoot there, too. Check out WeShoot. Evan Nappen 27:02 Also, let me mention again, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They’re there fighting the fight for us. Man, they’re in the trenches, battling it out in federal court. We should have some exciting developments. Probably next show I’ll be telling you about something very exciting happening in federal court with the state Association. It’s really great stuff. We’ll be very excited about it. I have to just make it as a teaser for now, though. And they’re challenging the magazine ban and the assault firearm ban. They have a full time lobbyist. I mean, this is our group so we can fight the gun rights oppressors. You need to be a part of our state association. Go to anjrpc.org, anjrpc.org, and make sure you join. Evan Nappen 27:59 Also, make sure you get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of New Jersey gun law. You can go right to EvanNappen.com and order your copy. It’s over 500 pages, over 120 topics, all question and answer. It is a book relied upon by thousands upon thousands of New Jersey gun owners. It’s a book used by the State Police Firearms Division, lawyers, judges, and most importantly, so many great shooters and listeners to the show. And I know how much you love it. It’s a labor of love for me to write it. When you get the book, scan the front QR code, and join my private database of subscribers that get the updates. You can immediately access the archives and get the updates. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 28:52 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and honestly, this was born out of a meme. Where, you know, you’re scrolling through, you’re trying to find, and I saw this one little post. It said, the UK, 30 years ago, disarmed themselves, and now they’re arresting you for Facebook posts. Let that sink in. Page – 7 – of 11 Now, I knew the UK disarmed themselves, but I had no idea what he was referencing. And as someone who likes to understand history, I found that it was referencing the Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contents) Teddy Nappen 29:35 So, just pause for a moment. You have James Carville, who’s making the argument that if the Dems ever take back power, they’re going to make Puerto Rico a state. They’re going to make D.C. a state. And they’re going to pack the court. So, with that in mind, in their goal to “save democracy”, I think to myself. If the Left had unfettered power, no roadblocks, what would they do to destroy our rights? And after reading this bill, here it is. Looking at the UK, it is the future, if they ever take back power, and what they will do to destroy our rights. So, I pulled it up right off of the UK Government website. They’re bragging about it for anyone to, you know, if anyone wants any new ideas. Here’s, here’s, what they can look at. So, the subsection describes weapons that are prohibited, and there shall be inserted the following. Any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length, or less than 60 centimeters in length overall, other than air weapons, small caliber pistol, muzzle loading gun, or firearm designed with signaling apparatus. Then it goes into its laundry list of except for slaughtering instruments, firearms used for humane killing, not human killing, humane killing of animals, and shot pistols for shooting vermin. By the way, all these require a firearm certificate. Evan Nappen 31:14 Wait a minute. They didn’t see No Country for Old Men, I guess, because they still. Teddy Nappen 31:17 No, I guess not. Evan Nappen 31:18 Yeah, right, huh, yeah. Teddy Nappen 31:20 Call it like, yeah. Evan Nappen 31:24 Call it. Teddy Nappen 31:26 And they go, and, by the way, each of these has to earn, you have to qualify for a firearm certificate, because they will just say the after the constabulary has to say, well, sorry, we don’t think you this is gonna go for that. And also, they have races at athletic meetings. Oh, I love this one, trophies of war stuff obtained in 1946 as a trophy of war so, you can keep it. Still off. Evan Nappen 32:00 Can you keep it? Or do you have to turn it in? Or do you have to d-wat it? Page – 8 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 32:03 Well, here’s the crux of it. It has to be used for exhibit or display, which goes into for that, or any firearm prior to 1919. And again, it has to be earned by certificate. Evan Nappen 32:17 So, they’ve created these incredibly onerous, it sounds like they basically banned all handguns there, and just continue to be the formerly Great Britain. And since the banning of all these guns, and the turn in of all these guns, and not only guns, but they also do it to knives, too. Teddy Nappen 32:43 Correct. Evan Nappen 32:43 Now they’re going, now they’ve focused on speech because they’ve got nothing to worry about. They disarmed the citizenship. Teddy Nappen 32:52 Yeah, and also, if you were to violate said prohibition, it’s five years states prison. So, you know, might as well keep to like, Jersey standard. You know, five years. Evan Nappen 33:04 Yeah. I mean, it’s pretty weird that Great Britain can actually make New Jersey at times look pro-gun. Teddy Nappen 33:12 Yeah. Evan Nappen 33:12 I mean, that’s pretty sad. Yeah. Teddy Nappen 33:15 This is the worst offense, and this is the part that’s disgusting. It just shows you the abuse of rights. The power of the search warrant. If a justice of the peace, or in Scotland, Sheriff, is satisfied by information on a reasonable grounds that a suspect offense is about to or is committed, or the connection to a firearm ammunition, that there is a danger to public safety or peace. What does that mean if you have a connection to a firearm? Let’s say, I don’t know, making a Facebook post about you shooting in Texas and then coming back to the UK. They can get a search warrant to search your premises and arrest you promptly for any connection to a firearm. Evan Nappen 34:01 Well, the only difference there, Teddy, is New Jersey already has that. It’s just that you’re not arrested. That’s a TERPO (Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order) right there. That is New Jersey’s TERPO. Now you just get your guns seized and your house searched and your gun rights taken. The UK is going to arrest you and criminally charge you. But New Jersey doesn’t have any due process up front on the Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order, basically what’s called Red Flag. And that standard Page – 9 – of 11 is very similar to what you just said in the UK. So, we’re not, we’re really not that far behind in New Jersey from totalitarianism, oppression of our Second Amendment rights. And it’s just disgusting. We’re following this same model in the former, that the formerly Great Britain is doing. Teddy Nappen 34:54 Yeah, and to be, to set the tone. And this is something for the UK to think about. You guys do realize that you’re, that the whole point of the Second Amendment is to defend yourself. And case in point, as they always like to say, well, we don’t have very much gun crime. However, your rapes ticked up about, oh, I don’t know, 15 times from the early 2000s to 2024. Now it’s up to 71,000 rapes a year, which, you know, if you’re letting in massive amounts of Afghans who commit rape up to 17 times more than a native born. Yeah. Evan Nappen 35:40 Well, you know, now you’re touching on that whole other wokey, crazy issue where they’re not getting the assimilation. Not getting assimilation to whatever their culture formally was. I mean, they don’t seem to care, though, you know. I guess they’re, they’re motivated in taking away rights of their citizens, and yet the crime wave that they’re experiencing is disgusting. They get denied their rights to defend themselves, and for that matter, they have the most effective means to defend themselves. Even though the statistics show pretty clearly what the problem is. And yet they’ll try to blame everything else but what factually stares them in the face. So, it’s a shame, but we’ve got to take warning and heed in New Jersey. Because we’re heading down that path, and it’s getting worse and worse. The only thing on the good news is with Supreme Court taking two gun cases, hopefully taking more, with federal law changing, with the Justice Department looking at civil rights violations as through Second Amendment laws that oppress, and that they will be going after these states and other localities. There’s a lot that we can at least be hopeful about here, because as we stay vigilant, it is not all doom and gloom, though. There are things that we should be positive about, and we just have to keep on fighting, and that’s what we’re going to do. Evan Nappen 37:36 Now, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, folks. This GOFU, as you know, is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. These are expensive lessons that clients have learned that you get to learn for free and not repeat them. And this week’s GOFU is about stolen guns. If you have a gun that you think is lost or stolen, I want to remind you that New Jersey requires you to report it within 36 hours. If it’s lost or stolen, the law states that you have 36 hours to report it, and if you don’t report it, then you can face serious problems. Including the use of your failure to report, and we’ve seen this, to take away your gun rights, to move to revoke your gun licenses, permits, and this is how they will use it. Even though you’re a victim of theft, they will still try to use that against you. Evan Nappen 38:44 And keep in mind, you have an obligation to report it, but keep in mind that after you report it, there is a decent chance, we’ve seen it, that they will then use the fact that you reported a gun stolen or lost to still try to take away your rights. But at least you were conforming with the law when we have that fight. This is the game that’s out there, and it’s really a problem. Because they want guns reported stolen and you do need to report them stolen, you’re failure to do so can have bad ramifications. But even when Page – 10 – of 11 you do report it stolen, prepare yourself that you may be facing licensing actions over that. If you end up where you have a gun that you think is missing or stolen and you want to know what you need to do, you need to call a gun attorney right away and discuss your specific fact circumstance so that it can be properly dealt with and you can prepare for any potential ramifications. Evan Nappen 39:48 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 39:58 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. Page – 11 – of 11 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S3 E268_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";

Josh Koskoff, the lawyer for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, did what most thought was impossible. He prevailed in a lawsuit against Remington Arms, the company that manufactured and marketed the AR-15 rifle that was used to murder 20 children, between six and seven years old, and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But obtaining justice for the families wasn't easy. In part 1 of our conversation with Josh, we talk about the lawsuit. In part 2, we talk with Josh about the lawsuit he brought against Alex Jones of Info Wars, who said the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The massacre occurred on December 14, 2012. Before driving to the school, Adam Lanza, the gunman, fatally shot his mother. He killed himself after killing the 26 students and staff members. The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in Connecticut history and the deadliest at an elementary school in U.S. history.In December 2014, nine families filed suit in Connecticut against Bushmaster, Remington Arms, Camfour, a distributor of firearms, and the store where Lanza's rifle was purchased. The case was brought as an exemption under the 2005 Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The families claimed that the AR-15 was suitable only for military and police use and that Remington inappropriately marketed it to civilians. Filing the complaint in Connecticut was the beginning of a seven-year saga. Remington tried to move the case to federal court and to have the case dismissed. There was much legal maneuvering. Eventually, Remington persuaded the trial court to dismiss the case. The families appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court decided in a 4–3 vote to reverse parts of the trial court's rulings and sent the case back to the trial court for additional hearings. Remington asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, but the Supreme Court declined. In July 2021, Remington again asked the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge denied Remington's request. The next day, Remington offered $33 million to be shared by the nine families. In early 2022, Remington agreed to settle for $73 million.

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFLPayments, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. - Rare Breed's aggressive litigation tactics and questionable patent claims have led to widespread criticism and legal challenges, highlighting the potential for abuse within the patent system. - A recent ATF letter regarding the improper pinning and welding of a Beretta 71 barrel extension has been misinterpreted and sensationalized by gun rights groups, causing unnecessary panic among gun owners. - The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in favor of Smith & Wesson against the Mexican government's lawsuit underscores the protection provided by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, though it also reveals the court's hesitancy to address broader Second Amendment issues promptly. Let's talk about Rare Breed and how right we were Suing People all over the place, while settlement faces scuttlement Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman Nothing burger about pin and welds, sky is falling it's so over etc etc MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss Smeet and BESSON beats out the MEXICO in SCOTUS UNAINUMmous decsicion1!! FFL Payments scoot-us says "we're sorta busy right now, can you check back in a couple years and we can care about your rights then?? k thx pal." Patriot patch Co. TWIG10 us GOOBERMANTZ files AMERICUS breief agsint the ILLANNOYING ass alt bweapons ban   Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction and sponsors 1:05 Rarebreed situation update, legal actions, and implications 13:09 ATF pin and weld controversy and GOA's FOIA findings 23:19 Supreme Court ruling and misconceptions about common use test 38:29 US government's brief and amicus briefs in Illinois assault weapon ban 47:01 Upcoming episode teaser and closing remarks  

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can U.S. gun manufacturers be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government. Mexico had accused the companies of facilitating illegal firearms trafficking that contributed to cartel violence within the country.The Court's opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers against lawsuits arising from the criminal misuse of their products. While PLCAA includes an exception for cases where a manufacturer knowingly violates federal or state laws related to firearm sales or marketing, the Court found that Mexico's allegations did not meet this threshold. Specifically, Mexico failed to demonstrate that the manufacturers knowingly aided or abetted illegal trafficking beyond lawful commerce practices.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Cities and states have been trying to put gun manufacturers out of business for decades with frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the criminal use of their products. This got to be such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now Mexico has joined the fight, blaming Smith & Wesson for their drug cartel problems.

Send us a textThe communist-controlled Connecticut State legislature is attempting to pass yet another civilian disarmament law that they suppose will allow them to circumvent the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). Meanwhile, 19 of their fellow communists in Georgia were arrested in April for child sex trafficking, one of them being a former candidate for Georgia's 139th House District, who was lauded by the civilian disarmament cartels (Everytown, Commie Mommies, Giffords, etc.) as a "gun sense candidate", who also made online threats and calls for assassination against President Trump, while citing the 2nd Amendment as being the justification for his actions. The irony being that he was calling for the Secret Service to shoot Trump.But these are the people that want us to give up our guns to them? Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: BooksVoice of the Blue (buzzsprout.com)

Key Points: Arkansas is requiring public and charter schools to provide annual gun safety education to all students, with parental consent needed for hands-on training. The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in NRA v. Bondi upholding Florida's ban on firearm sales to individuals aged 18-20 has been criticized for ignoring historical context and relevant laws. The Supreme Court heard arguments in Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Mexico, where Mexico's attempt to sue American gun manufacturers under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was met with skepticism from the justices.

On todays Show Maddie and TFT talk about the legal case of Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson, where Mexico sued U.S. gun manufacturers for alleged involvement in crimes in Mexico. The district court dismissed Mexico's complaint citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Mexico appealed, arguing an exception for unlawful involvement. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed, citing evidence of marketing tailored to cartels. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case, with potential implications for gun manufacturers and the Second Amendment. The discussion centered on Trump's political strategies, including his need for loyal Congress members and his actions against opponents. Trump's decision to primary Massey was debated, with speculations about Massey's vote against a continuing resolution as the potential insult. The conversation also touched on Biden's use of auto pins for presidential actions, raising constitutional questions. Additionally, the group discussed Kamala Harris's apparent incoherence, the Epstein files, and the potential suppression of incriminating information. They also mentioned Houston's efforts to deport 650 criminal immigrants and the re-tasking of an app to help immigrants deport themselves legally. And yes Podbean still SUCKS.

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence. The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law. The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court. Featuring: Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent IWA Show, the Supreme Court's handling of assault weapons bans, and the debate over handgun sales to young adults. The episode also delves into specific state legislation in Alabama and Indiana, the implications of the term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law, and the potential impact of Jeff Bezos's pledge to promote personal liberties at the Washington Post. Additionally, the episode addresses Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, highlighting the complexities of gun control and personal liberties. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle for gun rights in America, focusing on the experiences of Andrew Pollack, a father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting. The conversation delves into the implications of red flag laws, the harassment faced by the Pollack family, and the broader debate surrounding gun-free zones. John Lott, a prominent figure in the gun rights movement, provides insights into the challenges and misconceptions surrounding gun control policies, emphasizing the need for a more informed discussion on the topic. gun rights, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, gun legislation, firearms industry, personal liberties, gun control, IWA Show, Alabama gun laws, machine guns, gun rights, red flag laws, Andrew Pollack, school safety, gun-free zones, crime research, John Lott, armed American radio, conservative voice, second amendment, Armed American Radio, Zelensky, Ukraine, Trump, political commentary, military engagement, deep state, accountability, state of the union, leadership Takeaways The IWA Show highlighted international concerns about shooting sports. The Supreme Court's indecision on the assault weapons ban raises hopes for gun rights advocates. Young adults' rights to purchase handguns are under scrutiny in the courts. Current gun laws often lead to absurd situations, such as legal loopholes for young adults. The term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law is being misinterpreted by some judges. Alabama's unanimous vote to ban machine gun conversion devices reflects political dynamics. The Indiana court ruling on machine guns raises questions about Second Amendment protections. Bezos's commitment to personal liberties at the Washington Post could influence gun rights discussions. Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers challenges the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The ongoing debate over gun rights requires vigilance and active participation from advocates. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and personal. Red flag laws can lead to unjust consequences for individuals. Andrew Pollack's story highlights the dangers of political harassment. Gun-free zones may not provide the safety they promise. The media often overlooks the motivations of mass shooters. Law-abiding citizens face penalties that deter them from self-defense. The importance of understanding the definitions of mass shootings. Public opinion can be swayed by misinformation about gun laws. The role of concealed carry in enhancing school safety. Engaging in the political process is crucial for protecting rights.    

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent IWA Show, the Supreme Court's handling of assault weapons bans, and the debate over handgun sales to young adults. The episode also delves into specific state legislation in Alabama and Indiana, the implications of the term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law, and the potential impact of Jeff Bezos's pledge to promote personal liberties at the Washington Post. Additionally, the episode addresses Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, highlighting the complexities of gun control and personal liberties. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle for gun rights in America, focusing on the experiences of Andrew Pollack, a father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting. The conversation delves into the implications of red flag laws, the harassment faced by the Pollack family, and the broader debate surrounding gun-free zones. John Lott, a prominent figure in the gun rights movement, provides insights into the challenges and misconceptions surrounding gun control policies, emphasizing the need for a more informed discussion on the topic. gun rights, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, gun legislation, firearms industry, personal liberties, gun control, IWA Show, Alabama gun laws, machine guns, gun rights, red flag laws, Andrew Pollack, school safety, gun-free zones, crime research, John Lott, armed American radio, conservative voice, second amendment, Armed American Radio, Zelensky, Ukraine, Trump, political commentary, military engagement, deep state, accountability, state of the union, leadership Takeaways The IWA Show highlighted international concerns about shooting sports. The Supreme Court's indecision on the assault weapons ban raises hopes for gun rights advocates. Young adults' rights to purchase handguns are under scrutiny in the courts. Current gun laws often lead to absurd situations, such as legal loopholes for young adults. The term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law is being misinterpreted by some judges. Alabama's unanimous vote to ban machine gun conversion devices reflects political dynamics. The Indiana court ruling on machine guns raises questions about Second Amendment protections. Bezos's commitment to personal liberties at the Washington Post could influence gun rights discussions. Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers challenges the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The ongoing debate over gun rights requires vigilance and active participation from advocates. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and personal. Red flag laws can lead to unjust consequences for individuals. Andrew Pollack's story highlights the dangers of political harassment. Gun-free zones may not provide the safety they promise. The media often overlooks the motivations of mass shooters. Law-abiding citizens face penalties that deter them from self-defense. The importance of understanding the definitions of mass shootings. Public opinion can be swayed by misinformation about gun laws. The role of concealed carry in enhancing school safety. Engaging in the political process is crucial for protecting rights.  

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding gun rights and legislation with guests including Alan Gottlieb and Cam Edwards. The conversation covers the recent IWA Show, the Supreme Court's handling of assault weapons bans, and the debate over handgun sales to young adults. The episode also delves into specific state legislation in Alabama and Indiana, the implications of the term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law, and the potential impact of Jeff Bezos's pledge to promote personal liberties at the Washington Post. Additionally, the episode addresses Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, highlighting the complexities of gun control and personal liberties. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle for gun rights in America, focusing on the experiences of Andrew Pollack, a father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting. The conversation delves into the implications of red flag laws, the harassment faced by the Pollack family, and the broader debate surrounding gun-free zones. John Lott, a prominent figure in the gun rights movement, provides insights into the challenges and misconceptions surrounding gun control policies, emphasizing the need for a more informed discussion on the topic. gun rights, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, gun legislation, firearms industry, personal liberties, gun control, IWA Show, Alabama gun laws, machine guns, gun rights, red flag laws, Andrew Pollack, school safety, gun-free zones, crime research, John Lott, armed American radio, conservative voice, second amendment, Armed American Radio, Zelensky, Ukraine, Trump, political commentary, military engagement, deep state, accountability, state of the union, leadership Takeaways The IWA Show highlighted international concerns about shooting sports. The Supreme Court's indecision on the assault weapons ban raises hopes for gun rights advocates. Young adults' rights to purchase handguns are under scrutiny in the courts. Current gun laws often lead to absurd situations, such as legal loopholes for young adults. The term 'dangerous and unusual' in gun law is being misinterpreted by some judges. Alabama's unanimous vote to ban machine gun conversion devices reflects political dynamics. The Indiana court ruling on machine guns raises questions about Second Amendment protections. Bezos's commitment to personal liberties at the Washington Post could influence gun rights discussions. Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers challenges the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The ongoing debate over gun rights requires vigilance and active participation from advocates. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and personal. Red flag laws can lead to unjust consequences for individuals. Andrew Pollack's story highlights the dangers of political harassment. Gun-free zones may not provide the safety they promise. The media often overlooks the motivations of mass shooters. Law-abiding citizens face penalties that deter them from self-defense. The importance of understanding the definitions of mass shootings. Public opinion can be swayed by misinformation about gun laws. The role of concealed carry in enhancing school safety. Engaging in the political process is crucial for protecting rights.  

The US Supreme Court hears argument March 4 in a case over gun industry protections from lawsuits. The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges. Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast. Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This week Kevin and Josh sit down for fireside chat and a discussion of "hot topics" We talk about recent hunting experiences, Josh with deer and coyote and Kevin with lack of deer. Then get into talking about some "Hot Topics" for Michigan folks. We discuss several bills and changes that have been proposed and some voted on already. 1st one is the license fee increases. HB 6229: The bill would raise the license to fish from $25 to $38 for residents and from $78 to $88 for nonresidents. It also lower the age requirements for acquiring a fishing license from 17 to 16 years old. Hunting licenses would be changed as follows, Wild Turkey - from $15 to $23, Waterfowl - from $12 to $18, Pheasant - from $25 to $38,Deer - from $20 to $30, Bear - from $25 to $38, Elk - from $100 to $150, Residents wishing to get a combined hunting and fishing license would pay $113. It's currently $75, For out-of-state residents, fees climb from $265 to $273, For a resident adult, from $10 to $15, For a resident minor, from $5 to $8, For a nonresident, from $150 to $163. (source https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2024-HB-6229). During a time when hunting numbers are declining, it seems the state wants to mess with the sportsmen we have left. Then we have firearms related bills, starting with the ludicrous ban on "colored guns" Senate Bill 1134 would apply to firearms which have any colors other than black, brown, dark green, silver, or similar colors. Polehanki also created the exception for already possessed “deceptively colored” firearms before the effective date of the bill, if passed. For those who possess such “deceptively colored” firearms may face a $500 fine or a year in prison. Next would be Senate Bills 1149 & 1150: Propose restrictions on "home built" firearms and the raw materials used to make them. Even though it is legal, under federal law, for a person to make a firearm for their personal use using non serialized components, and selling them is already illegal. This would affect the sale and or possession of 80% lowers and other similar components. Senate Bill 942: would ban bump stocks, making them illegal to own, sell, or possess in Michigan—imposing stricter regulations than those governing machine guns. This comes despite the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the federal ban on bump stocks earlier this year. House Bills 6183, 6184, and 6185: Directly undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by abolishing immunity for firearm manufacturers and opening them up to frivolous lawsuits and vastly increased liability exposure. These bills also mandate the purchase or offer for sale of a trigger lock or secure storage container when transferring a firearm, which again, is already a requirememt. House Bills 6144, 6145, and 6146: Require law enforcement agencies to destroy any firearm that has been confiscated or returned during a "gun buy-back". (source https://www.nraila.org/articles/20241213/michigan-take-action-against-anti-gun-legislation-today) There are more as well, including House Bills 6222 and 6223: Require anyone selling a firearm to report any attempt by a prohibited person to acquire said firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours. Failure to do so would be a FELONY. SB 857 and SB 858: Expand "gun-free zones" in Michigan by prohibiting gun owners from carrying a firearm in the Michigan State Capitol Building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building, with an exception for legislators. The Capitol Commission in recent years banned both open and concealed firearms carry in the Capitol and Democrat leadership restricted citizens' rights to carry in legislative office buildings by rule. This legislation would expand and codify those restrictions into state law, making it near impossible for citizens to regain the right to carry in these areas. House Bills 5450 & 5451: Mandate public schools annually post and distribute information regarding the state's mandatory storage laws to the parents and guardians of every enrolled student. (source https://www.nraila.org/articles/20241213/michigan-take-action-against-anti-gun-legislation-today) It really seems that during this lame duck session the democrats are trying to ram through a lot of restrictions. As we have said before, you voice is the sword we need to wield in these battles. Contact your reps, make you voice heard. If you don't do your part, you can't complain when your rights and lifestyle are affected. As always, THANK YOU for listening. Predator Thermal Optics code "ptothermal" for 10% off all Predator Thermal Optics brand Scopes and Monoculars www.predatorthermaloptics.com www.predatorhunteroutdoors.com code: tripod for 10% off tripods and mounts code: light for 20% off lighting products Predator Hunter Outdoors www.huntwise.com code: OVERDRIVE20 for 20% off an annual membership HuntWise Oak Ridge Customs ATN Prym1

Episode 212- Exposed! The Gun Rights Oppressors Newest Tactic  Also Available On Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer-- Episode 212 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey lawsuit, gun rights oppression, civil tort system, Protection of Lawful Commerce, public nuisance law, NSSF vs. James, gun industry

The Student Note Writing Process: Exploring One of the Biggest Parts of Law Review that You Didn't Know Existed (Part I) In part one of this two part series, Lucy Chin (Lead Online Editor, Volume 108) talks with three Minnesota Law Review Editors whose Student Notes were published in this year's volume of Minnesota Law Review. Discussing both the substantive areas of law that each student wrote about and the process that makes up the note writing process, these episodes provides insight and perspectives on one of the biggest parts of the Law Review experience, which you may not have even known existed! The Minnesota Law Review Editor's featured and their articles: Earl Lin - Sidestepping the Escherian Stairwell: Explicit Establishment as a Method for Circumventing Qualified Immunity's Constitutional Stagnation z.umn.edu/MLRLin Ryan Liston - The Press Clause Needs Teeth: The Case for Strengthening Constitutional Press Protections at Protests z.umn.edu/MLRListon Evan Dale - Help Me Sue a Gun Manufacturer: A State Legislator's Guide to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Predicate Exception z.umn.edu/MLRDale Read the latest issue and archives of the Minnesota Law Review -> https://minnesotalawreview.org/ Follow the Minnesota Law Review on Twitter -> twitter.com/MinnesotaLawRev Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting https://law.umn.edu

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, Founders of Survivors Empowered, join Deepak Puri, CEO of The Democracy Labs, to discuss their reaction and activism as a result of the murder of their daughter Jessi, killed in the Aurora Colorado theatre 2012 mass shooting.  Their organization is focused on regulating companies that sell ammunition and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Deepak, Sandy and Lonnie talk about: Who is selling ammunition and what information is being collected Who is building arsenals of ammunition, and the role of online sellers Addressing the trauma of survivors and victims of gun violence National actions being taken to repeal the PLCA act that provides immunity to gun sellers  #SurvivorsEmpowered @TheDemLabs #MassShootings #Ammunition #GunViolence #NRA #Activism #AssaultWeapons #RepealPLCA Survivors Empowered TheDemLabs.org

The Mexican government has won its appeal to bring a civil lawsuit against a number of American gun companies. Mexico, which has extremely restrictive gun laws, claims that the ‘deliberate' business practices of these US firms results in the illegal flow of firearms into Mexico, contributing to the gun crime violence in the country. They are now seeking as much as ten billion dollars in compensation. The gun companies, which include some of America's oldest established names in the firearms business, deny any wrongdoing. Since 2005, these companies have being granted immunity from prosecution under the ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'. This law protects the firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. But Mexico's argument is that PLCAA, as it's also known, only applies within the United States and therefore doesn't protect the companies from liability.It's a case which is also resonating with other Latin American countries who have been impacted by illegal gun trafficking from the United States. Some of these countries have supported Mexico's claims in the courts. And they will be watching closely to see if Mexico's lawsuit, the first by a sovereign state, can set a precedent.So on this week's Inquiry, we're asking ‘Can Mexico win its battle with US gun companies?'Contributors: Ioan Grillo, journalist and author focusing on Organised Crime, Mexico Adam Winkler, Cornell Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, California, USA Robert Spitzer, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Political Science, SUNY Cortland; Adjunct Faculty Member, College of William and Mary School of Law, USA Dr. León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Senior Researcher, Asser Institute for International and European Law; Academic Supervisor, International Law Clinic on Access to Justice for Gun Violence, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Journalism Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Cameron Ward Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Image: Reuters via BBC Images

We've found a dose of optimism amid America's exhausting gun debate. And it's located in the incredible life story of Jason Kander: a former Army intelligence officer and political prodigy, knighted by Barack Obama himself, who had to drop out of politics, entirely. But now, one week after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl parade, Kander — a fifth-generation Kansas Citian — tells us how the gun industry's biggest scam is also its greatest legal strength. And why one relatively unknown piece of legislation, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is the key to changing everything. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We've found a dose of optimism amid America's exhausting gun debate. And it's located in the incredible life story of Jason Kander: a former Army intelligence officer and political prodigy, knighted by Barack Obama himself, who had to drop out of politics, entirely. But now, one week after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl parade, Kander — a fifth-generation Kansas Citian — tells us how the gun industry's biggest scam is also its greatest legal strength. And why one relatively unknown piece of legislation, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is the key to changing everything. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We've found a dose of optimism amid America's exhausting gun debate. And it's located in the incredible life story of Jason Kander: a former Army intelligence officer and political prodigy, knighted by Barack Obama himself, who had to drop out of politics, entirely. But now, one week after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl parade, Kander — a fifth-generation Kansas Citian — tells us how the gun industry's biggest scam is also its greatest legal strength. And why one relatively unknown piece of legislation, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is the key to changing everything. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We've found a dose of optimism amid America's exhausting gun debate. And it's located in the incredible life story of Jason Kander: a former Army intelligence officer and political prodigy, knighted by Barack Obama himself, who had to drop out of politics, entirely. But now, one week after the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl parade, Kander — a fifth-generation Kansas Citian — tells us how the gun industry's biggest scam is also its greatest legal strength. And why one relatively unknown piece of legislation, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is the key to changing everything. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tanya Schardt, State Policy Director for Brady United joins Tom and Megan talking why she wants to eliminate the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

How can holding gun manufacturers legally accountable reshape the fight against gun violence? In a world where accountability in various industries is becoming increasingly scrutinized, the unique legal immunity of gun manufacturers, as granted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005, poses a controversial exception. This challenges law firms and the legal industry to explore novel approaches and international avenues to advocate for change and justice in a landscape resistant to traditional civil litigation. In this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast, we're joined by Jonathan Lowy, the tenacious legal strategist behind Global Action on Gun Violence. We invited Jonathan on the show to delve into his groundbreaking work challenging the long-standing protections afforded to gun manufacturers and his effort to refashion the conversation around gun-related harm and policy as a human-rights issue. Did you know that Jonathan Lowy and his organization are part of a landmark human rights action in the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, representing victims of the tragic Parkland shooting? This is a bold move that underscores how US gun policies are not just a domestic concern but a human rights dilemma scrutinized on an international stage. Listeners can expect a riveting conversation that not only sheds light on the dark corners of the gun industry but also equips them with insights into innovative legal tactics being employed to tackle one of today's most pressing issues. Episode Rundown:    - The special legal status of gun manufacturers and the impact of the PLCAA    - Exploring the role of gun marketing tactics in gun violence    - How Global Action on Gun Violence is pioneering new strategies to hold the gun industry accountable    - The implications of gun violence as an international human rights issue    - The influence of U.S. gun policy on international concerns like drug cartels and migration    - The potential for safety innovations in firearms and the resistance from manufacturers    - A discussion of ongoing litigation efforts, including the groundbreaking case filed on behalf of the Mexican government Key actionable takeaways:    - Consider the role that international law and human rights litigation can play in circumventing domestic legal barriers    - Analyze the importance of corporate accountability in litigation strategy    - Explore the incorporation of public welfare considerations into legal practices and case arguments    As we bring this episode to a close, remember that justice often requires us to Cut to the Chase and uncover not just the surface issues but the underlying rights and responsibilities at the heart of our society. And sometimes, it's about challenging the untouchable status quos and creating movements that transcend borders. Join us next time for more insightful discussions that push the envelope of legal practice.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation's Larry Keane joins Cam with an update on the anti-gunners' efforts to do an end run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act through "public nuisance" laws, including a newly-filed challenge to Hawaii's recently enacted statute targeting the firearms industry.

JD & Clay discuss the latest G&T701 facebood poll results on best "truck gun". The guys then take a closer look at the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCAA) and what it really says and doesn't say in light of current lawsuit in the FedEx shooting. Last week over-reaching IRS and ATF agents raid a Montana Gun Shop and take 13 years worth of 4473 Forms on firearms sales, which were not even listed on the search warrant granted to the IRS. Don't want to miss the 2A Bullet Points, Clay's Commie Company of the WEEK "Don't Be a Dick", and of course Jamie's Happy Ending of The Week!! Don't miss another great Episode of GUNS and The 701!!!

In This Episode Erin and Weer'd first discuss their plans to attend the Gundie Awards in Texas, and then YouTube's harassment of content creators with gun-related channels; Weer'd again fisks the Brady Campaign Podcast, this time on the subject of community-based violence prevention; David had a chance to examine an  S&W M&P 5.7 and gives us his thoughts on it; and finally Tiny tells us the story of the time he was swatted... twice! Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic: Cam and Company: Surprising Coalition Challenging Part of NY Carry Law YouTube Says Silencer Video Takedowns, Gun Channel Deletions Were Mistakes Off the Ranch: YouTube's Final Decision on GUNTUBERS was Not Expected… Weer'd Audio Fisk: 186: Brady in Brief: We Respond to Common Arguments Against Gun Violence Prevention Safest States to Live in Brady Combating Crime Guns Initiative The evidence for violence interrupters doesn't support the hype Midnight Basketball  Erin Davis Resume Brady Litigation Parents of Colorado shooting victim nearly bankrupt after failing to sue gun retailer used by James Holmes and getting stuck with its legal fees Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act Tiahrt Amendment Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners' Names and Addresses Herald gets action! Gun sale data shared by the state taken down Gun Lovers and Other Strangers M&P 5.7 FN 5.7×28mm .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire 9×19mm Parabellum M&P 5.7 Picture M&P 5.7 Stripped Brena Bock Author Page David Bock Author Page Deep Thoughts from The Land of rocks and Cows: The Not-So-Secret Black Market Of Twitter Handles Darknet Diaries:  EP 97: The Pizza Problem Orange Box Hacking VoIP 'Swatting' a Growing Problem  

Gun manufacturers are the only industry explicitly protected by federal statute from liability lawsuits. Carmakers and cigarette companies can be taken to court if their products or marketing endanger the public. But a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (P.L.C.A.A.) has made it very difficult to sue a gunmaker. Jonathan Lowy has. He's the chief counsel and vice-president of legal at Brady, one of the country's oldest advocacy groups against gun violence. Faced with a hostile Supreme Court and a Senate filibuster, Lowy believes civil litigation is a path forward for gun-control advocates. Speaking with Michael Luo, who is this week's guest host and the editor of newyorker.com, Lowy explains his strategy of slowly chipping away at the P.L.C.A.A. to change how guns are made, marketed, and sold. 

Brett Tolman, Right on Crime Executive Director and the former Utah United States Attorney, is this week's guest on Liberty & Justice with Matt Whitaker, Episode 20.  Brett and Matt discuss the Supreme Court's term including recent opinions like Dobbs-which overturned Roe- and the New York conceal carry case plus conservative criminal justice reform.  Every episode of Liberty & Justice can be watched at Whitaker.tv.SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PAC is this week's sponsor.Brett L. Tolman is the executive director for Right on Crime (rightoncrime.com). He was a leading figure in the drafting and passage of the First Step Act, one of the most sweeping reforms of the federal criminal justice system in decades. Tolman continues to advise the White House and many members of Congress on such issues. He is an attorney and founder of the Tolman Group focusing on public policy and government reform. Previously, he was a shareholder at Ray Quinney and Nebeker and served as chair of the firm's White Collar, Corporate Compliance, and Government Investigations section. For the past 10 years, Tolman has defended corporations and executives in all manner of state and federal criminal and regulatory actions across the country.Prior to entering private practice, Tolman was appointed by President George Bush in 2006 as the United States Attorney for the District of Utah and held that office for nearly 4 years from 2006-2009. As U.S. Attorney, he was responsible for cutting-edge cases addressing such issues as international adoption fraud, mortgage fraud, international marriage fraud, sex and human trafficking, terrorism, and breaches of national security. In 2009 he handled the prosecution of Brian David Mitchell, the alleged kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart. From 2008-2009 he was selected by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to serve as special advisor to the attorney general on national and international policy issues affecting United States attorneys and the Department of Justice. Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Tolman served as chief counsel for crime and terrorism to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.During his career, Tolman has testified multiple times in the United States Congress and assisted in drafting and passing many pieces of legislation affecting state and federal criminal justice systems. These include the First Step Act of 2018, the Corrections Act, the Sentencing Reform Act, the Justice for All Act of 2004, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act (2006). He is a frequent contributor on Fox News and No Spin News with Bill O'Reilly.SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PAC is this week's sponsor.Matthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines based law firm, Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP from 2009 until rejoining DOJ in 2017. He was also the Executive Director for FACT, The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, an ethics and accountability watchdog, between 2014 and 2017.   Mr. Whitaker is Author of the book--Above the Law, The InFedBiz'5 is Your Definitive Resource to Accelerating Government SalesSeries of 5-minute podcasts designed to help federal contractors find and win businessListen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

In 2005 Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which gave immunity to gun manufacturers at a time when gun violence in America was skyrocketing. Following the tragic shootings in Sandy Hook the families of victims sought to hold Remington, the maker of the AR-15, accountable for its role in the murders of the 20 first graders and 5 teachers. Attorney Josh Koskoff, of the legendary Koskoff firm started by his grandfather, and his team were able to navigate the immunity issues associated with PLCAA in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and back, survived two bankruptcies, and ultimately resulted in a $73 million settlement. In this podcast Mike and Tad talk with Josh about the novel legal theory and the path toward justice.

This episode examines whether the machinery of SB8 - the Texas anti-abortion law enforced entirely by private actors - can be adapted to regulate firearm sales. Specifically, it looks at the recent $70 million settlement by Remington of claims by family members of victims of the 2011 Sandy Hook shooting, and the characterization of those claims by the Connecticut Supreme Court's 2019 opinion in Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms. It concludes that if any such law could be drafted consistently with the broad federal grant of immunity in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, it would be based on the analysis of that statute in the Soto opinion. 

Today we have two very significant legal settlements in the news to break down! The families of Sandy Hook victims settled with Remington, but based on the terrible state of the law, this wasn't a guarantee. Andrew explains how it happened! In a somewhat parallel settlement, a victim of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein settled, but only because of an interesting ruling on a motion to dismiss. Before that. we've got updates on oral arguments in the NY AG motion to quash, the NFL hiring Loretta Lynch & other NFL stuff, the bizarre Durham filing, and the 5th Circuit Injunction related to vaccines and airlines. And then, some Cardi B stuff. So much news! Links: Daniel Snyder Alleged Sexual Harassment Details, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, GIUFFRE v. ANDREW ruling, Sandy Hook Families Reach Settlement With Gunmaker Remington, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 – “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005”, Bernie Sanders voted for it, 15 US Code § 7902, 15 US Code § 7903, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Chapter 735a, § 42-110b, Cardi B on Her Unstoppable Rise GQ

Would you have turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice. Go to https://crosspolitic.com/libertytour/ to follow our tour dates and go to FLFNetwork.com to join our club. Jennifer Sey Was Levi’s Brand President. She Quit So She Could Be Free. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/yesterday-i-was-levis-brand-president?r=wjy6f “In 2008, when I was a vice president of marketing, I published a memoir about my time as an elite gymnast that focused on the dark side of the sport, specifically the degradation of children. The gymnastics community threatened me with legal action and violence. Former competitors, teammates, and coaches dismissed my story as that of a bitter loser just trying to make a buck. They called me a grifter and a liar. But Levi’s stood by me. More than that: they embraced me as a hero. Things changed when Covid hit. Early on in the pandemic, I publicly questioned whether schools had to be shut down. This didn’t seem at all controversial to me. I felt—and still do—that the draconian policies would cause the most harm to those least at risk, and the burden would fall heaviest on disadvantaged kids in public schools, who need the safety and routine of school the most.” She spoke out against COVID lockdowns and that is when the calls from corporate started coming: “In the summer of 2020, I finally got the call. “You know when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company,” our head of corporate communications told me, urging me to pipe down. I responded: “My title is not in my Twitter bio. I’m speaking as a public school mom of four kids.” But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.” Then… In the fall of 2021, during a dinner with the CEO, I was told that I was on track to become the next CEO of Levi’s—the stock price had doubled under my leadership, and revenue had returned to pre-pandemic levels. The only thing standing in my way, he said, was me. All I had to do was stop talking about the school thing. Every day, a dossier of my tweets and all of my online interactions were sent to the CEO by the head of corporate communications. At one meeting of the executive leadership team, the CEO made an off-hand remark that I was “acting like Donald Trump.” I felt embarrassed, and turned my camera off to collect myself. In the last month, the CEO told me that it was “untenable” for me to stay. I was offered a $1 million severance package, but I knew I’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about why I’d been pushed out. The money would be very nice. But I just can’t do it. Sorry, Levi’s.” It is a long article, but I recommend it. Glad to see people living on conviction and not allowing their freedom to speak bought off. Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic first https://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook-families-settle-remington-marking-1st-time/story?id=82881639 According to ABC News: “Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held accountable for a mass shooting in the U.S. Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million. The settlement comes over seven years after the families sued the maker of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The rifle (Adam) Lanza used was Remington’s version of the AR-15 assault rifle, which is substantially similar to the standard issue M16 military service rifle used by the U.S. Army and other nations’ armed forces, but fires only in semiautomatic mode. The families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. Remington, which filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2020, had argued all of the plaintiffs’ legal theories were barred under Connecticut law and by a federal statute -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- which, with limited exceptions, immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.” This is a horrible settlement and sets a bad precedent. Should car manufacturing, knife companies, lawn mowing companies get sued because of the negligence of the owner? Here is the logic, if you are big pharma and pushing and emergency vaccination that was forced upon you by the government, you can’t sue the government or big pharma. But if you own a gun, someone steals that gun and uses it to shoot up a school, well Remington can get sued. Follow the logic? Prince Andrew agrees to settle sexual assault lawsuit https://abcnews.go.com/International/prince-andrew-agrees-settle-sexual-assault-lawsuit/story?id=82903190 According to ABC News. Epstein didn’t kill himself, I mean… Prince Andrew has agreed to settle a sexual assault lawsuit from Virginia Giuffre, according to a letter filed Tuesday from her lawyer David Boies. The sum of the settlement is not being disclosed, and the letter to the court says Prince Andrew "intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights." "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks," the letter reads. "It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others." MORE: Prince Andrew to be deposed in civil lawsuit Giuffre had alleged that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Prince Andrew, who she claimed took advantage and sexually abused her when she was under 18. Prince Andrew had repeatedly denied the allegation and attacked Giuffre's credibility and motives. Earlier this month, Prince Andrew agreed to a March deposition in this case. This came after a federal judge in New York rejected his arguments to dismiss the case in January. Giuffre and Epstein settled a civil lawsuit for $500,000 in 2009, which was the basis for Prince Andrew's argument to have the case dismissed. Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President? I don’t believe, accept I do. But first: CWWI DNB: Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute’s vision is to see a community of businesses, churches, mentors, and instructors working together to provide our young people options beside the credentials game of our current culture. They desire to see confident students with integrity and a godly backbone that understand all things are subject to Christ and are trained to be competent on the job. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their Christian students with a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Visit their website: cornerstonework.org to learn how to enroll in their program or partner with them in their mission. Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/14/special-counsel-democrats-framed-and-spied-on-trump-while-he-was-president/ Margot Cleveland over at the Federalist writes: “Enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge. A tangential filing on Friday in the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed these new details uncovered by Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. The revelation came in the middle of a 13-page motion Durham’s prosecutors filed in the criminal case against Sussmann. The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment of lying to James Baker during a meeting Sussmann had with the then-FBI general counsel in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. Special Council “Durham began with the charge, noting as “factual background” that Sussmann, while serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with FBI General Counsel Baker at FBI headquarters and provided Baker “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.” According to the motion, Joffe did more than have his associates mine internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, and the executive office of the president of the United States—he gave that data to Sussmann, who provided it to the CIA during a February 9, 2017 meeting. During that meeting, Sussmann gave the CIA “data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, the EOP, and a healthcare provider, of internet protocol or IP addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provided.” According to Friday’s motion, Sussmann told the CIA during this meeting “that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”” Trump issued a statement: “declaring “the latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.” “This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate,” Trump continued, adding that “those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution.”” Commie Blackface Trudeau actually admires China…not surprising. Roll Clip: https://twitter.com/RapidFire_Pod/status/1493413794554564615?s=20&t=pQbzaO9O5805fgU3xiEdjQ Protesters Double Down After Trudeau Invokes Unprecedented Emergency Powers, Threatens Bank Accounts https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-these-very-powers-are-why-we-are-here-canadian-protesters-dig-their-heels-in-against-trudeaus-crackdown According to the Daily Wire: Trudeau announced in a press conference Monday afternoon that he was authorizing the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act, a law passed in the late 1980s to take the place of the War Measures Act. The act strengthens Canadian law enforcements’ ability to fine and imprison violators and ensures the operation of “essential services” such as towing rigs, Trudeau said during his press conference. It also empowers banks and financial institutions to freeze the accounts of any person or business suspected of being involved with an “illegal blockade.” David Paisley said “No one really cares about any new announcement. I mean the police have been breaking the law long before any emergency power. They were taking our fuel away. They were arresting people for purely having jerry cans or having empty tanks of fuel,” he said. “They’ve already been doing these ‘emergency powers’ and all it does is make people dig their heels in more,” Paisley added. “The irony … is that these very powers and threats are why we are here.” Paisley goes onto say: “[The Trudeau government] underestimated the determination and the intelligence of those here, and so everyone still here on the ground, they’re basically willing to give their lives for this – peacefully of course,” Paisley said. “They’re prepared to drain every last dollar, even from frozen bank accounts,” he added later. “You come and sit in the driver’s seat for a few hours and you’ll be able to fill up your wallet again. It’s incredible. People are just handing you fifties, hundreds, packs of hundreds. A friend of mine received a Bible and when he opened it up it had 500 cash inside the bible,” Paisley said. “The more the government tries to stomp this out, the more and more it causes people to rise up and say ‘this is wrong, and I side with these truckers,’” he said. “These steps from the government have simply hardened the determination of the great men and women down here, so I’m not really concerned at all. We’ll have lots of new friends when we all get tossed in prison together.” Closing This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless

Would you have turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice. Go to https://crosspolitic.com/libertytour/ to follow our tour dates and go to FLFNetwork.com to join our club. Jennifer Sey Was Levi’s Brand President. She Quit So She Could Be Free. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/yesterday-i-was-levis-brand-president?r=wjy6f “In 2008, when I was a vice president of marketing, I published a memoir about my time as an elite gymnast that focused on the dark side of the sport, specifically the degradation of children. The gymnastics community threatened me with legal action and violence. Former competitors, teammates, and coaches dismissed my story as that of a bitter loser just trying to make a buck. They called me a grifter and a liar. But Levi’s stood by me. More than that: they embraced me as a hero. Things changed when Covid hit. Early on in the pandemic, I publicly questioned whether schools had to be shut down. This didn’t seem at all controversial to me. I felt—and still do—that the draconian policies would cause the most harm to those least at risk, and the burden would fall heaviest on disadvantaged kids in public schools, who need the safety and routine of school the most.” She spoke out against COVID lockdowns and that is when the calls from corporate started coming: “In the summer of 2020, I finally got the call. “You know when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company,” our head of corporate communications told me, urging me to pipe down. I responded: “My title is not in my Twitter bio. I’m speaking as a public school mom of four kids.” But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.” Then… In the fall of 2021, during a dinner with the CEO, I was told that I was on track to become the next CEO of Levi’s—the stock price had doubled under my leadership, and revenue had returned to pre-pandemic levels. The only thing standing in my way, he said, was me. All I had to do was stop talking about the school thing. Every day, a dossier of my tweets and all of my online interactions were sent to the CEO by the head of corporate communications. At one meeting of the executive leadership team, the CEO made an off-hand remark that I was “acting like Donald Trump.” I felt embarrassed, and turned my camera off to collect myself. In the last month, the CEO told me that it was “untenable” for me to stay. I was offered a $1 million severance package, but I knew I’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about why I’d been pushed out. The money would be very nice. But I just can’t do it. Sorry, Levi’s.” It is a long article, but I recommend it. Glad to see people living on conviction and not allowing their freedom to speak bought off. Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic first https://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook-families-settle-remington-marking-1st-time/story?id=82881639 According to ABC News: “Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held accountable for a mass shooting in the U.S. Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million. The settlement comes over seven years after the families sued the maker of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The rifle (Adam) Lanza used was Remington’s version of the AR-15 assault rifle, which is substantially similar to the standard issue M16 military service rifle used by the U.S. Army and other nations’ armed forces, but fires only in semiautomatic mode. The families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. Remington, which filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2020, had argued all of the plaintiffs’ legal theories were barred under Connecticut law and by a federal statute -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- which, with limited exceptions, immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.” This is a horrible settlement and sets a bad precedent. Should car manufacturing, knife companies, lawn mowing companies get sued because of the negligence of the owner? Here is the logic, if you are big pharma and pushing and emergency vaccination that was forced upon you by the government, you can’t sue the government or big pharma. But if you own a gun, someone steals that gun and uses it to shoot up a school, well Remington can get sued. Follow the logic? Prince Andrew agrees to settle sexual assault lawsuit https://abcnews.go.com/International/prince-andrew-agrees-settle-sexual-assault-lawsuit/story?id=82903190 According to ABC News. Epstein didn’t kill himself, I mean… Prince Andrew has agreed to settle a sexual assault lawsuit from Virginia Giuffre, according to a letter filed Tuesday from her lawyer David Boies. The sum of the settlement is not being disclosed, and the letter to the court says Prince Andrew "intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights." "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks," the letter reads. "It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others." MORE: Prince Andrew to be deposed in civil lawsuit Giuffre had alleged that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Prince Andrew, who she claimed took advantage and sexually abused her when she was under 18. Prince Andrew had repeatedly denied the allegation and attacked Giuffre's credibility and motives. Earlier this month, Prince Andrew agreed to a March deposition in this case. This came after a federal judge in New York rejected his arguments to dismiss the case in January. Giuffre and Epstein settled a civil lawsuit for $500,000 in 2009, which was the basis for Prince Andrew's argument to have the case dismissed. Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President? I don’t believe, accept I do. But first: CWWI DNB: Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute’s vision is to see a community of businesses, churches, mentors, and instructors working together to provide our young people options beside the credentials game of our current culture. They desire to see confident students with integrity and a godly backbone that understand all things are subject to Christ and are trained to be competent on the job. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their Christian students with a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Visit their website: cornerstonework.org to learn how to enroll in their program or partner with them in their mission. Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/14/special-counsel-democrats-framed-and-spied-on-trump-while-he-was-president/ Margot Cleveland over at the Federalist writes: “Enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge. A tangential filing on Friday in the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed these new details uncovered by Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. The revelation came in the middle of a 13-page motion Durham’s prosecutors filed in the criminal case against Sussmann. The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment of lying to James Baker during a meeting Sussmann had with the then-FBI general counsel in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. Special Council “Durham began with the charge, noting as “factual background” that Sussmann, while serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with FBI General Counsel Baker at FBI headquarters and provided Baker “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.” According to the motion, Joffe did more than have his associates mine internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, and the executive office of the president of the United States—he gave that data to Sussmann, who provided it to the CIA during a February 9, 2017 meeting. During that meeting, Sussmann gave the CIA “data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, the EOP, and a healthcare provider, of internet protocol or IP addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provided.” According to Friday’s motion, Sussmann told the CIA during this meeting “that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”” Trump issued a statement: “declaring “the latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.” “This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate,” Trump continued, adding that “those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution.”” Commie Blackface Trudeau actually admires China…not surprising. Roll Clip: https://twitter.com/RapidFire_Pod/status/1493413794554564615?s=20&t=pQbzaO9O5805fgU3xiEdjQ Protesters Double Down After Trudeau Invokes Unprecedented Emergency Powers, Threatens Bank Accounts https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-these-very-powers-are-why-we-are-here-canadian-protesters-dig-their-heels-in-against-trudeaus-crackdown According to the Daily Wire: Trudeau announced in a press conference Monday afternoon that he was authorizing the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act, a law passed in the late 1980s to take the place of the War Measures Act. The act strengthens Canadian law enforcements’ ability to fine and imprison violators and ensures the operation of “essential services” such as towing rigs, Trudeau said during his press conference. It also empowers banks and financial institutions to freeze the accounts of any person or business suspected of being involved with an “illegal blockade.” David Paisley said “No one really cares about any new announcement. I mean the police have been breaking the law long before any emergency power. They were taking our fuel away. They were arresting people for purely having jerry cans or having empty tanks of fuel,” he said. “They’ve already been doing these ‘emergency powers’ and all it does is make people dig their heels in more,” Paisley added. “The irony … is that these very powers and threats are why we are here.” Paisley goes onto say: “[The Trudeau government] underestimated the determination and the intelligence of those here, and so everyone still here on the ground, they’re basically willing to give their lives for this – peacefully of course,” Paisley said. “They’re prepared to drain every last dollar, even from frozen bank accounts,” he added later. “You come and sit in the driver’s seat for a few hours and you’ll be able to fill up your wallet again. It’s incredible. People are just handing you fifties, hundreds, packs of hundreds. A friend of mine received a Bible and when he opened it up it had 500 cash inside the bible,” Paisley said. “The more the government tries to stomp this out, the more and more it causes people to rise up and say ‘this is wrong, and I side with these truckers,’” he said. “These steps from the government have simply hardened the determination of the great men and women down here, so I’m not really concerned at all. We’ll have lots of new friends when we all get tossed in prison together.” Closing This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless

Would you have turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice. Go to https://crosspolitic.com/libertytour/ to follow our tour dates and go to FLFNetwork.com to join our club. Jennifer Sey Was Levi’s Brand President. She Quit So She Could Be Free.https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/yesterday-i-was-levis-brand-president?r=wjy6f “In 2008, when I was a vice president of marketing, I published a memoir about my time as an elite gymnast that focused on the dark side of the sport, specifically the degradation of children. The gymnastics community threatened me with legal action and violence. Former competitors, teammates, and coaches dismissed my story as that of a bitter loser just trying to make a buck. They called me a grifter and a liar. But Levi’s stood by me. More than that: they embraced me as a hero. Things changed when Covid hit. Early on in the pandemic, I publicly questioned whether schools had to be shut down. This didn’t seem at all controversial to me. I felt—and still do—that the draconian policies would cause the most harm to those least at risk, and the burden would fall heaviest on disadvantaged kids in public schools, who need the safety and routine of school the most.” She spoke out against COVID lockdowns and that is when the calls from corporate started coming: “In the summer of 2020, I finally got the call. “You know when you speak, you speak on behalf of the company,” our head of corporate communications told me, urging me to pipe down. I responded: “My title is not in my Twitter bio. I’m speaking as a public school mom of four kids.” But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.” Then…In the fall of 2021, during a dinner with the CEO, I was told that I was on track to become the next CEO of Levi’s—the stock price had doubled under my leadership, and revenue had returned to pre-pandemic levels. The only thing standing in my way, he said, was me. All I had to do was stop talking about the school thing. Every day, a dossier of my tweets and all of my online interactions were sent to the CEO by the head of corporate communications. At one meeting of the executive leadership team, the CEO made an off-hand remark that I was “acting like Donald Trump.” I felt embarrassed, and turned my camera off to collect myself. In the last month, the CEO told me that it was “untenable” for me to stay. I was offered a $1 million severance package, but I knew I’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about why I’d been pushed out. The money would be very nice. But I just can’t do it. Sorry, Levi’s.” It is a long article, but I recommend it. Glad to see people living on conviction and not allowing their freedom to speak bought off. Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic firsthttps://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook-families-settle-remington-marking-1st-time/story?id=82881639 According to ABC News:“Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held accountable for a mass shooting in the U.S. Remington agreed to pay the families $73 million. The settlement comes over seven years after the families sued the maker of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle that was used in the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The rifle (Adam) Lanza used was Remington’s version of the AR-15 assault rifle, which is substantially similar to the standard issue M16 military service rifle used by the U.S. Army and other nations’ armed forces, but fires only in semiautomatic mode. The families argued Remington negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault-style rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle. Remington, which filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2020, had argued all of the plaintiffs’ legal theories were barred under Connecticut law and by a federal statute -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- which, with limited exceptions, immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for crimes committed by third parties using their weapons.” This is a horrible settlement and sets a bad precedent. Should car manufacturing, knife companies, lawn mowing companies get sued because of the negligence of the owner? Here is the logic, if you are big pharma and pushing and emergency vaccination that was forced upon you by the government, you can’t sue the government or big pharma. But if you own a gun, someone steals that gun and uses it to shoot up a school, well Remington can get sued. Follow the logic? Prince Andrew agrees to settle sexual assault lawsuithttps://abcnews.go.com/International/prince-andrew-agrees-settle-sexual-assault-lawsuit/story?id=82903190 According to ABC News. Epstein didn’t kill himself, I mean…Prince Andrew has agreed to settle a sexual assault lawsuit from Virginia Giuffre, according to a letter filed Tuesday from her lawyer David Boies. The sum of the settlement is not being disclosed, and the letter to the court says Prince Andrew "intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights." "Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks," the letter reads. "It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others." MORE: Prince Andrew to be deposed in civil lawsuitGiuffre had alleged that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Prince Andrew, who she claimed took advantage and sexually abused her when she was under 18. Prince Andrew had repeatedly denied the allegation and attacked Giuffre's credibility and motives. Earlier this month, Prince Andrew agreed to a March deposition in this case. This came after a federal judge in New York rejected his arguments to dismiss the case in January. Giuffre and Epstein settled a civil lawsuit for $500,000 in 2009, which was the basis for Prince Andrew's argument to have the case dismissed. Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President? I don’t believe, accept I do. But first: CWWI DNB:Cornerstone Work & Worldview Institute’s vision is to see a community of businesses, churches, mentors, and instructors working together to provide our young people options beside the credentials game of our current culture. They desire to see confident students with integrity and a godly backbone that understand all things are subject to Christ and are trained to be competent on the job. Their mission is to build Kingdom culture in the workplace by equipping their Christian students with a Trinitarian worldview and vocational competencies. Visit their website: cornerstonework.org to learn how to enroll in their program or partner with them in their mission.Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was Presidenthttps://thefederalist.com/2022/02/14/special-counsel-democrats-framed-and-spied-on-trump-while-he-was-president/ Margot Cleveland over at the Federalist writes: “Enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge. A tangential filing on Friday in the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed these new details uncovered by Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. The revelation came in the middle of a 13-page motion Durham’s prosecutors filed in the criminal case against Sussmann. The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment of lying to James Baker during a meeting Sussmann had with the then-FBI general counsel in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. Special Council “Durham began with the charge, noting as “factual background” that Sussmann, while serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with FBI General Counsel Baker at FBI headquarters and provided Baker “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.” According to the motion, Joffe did more than have his associates mine internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, and the executive office of the president of the United States—he gave that data to Sussmann, who provided it to the CIA during a February 9, 2017 meeting. During that meeting, Sussmann gave the CIA “data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by Trump Tower, Trump’s residential apartment building, the EOP, and a healthcare provider, of internet protocol or IP addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provided.” According to Friday’s motion, Sussmann told the CIA during this meeting “that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”” Trump issued a statement: “declaring “the latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.” “This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate,” Trump continued, adding that “those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution.””Commie Blackface Trudeau actually admires China…not surprising. Roll Clip:https://twitter.com/RapidFire_Pod/status/1493413794554564615?s=20&t=pQbzaO9O5805fgU3xiEdjQ Protesters Double Down After Trudeau Invokes Unprecedented Emergency Powers, Threatens Bank Accountshttps://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-these-very-powers-are-why-we-are-here-canadian-protesters-dig-their-heels-in-against-trudeaus-crackdownAccording to the Daily Wire:Trudeau announced in a press conference Monday afternoon that he was authorizing the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act, a law passed in the late 1980s to take the place of the War Measures Act. The act strengthens Canadian law enforcements’ ability to fine and imprison violators and ensures the operation of “essential services” such as towing rigs, Trudeau said during his press conference. It also empowers banks and financial institutions to freeze the accounts of any person or business suspected of being involved with an “illegal blockade.” David Paisley said “No one really cares about any new announcement. I mean the police have been breaking the law long before any emergency power. They were taking our fuel away. They were arresting people for purely having jerry cans or having empty tanks of fuel,” he said. “They’ve already been doing these ‘emergency powers’ and all it does is make people dig their heels in more,” Paisley added. “The irony … is that these very powers and threats are why we are here.” Paisley goes onto say: “[The Trudeau government] underestimated the determination and the intelligence of those here, and so everyone still here on the ground, they’re basically willing to give their lives for this – peacefully of course,” Paisley said. “They’re prepared to drain every last dollar, even from frozen bank accounts,” he added later. “You come and sit in the driver’s seat for a few hours and you’ll be able to fill up your wallet again. It’s incredible. People are just handing you fifties, hundreds, packs of hundreds. A friend of mine received a Bible and when he opened it up it had 500 cash inside the bible,” Paisley said. “The more the government tries to stomp this out, the more and more it causes people to rise up and say ‘this is wrong, and I side with these truckers,’” he said. “These steps from the government have simply hardened the determination of the great men and women down here, so I’m not really concerned at all. We’ll have lots of new friends when we all get tossed in prison together.” ClosingThis is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. With your partnership, together we will fight outdated and compromised media, engage news and politics with the gospel, and replace lies and darkness with truth and light. Go to fightlaughfeast.com to take all these actions. Have a great day. Lord bless

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: The press is full of stories of how others are going to use the Texas “mechanism” of private enforcement through lawsuits for the Fetal Heartbeat law to go after gun rights and other issues. It's all balderdash. These are stories to frighten people into opposing the Texas law on abortions. The “mechanism” of private enforcement only relates to breaking a law and won't even apply in the case of abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected if that law is struck down by the courts. It simply cannot be used to enforce something that is not a legally passed and binding law. For example, California can't simply decide that citizens can sue gun makers for the use of guns in crimes because such is counter the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Any such cases would not stand review by courts if they attempt to punish someone for something protected by law. And in the case of abortion, despite what many think, there is no federal law making abortion legal.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.The hubris, and ignorance, of Lubbock city council members continues to amaze. It is really beyond shocking that such stupid things are said by people who should know better.Texas Child Protective Services, CPS, moves to adopt new rules that protect its bureaucracy by restricting the ability of advocacy groups to help families being acted upon by the agency. The legislature passed CPS reform bills this last session that became effective on 1 September. By October new rules were introduced by the parent agency of CPS to punish those who have successfully pointed out failures and abuses of CPS. Read more here.And, other news of Texas.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

In This Episode: Weer'd has technical difficulties, but overcomes them! Erin and Weer'd discuss some attempts to run around the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; David talks about the Gun Control Act of 1968 and how it affected the gun industry; and Weer'd interviews Phillip Smith of the National African-American Gun Association to talk about this fast-growing organization. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic: Gun-Maker Offers Sandy Hook Families $33 Million. Here's What They May Be Considering Shall Not Be Questioned: Remington Settlement Mexico Sues U.S. Gun Manufacturers For Contributing To Arms Trafficking Deaths OSD 129: The lawsuit accusing gun makers of complying with the law Military presents plan to manufacture replica of 50-caliber Barrett Where did they go? The missing soldiers Billboards near Smith and Wesson display reminder of gun violence Gun Lovers and Other Strangers: Gun Control Act of 1968 ***PDF Warning*** National Firearms Act of 1934 ***PDF Warning*** Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ***PDF Warning*** Pre-GCA68-Ad 1970-Shooters-Bible-Preface 1970-Shooters-Bible-Winchester Shooters-Bible-Smith-and-Wesson Shooters-Bible-Colt 1970-Shooters-Bible-Charter-Arms 1960-Machine-Gun-Ad-01 1960-Machine-Gun-Ad-02 1960-Machine-Gun-Ad-03 1958-Solothurn-Ad 1960-American-Rifleman-Boys-Anti-Tank-Rifle Philip Smith Interview: National African American Gun Association   

This is an ACP Round Table.    Weer'd, Oddball, and David sit down and talk about a pile of News stories that pertain to the Second Amendment. David Chipman still not ATF Director, and it doesn't look good for him. The New York Attorney General is Attempting to Work Around The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Increase in Gun Sales not linked to the increase in gun crime Hold My Guns Gets an update to their website. Update on the Jailing of Jessica Watkins The absurdity of the UK Knife laws Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic: Trans Woman Jessica Watkins Stripped Naked and Left in Cell with Lights on for 24 Hours a Day for 4 Days – Is Still Being Held for Crime of Walking Through US Capitol, Talking to Cops, Following Orders on Jan. 6 Jessica Watkins, An Oath Keeper Charged In The DC Attack, Fears Harsh Treatment Because She Is Transgender Pandemic gun violence surge was not linked to rise in gun sales, study finds Progressive groups urge US media to ‘prioritize accuracy' in culture war topics New York AG could try to sue gun manufacturers under new law New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence White House silent on if it's confident Biden's beleaguered ATF nominee will be confirmed by Senate Hold My Guns Update Gun buying surge is causing more incomplete NICS checks Massive Demonstrations in Cuba Demanding Freedom, Waving American Flag American Flag Spotted In Massive Anti-Government Protests In Cuba Right To Carry Gif UK Knife Amnesty Cuts Up Gun Control Arguments  

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that families of the victims killed Nov. 5, 2017, in Sutherland Springs cannot sue Academy Sports and Outdoors for negligence. The man who opened fire during Sunday-morning services in the First Baptist Church there nearly four years ago purchased a weapon and ammunition he used in the crime from an Academy store. According to the ruling issued June 25, Academy is entitled to summary judgment under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearms manufacturers and retailers from lawsuits seeking damages from crimes committed by third parties. The lawsuit against...Article Link

With President Joe Biden calling on Congress to enact his gun ban along with universal background checks and the repeal of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb says that Democrats' are moving forward with an agenda that puts the right to keep and bear arms at risk.

The next two-four years are going to be turbulent for gun rights in America. While I'm mildly optimistic that we won't see a new Assault weapons ban, you can bet your bottom dollar that we'll see attempts to expand red flag laws, universal background checks, and a ban on 80% lowers. Perhaps most concerningly are President Biden's statements about repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearms industry business from frivolous lawsuits.

Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held that the federal gun industry protection law, the Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) as unconstitutional in its entirety, the first appeals court to do so. What does it mean, and where do we go from here? This is exactly what hosts Kelly and JJ discuss with Team Enough Fairfax member Aaryan Rawal, Dr. Griffin Dix, father of Kenzo Dix and President, Oakland Brady Chapter, Brady Senior Counsel and Vice President of Legal Jon Lowy, and Brady President Kris Brown. Mentioned in this podcast:The awkward question that could assure your child comes home safe (the Mercury News)Long Battle Against Guns Began With a Son’s Death (New York Times)Gustafson v. Springfield Armory (Brady) A victory for gun violence victims (Brady)Why PLCAA is a Problem (Brady)For more information on Brady, follow us on social media @Bradybuzz or visit our website at bradyunited.org.Full transcripts and bibliographies of this episode are available at bradyunited.org/podcast.Enjoy some treats from Hu's Kitchen, like chocolate free of dairy, gluten, refined sugar, palm oil, and cane sugar!National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Music provided by: David “Drumcrazie” CurbySpecial thanks to Hogan Lovells for their long-standing legal support ℗&©2019 Red, Blue, and BradySupport the show (https://www.bradyunited.org/donate)

The relationship between the 2nd amendment and gun control is a contentious debate in American politics and life. This documentary explores the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which many critics say allows gun sellers and manufacturers to evade liability when their products are used in mass shootings. The gun lobby supports the passage of this act while gun controls activists fiercely oppose it. I wanted to dig deeper and find out more about this law and its role in the overall gun debate. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

We are doing a series called Ameri-CAN. Talking about the CAN-DO spirit that is part of our American DNA. So much about our lives has been turned upside down by this Corona Virus / Covid-19, and we have been hearing a lot about what we CAN’T do and where we CAN’T go, but our guests during this series are going to talk to us about their area of expertise and all of the ways we still CAN learn and grow, train, connect, and expand our freedoms in ways we maybe haven’t thought about before. Our guest today is Frank Miniter. Frank is an author and investigative journalist with a penchant for outdoor adventure. Frank is the Editor in Chief of NRA's America's 1st Freedom, a frequent guest on major news media outlets, a Field Editor for the NRA’s American Hunter, and the author of The New York Times’ Bestseller The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide—Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood. Miniter’s other books include The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting, Saving the Bill of Rights, and The Future of the Gun. 1) Learning more about taking control of our lives and our Rights is such a great way to empower people during this time when so much has been out of our control. One side says that freedom itself is under attack, the other side says we are just fear mongering to “sell more guns”. If we don’t even know what the Founding Principles of our nation are, how do people sort out the truth from the noise? 2) The Second Amendment is not a political issue, but the politicians have MADE it political. Especially in the upcoming 2020 election with every one of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls trying to out-anti-gun one another. And now, Joe Biden appears to be the best they have for the Democratic Presidential bid. For people who value their 2A Rights, is there any way they could vote for Biden and not lose their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms? - Biden then says that he would repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), so that gun makers and dealers can again be sued because someone used a legally purchased firearm to commit a crime. This is like allowing people to sue GM if, say, someone used a Chevy to harm someone else. 3) It is confusing to people to understand how our Bill of Rights protects our 2A rights yet various states can trample those rights. You wrote an article a couple of months ago titled “Barriers to Freedom” where you talk about this tension between federal and states’ rights. Can you speak to the premise of your article and specifically the ideas behind federal reciprocity legislation? 4) More and more often it seems the American People are looking to the Supreme Court to weigh out the major issues that have become so polluted by politics. The 2A is among those issues. We recently heard that SCOTUS passed by an opportunity to hear a case out of NY. That has some of the anti-gun groups feeling confident that by default that means they are winning. But, you have written about the possibility of a few other cases making their way to be ruled on by SCOTUS. What can you tell us about those cases? - The cases currently being considered for possible hearing by the court, on the other hand, concern laws that more broadly affect the gun-owning population. Cases like Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois and Worman v. Healey directly challenge bans on popular and commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines—Heller specifically protects “commonly owned” firearms. Another case, Rogers v. Grewal, challenges laws preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm outside their home for self-defense. This takes on the “special need” requirement that places like New Jersey and California use to deny citizens their basic Second Amendment rights. And then there’s Pena v. Horan, which challenges California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” a law that implicates the Second Amendment by effectively banning commonly owned handguns.

In this week's episode, Attorney Rosensweig is discussing a lawsuit that was filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington Arms, who manufactured the assault weapon that was used during that mass shooting. Just last month, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Remington Arms, which argued that it is immune from liability and cannot be sued because of a 2005 federal law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes.  However, the Plaintiffs argued that they can proceed in suing the manufacturer because their theory of the case falls within an exception to the federal law (called the Predicate Exception), which says that gun manufacturers can be sued when they violate a separate state or federal law that "applies to" the sale or marketing of the product.  The Plaintiffs allege that Remington violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in deceptive and unfair marketing practices by selling an assault weapon as dangerous as the AR-15-style rifle to the public for home protection.  Plaintiff's argued that by violating Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Remington has subjected itself to being sued since that law "applies to" the sale of its product.  Remington argued that the only way it would be subject to suit would be if it violated a law that relates solely to the sale of firearms but the Court disagreed.  The Court said that as long as there is a law that can be "applied to" the sale of firearms, it does not need to be a law that exclusively relates to the sale of firearms.  The Court, in employing a broader interpretation of the exception to the statute, is allowing the Plaintiffs to finally move forward with their case and the implications of this precedent setting ruling cannot be understated.  This decision is a huge victory for victims of mass shootings in circumventing the PLCAA so that they can sue the makers of firearms who are marketing military style weapons to the public for home protection.  Will the Court ultimately decide that Remington is liable for the Sandy Hook shooting?  Did Remington engage in unfair or deceptive marketing practices?  Will the Plaintiffs be able to prove that Remington's unfair or deceptive marketing practices caused the shooter, Adam Lanza, to use the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, thus enabling him to kill 26 innocent people, 20 of whom were children, in less than 5 minutes? All of this remains to be seen but what we do know for now is that the Plaintiffs will have their day in Court and that, in and of itself, is a victory. 

Join the guys this week as they discuss a wide range of topics to include: the impeachment circus, fashion etiquette for concealing firearms, Tacoma's new gun tax, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act versus Remington, a recent California shooting, Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher, and of course, Florida-Woman!

The firearms industry is working toward real solutions for safer communities. Join NSSF leaders, Joe Bartozzi, Larry Keane, and Elizabeth McGuigan as they discuss the industry's response to gun control advocates' efforts to sue the gun industry and the creation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

On November 12, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear Remington's appeal of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision allowing the Sandy Hook lawsuits against gun manufacturers to continue. At issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, signed into law by George W. Bush, with bi-partisan support in the House and the Senate. Neither party escapes scrutiny on this one, but the NRA and Bush pushed for it and got it passed, to the substantial safety detriment of the American people.

Pete Philippe is a lifelong gun owner, collector and shooter. He has also been interested in the internet and the progression of that technology. He realized that he could combine those two passions, and created an online platform to share Firearms Culture, 2A History and to bring Gun Communities from all across the nation together with his network of 2A Websites: Gun Channels and Gun Websites. Many of us know him simply as GWebs. Pete and Cheryl discuss the upcoming INCLUSIVE and GRASSROOTS #2ARally in Washington DC on Saturday, November 2, 2019 as well as a new historical Almanac that Pete is working on! Pete has authored "The Shooters Almanac"which has three facets: - To help untangle our 2A History & remind on daily, weekly, monthly basis - To help track the various Firearm related community & industry events - To inspire, motivate & inform our shooting community #ShootersAlmanac is a Crowd-Funded effort and YOU can help to make this a success by popping over to Indiegogo RIGHT NOW to pre-order yours! Campaign begins on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 the 68th anniversary of the Ruger MK 1 Pistol. Patented back in 1951 Oct 2nd is also the 71st month of the #Every2ndMatters campaign We hosted a 4 hour show to kick off #Glocktober. And because GWebs likes to keep our minds engaged, he has picked meaningful dates for his campaign to begin and end: Campaign will end on Sat October 26, 2019 The 138th anniversary of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1881) Oct 26th is also the 14th anniversary of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) And the day Henry Deringer was Born in 1855

Should gun makers be held accountable for shootings?   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Professor Dan Feldman, from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to discuss gun maker immunity.   Last year, the United States saw over 35,000 gun deaths, over 85,000 gun related injuries, and not a single case brought against the makers of these weapons -- thanks to the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, a 2005 law that grants near total immunity to firearm manufacturers.  Amazingly, no other industry in our country enjoys the broad federal protection. On today’s episode, Professor Feldman, who is intimately familiar with this issue from his many years in the New York State Legislature and the New York State Attorney General’s office, explains the history of the PLCAA, what exactly it protects the firearm manufacturers from and what they can still be held liable for, and why he believes we must press Congress to reconsider this law.   To learn more about the PLCAA we’ve provided some resources below: The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: An Overview of Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers  - https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act Brady Campaign - http://www.bradycampaign.org/the-protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act-plcaa Cornell Law School - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105   You can learn more about Dan, by visiting his bio at: https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/daniel-l-feldman.   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Dan Feldman   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Fight Back Episode 012.On Fightback, Steve Bartlett will propose to hit the NRA and gun manufacturers directly in the wallet. Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to allow lawsuits against the death merchants, raising taxes, imposing limits on manufacturing of firearms and encouraging grass root competition to the NRA will hurt their ability to legally bribe politicians See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Christian, Joe, and frequent co-host Sonja West dig into the mail and tweet bags and discuss nonsense, sense, and antisense. Topics include: Judge John Hodgman’s weighing in on speed trap law, podcast listening speeds, the Slate Supreme Court Breakfast Table, the insurable liability approach to the gun crisis, Joe sings (yes) a line from “The Externality Song” and (relatedly, obv) Hamilton vs. Upstream Color, price matching and the morality quiz, footnoting and in-text citation and madness, an argument over Guantanamo and rights, more on the culturally polarized gun debate and on rights generally, Posner’s skepticism of academia, and how things change and get better. This show’s links: Sonja West’s faculty profile and writing Oral Argument 1: Send Joe to Prison (guest Sonja West) Judge John Hodgman on flashing lights to warn of speed traps Slate: The Supreme Court Breakfast Table Oral Argument 101: Tug of War Oral Argument 100: A Few Minutes in the Rear-View Mirror Oral Argument 96: Students as Means Kedar Bhatia, Footnotes in Supreme Court Opinions David Foster Wallace, Tense Present (an earlier version of Authority and American Usage in Consider the Lobster and Other Essays) The brief Christian helped with in Rasul v. Bush, making the Mathews v. Eldridge argument the Court wound up adopting in the simultaneously decided Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (see pp. 17-21) Sonja West, The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that confers immunity on gun manufacturers for most gun deaths; see also the wiki article on the act Oral Argument 102: Precautionary Federalism (guest Sarah Light) Dissent from denial of cert. in Stormans v. Wiesman Mark Graber, Alito (Religion) v. Alito (Abortion) Richard Posner, Entry 9: The Academy Is out of Its Depth Akhil Amar, Entry 10: Who Judges the Judges Richard Posner, Entry 11: The Immigration Decision Won’t Do Much Dawn Johnsen, Entry 12: How can a judge dismiss the importance of the Constitution? Richard Posner, Entry 27: Broad Interpretations Special Guest: Sonja West.

 In this Episode: In the Crosshairs:  A Law to Make Gov. Officials Abide by the Law; Your NRA:  Attempt to repeal the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Q&A:  Time to process LTC applications; Minimum age to take LTC course; Women, guns & purses; Another installment of The History of Concealed-Carry in Texas focusing on 2011 legislative session.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both came out swinging in a fiery, high-stakes debate on CNN Thursday night, as he cast doubt on her judgment and she criticized his command of policy and his record on guns. Sanders accusing Clinton of "lacking the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need." The Vermont senator said Clinton's support for the Iraq War and "disastrous trade agreements," and the fact that a pro-Clinton super PAC accepts funds from Wall Street, made him "question her judgment." Clinton shot back, calling those attacks "phony." "Sen. Sanders did call me unqualified," she said. "I've been called a lot of things in my life -- that was a first." The two candidates then clashed on the issue of Wall Street. When asked to name a single policy decision Clinton made as senator that showed she was favoring the banks, Sanders said that when the "greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street" led to the financial crisis, he had called on the big banks to be broken up -- while Clinton was "busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs." Clinton shot back: "He cannot come up with any example because there is no example ... It's always important -- it may be inconvenient -- but it's always important to get the facts straight." When she also said that she had called out the big banks for the actions, Sanders took a mocking tone. "Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this," he said, asking whether her statements came before or after "receiving huge sums" from the banks in speaking fees. Clinton was pressed by CNN co-moderator Dana Bash on why she would not release the transcripts from the speeches she made to Goldman Sachs and put the issue to rest. Clinton answered: "There isn't an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks." Clinton -- as she has in the past -- asked that there be the "same standard for everybody," saying she would be happy to release the transcripts if other presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, did the same. She then turned the tables on Sanders and his tax returns, saying: "Set the same standard on tax returns. Everybody does it -- and then we move forward." Sanders, who has come under pressure to release his tax returns, vowed on the CNN debate stage to release his previous year's return on Friday. Returns from earlier years, he said, would also be released "very shortly." The two also displayed intense friction over gun control. Throughout the election, Clinton has criticized Sanders' record in Congress on gun control -- an attack she once again made forcefully on Thursday night. Clinton accused Sanders of having made a "commitment to the NRA" to oppose a waiting period for background checks on gun purchases -- and slammed the senator for voting against the so-called "Brady bill" five times. While speaking of the crime bill Clinton's husband Bill ushered in as president, Sanders called a term she had used in the 1990s -- superpredator -- "a racist term." She has since said it was a word she shouldn't have used. The debate in Brooklyn comes just five days before the crucial New York primary contest here. However, Clinton began with an oblique attack on the GOP, defending the "New York values" that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a Texas senator, has used as a pejorative. Speaking of her days representing the state in the U.S. Senate, she said, "We worked hard to really keep New York values at the center of what we are and what we do together." RELATED: #Dem Debate comes to media's home turf The heated debate also quickly exposed tensions between Clinton and Sanders on the issue of income inequality -- specifically, raising the minimum wage. Asked whether she would sign a bill raising the federal minimum wage to $15, Clinton responded: "Of course I would." That response drew this skeptical reaction from Sanders: "I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's just not accurate." In one of the most animated exchanges of the evening, the two candidates began to talk over one another, eventually prompting moderator Wolf Blitzer to intervene. "If you're both screaming at each other, the viewers won't be able to hear either of you," Blitzer said. The crowd, for its part, was much rowdier than at previous Democratic debates, cheering and hissing throughout the event. Sanders insisted that while he has long been fighting to raise the national minimum wage to $15, Clinton had only advocated to raise it to $12. "$12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour," Sanders said. Until recently, the Democratic race had remained relatively tame, largely devoid of the personal attacks and heated rhetoric that have characterized the GOP contest. But as the race has dragged on into April, there has been a shift. In recent days, Sanders has questioned Clinton's judgment and credibility, pointing to her relationship with Wall Street and vote for the Iraq War. Clinton, meanwhile, has had harsh words for Sanders, sharply questioning whether he is capable of executing the promises embedded in his lofty rhetoric. And Clinton and her aides had been signaling for days that they planned to hit Sanders for his views on gun control, particularly his belief that victims of gun violence should not be able to sue gun and ammunition manufacturers. The likelihood that this issue would become a flashpoint on Thursday skyrocketed earlier in the day when a judge in Connecticut ruled that the suit between the families of Sandy Hook victims and the manufacturer of the gun used in the 2012 shooting there could go forward. The viability of the lawsuit was in doubt because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a law Sanders supported that protects gun manufacturers from liability. Clinton hit Sanders for the law at a roundtable on gun violence on Monday and is likely to do so again Thursday night. Sanders is also poised to have to address the latest controversy that has engulfed his campaign: On Wednesday, surrogate Paul Song said at a campaign rally that the Democratic party must stop electing "corporate Democratic whores." Sanders quickly disavowed those comments, calling them "inappropriate and insensitive." The debate is taking place at Brooklyn Navy Yard, located across the East River from Manhattan, making it a home-turf battle for both candidates. Clinton served as a New York senator for eight years and Brooklyn is the location of her campaign headquarters, while Sanders was born and raised in the borough. RELATED: NYC First Lady 'Bernie is getting desperate' Polls show Clinton is likely to defeat Sanders in New York, and even as she enjoys a sizable delegate lead, it is critical for Clinton that she win this state. The Democratic race so far has proven Sanders to be an unexpectedly durable candidate whose popularity among liberals and younger voters has helped to expose the vulnerabilities in Clinton's candidacy. The New York race comes after a string of victories for Sanders in states including Wyoming, Wisconsin, Idaho and Utah. If Sanders were to eke out a win in New York, it would deal a serious blow to Clinton and strengthen the narrative that it is taking Clinton much longer than initially expected to clinch her party's nomination.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both came out swinging in a fiery, high-stakes debate on CNN Thursday night, as he cast doubt on her judgment and she criticized his command of policy and his record on guns. Sanders accusing Clinton of "lacking the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need." The Vermont senator said Clinton's support for the Iraq War and "disastrous trade agreements," and the fact that a pro-Clinton super PAC accepts funds from Wall Street, made him "question her judgment." Clinton shot back, calling those attacks "phony." "Sen. Sanders did call me unqualified," she said. "I've been called a lot of things in my life -- that was a first." The two candidates then clashed on the issue of Wall Street. When asked to name a single policy decision Clinton made as senator that showed she was favoring the banks, Sanders said that when the "greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street" led to the financial crisis, he had called on the big banks to be broken up -- while Clinton was "busy giving speeches to Goldman Sachs." Clinton shot back: "He cannot come up with any example because there is no example ... It's always important -- it may be inconvenient -- but it's always important to get the facts straight." When she also said that she had called out the big banks for the actions, Sanders took a mocking tone. "Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this," he said, asking whether her statements came before or after "receiving huge sums" from the banks in speaking fees. Clinton was pressed by CNN co-moderator Dana Bash on why she would not release the transcripts from the speeches she made to Goldman Sachs and put the issue to rest. Clinton answered: "There isn't an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks." Clinton -- as she has in the past -- asked that there be the "same standard for everybody," saying she would be happy to release the transcripts if other presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, did the same. She then turned the tables on Sanders and his tax returns, saying: "Set the same standard on tax returns. Everybody does it -- and then we move forward." Sanders, who has come under pressure to release his tax returns, vowed on the CNN debate stage to release his previous year's return on Friday. Returns from earlier years, he said, would also be released "very shortly." The two also displayed intense friction over gun control. Throughout the election, Clinton has criticized Sanders' record in Congress on gun control -- an attack she once again made forcefully on Thursday night. Clinton accused Sanders of having made a "commitment to the NRA" to oppose a waiting period for background checks on gun purchases -- and slammed the senator for voting against the so-called "Brady bill" five times. While speaking of the crime bill Clinton's husband Bill ushered in as president, Sanders called a term she had used in the 1990s -- superpredator -- "a racist term." She has since said it was a word she shouldn't have used. The debate in Brooklyn comes just five days before the crucial New York primary contest here. However, Clinton began with an oblique attack on the GOP, defending the "New York values" that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a Texas senator, has used as a pejorative. Speaking of her days representing the state in the U.S. Senate, she said, "We worked hard to really keep New York values at the center of what we are and what we do together." RELATED: #Dem Debate comes to media's home turf The heated debate also quickly exposed tensions between Clinton and Sanders on the issue of income inequality -- specifically, raising the minimum wage. Asked whether she would sign a bill raising the federal minimum wage to $15, Clinton responded: "Of course I would." That response drew this skeptical reaction from Sanders: "I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's just not accurate." In one of the most animated exchanges of the evening, the two candidates began to talk over one another, eventually prompting moderator Wolf Blitzer to intervene. "If you're both screaming at each other, the viewers won't be able to hear either of you," Blitzer said. The crowd, for its part, was much rowdier than at previous Democratic debates, cheering and hissing throughout the event. Sanders insisted that while he has long been fighting to raise the national minimum wage to $15, Clinton had only advocated to raise it to $12. "$12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour," Sanders said. Until recently, the Democratic race had remained relatively tame, largely devoid of the personal attacks and heated rhetoric that have characterized the GOP contest. But as the race has dragged on into April, there has been a shift. In recent days, Sanders has questioned Clinton's judgment and credibility, pointing to her relationship with Wall Street and vote for the Iraq War. Clinton, meanwhile, has had harsh words for Sanders, sharply questioning whether he is capable of executing the promises embedded in his lofty rhetoric. And Clinton and her aides had been signaling for days that they planned to hit Sanders for his views on gun control, particularly his belief that victims of gun violence should not be able to sue gun and ammunition manufacturers. The likelihood that this issue would become a flashpoint on Thursday skyrocketed earlier in the day when a judge in Connecticut ruled that the suit between the families of Sandy Hook victims and the manufacturer of the gun used in the 2012 shooting there could go forward. The viability of the lawsuit was in doubt because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a law Sanders supported that protects gun manufacturers from liability. Clinton hit Sanders for the law at a roundtable on gun violence on Monday and is likely to do so again Thursday night. Sanders is also poised to have to address the latest controversy that has engulfed his campaign: On Wednesday, surrogate Paul Song said at a campaign rally that the Democratic party must stop electing "corporate Democratic whores." Sanders quickly disavowed those comments, calling them "inappropriate and insensitive." The debate is taking place at Brooklyn Navy Yard, located across the East River from Manhattan, making it a home-turf battle for both candidates. Clinton served as a New York senator for eight years and Brooklyn is the location of her campaign headquarters, while Sanders was born and raised in the borough. RELATED: NYC First Lady 'Bernie is getting desperate' Polls show Clinton is likely to defeat Sanders in New York, and even as she enjoys a sizable delegate lead, it is critical for Clinton that she win this state. The Democratic race so far has proven Sanders to be an unexpectedly durable candidate whose popularity among liberals and younger voters has helped to expose the vulnerabilities in Clinton's candidacy. The New York race comes after a string of victories for Sanders in states including Wyoming, Wisconsin, Idaho and Utah. If Sanders were to eke out a win in New York, it would deal a serious blow to Clinton and strengthen the narrative that it is taking Clinton much longer than initially expected to clinch her party's nomination.

In this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi interviews Elliot Fineman from the National Gun Victims Action Council, Charles Heller from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and Professor Nicholas Johnson from Fordham University School of Law. Together they discuss the merits of this case, the Second Amendment, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Tune in to hear outcome predictions as well as debates regarding self-defense and gun control. Where do you stand on the ownership of firearms and how responsible should companies be for the actions of others?

Coast to Coast with Robert Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams sparks a rapid-fire discussion about the new law that shields gunmakers from crime victim lawsuits, called The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. Our special guests are Josh Horowitz, Exec. Dir., the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, David Kopel, Research Dir., Independence Institute and editor-in-chief, Journal on Firearms & Public Policy and Professor Eugene Volokh from the UCLA School of Law whose blog is The Volokh Conspiracy.