Podcasts about Parkway

Welcome back to The Majority Report On today's program: The House will vote on the National Defense Authorization Act today which includes the enmeshing of the Israeli and American militaries. Tell your Senators to block the NDAA until it is stripped of this proposal. At an appropriations committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, dripping in flop sweat, grows increasingly defensive as he is questioned about the quagmire he coaxed Trump into starting in Iran. Hegseth tries to claim that Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) labeling this war a failure is an indictment of the troops to which the Senator clarifies that is Hegseth who is the failure, not the servicemembers. Hegseth tried to scapegoat the Biden administration, but Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) reminds him that the Strait of Hormuz never closed during the previous presidencies. Ken Klippenstein, independent journalist covering security and U.S. politics at KlipNews on Substack, joins the program to talk about the Trump administration's efforts to shut down all dissent from the left. In the Fun Half: Comedian and podcaster Francesca Fiorentini joins. If you live in Minneapolis grab tickets to see the Bitchuation Room live at the Parkway. Krystal Ball debates top house Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) over Israel and the DSA. Meghan McCain warns that the GOP are not taking Zohran Mamdani seriously and that he will be the kingmaker of the Democratic Party. AOC wonders if Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Peter Thiel would want an AI data center in their own backyards? Troy Jackson has effectively secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, and the media is already trying to slander him over his temper. all that and more. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: ZOCDOC: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code MAJORITY at https://www.oneskin.co/majority SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com.  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) meeting on July 16, 2026, was primarily informational, as the Board lacked a quorum and was unable to take any official actions. Despite this, the Board heard from a member of the public and received a report from the Executive Director.   Public Comment: River City Waterway Alliance Lisa Sanchez, a volunteer with the River City Waterway Alliance, provided an update on the group's efforts to clean, restore, and protect local waterways. Trash and Habitat Restoration: Sanchez reported that the alliance has removed over two million pounds of trash from a specific stretch of the Parkway. Invasive Species Removal: The group is now shifting focus toward invasive species like water hyacinth and water primrose in Robles Creek and Steelhead Creek. Request for Support: Sanchez urged SAFCA to provide monetary assistance to revitalize invasive species removal programs that have been largely inactive since the COVID-19 pandemic. Executive Director's Report Executive Director Jason Campbell detailed the agency's current fiscal health and project progress: Federal Funding: The agency is tracking $108 million in federal appropriations for Natomas projects identified in the FY 2027 budget. SAFCA's local cost share for these federal programs is typically 10.5%. Construction Ramping Up: Construction activity is increasing for the season, with a focus on reaching a 200-year level of flood protection, particularly in the Natomas area. Successful Bond Sale: On July 8, SAFCA completed a highly successful bond refunding for the Natomas Basin and CC82 assessment districts. This sale achieved savings between 8% and 11%, generating nearly $55 million in additional cash for agency programs. Administrative Matters The meeting was broadcast live and was scheduled for a re-airing on July 18. The next SAFCA Board meeting is scheduled for August 20, 2026, and is expected to include a closed session.  

Nick on the Parkway wants to trade Paul Skenes. We do not want to trade Skenes. We don't think the Pirates should trade some of their best players to acquire bullpen pieces, but to trade prospects. The Pirates selected Derek Curiel 5th overall out of LSU.

The owner of an ICONIC store in Squirrel Hill joins to discuss how the detours of the Parkway East closure will impact his business full 264 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:43:09 +0000 fEZOruvgECrlKoXJJvKsOLszzx8UMaCi news The Big K Morning Show news The owner of an ICONIC store in Squirrel Hill joins to discuss how the detours of the Parkway East closure will impact his business The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

Ahead of the first morning rush hour following the Parkway East closure, Michael Bartley talked to a high-level PennDOT executive about what people can expect during this project! full 510 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:41:48 +0000 jGNfZM0Jx5Yx5oRTqhxO6od5LkxeTwH2 emailnewsletter,news The Big K Morning Show emailnewsletter,news Ahead of the first morning rush hour following the Parkway East closure, Michael Bartley talked to a high-level PennDOT executive about what people can expect during this project! The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

Big K Hour 01: Michael Bartley is LIVE right along one of the Parkway East detours providing active updates! full 2224 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:04:12 +0000 w2vVkadYqMiOzxXQ1pEOfRsH6883XVM1 news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 01: Michael Bartley is LIVE right along one of the Parkway East detours providing active updates! The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

Big K Hour 02: A high-level executive from PennDOT joins to talk about the Parkway East closure and Commercial Street Bridge project full 1232 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:05:29 +0000 ei4bswJQ85B2SBD9vonKV5avsPPrQr2e news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 02: A high-level executive from PennDOT joins to talk about the Parkway East closure and Commercial Street Bridge project The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

Big K Hour 04: Hear from the owner of an iconic store in Squirrel Hill about how the Parkway East detours will impact his business full 1391 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:14:25 +0000 ZCmCTjuii7S6TDCI9hrnG0YxDkFQxbgq news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 04: Hear from the owner of an iconic store in Squirrel Hill about how the Parkway East detours will impact his business The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

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

Mark and Terry of The Silverteens are back!  Buy it everywhere records are sold and on their bandcamp!  Check out their show at the Parkway tonight!  Also, watch Jay's Longhorn, a great doc on Amazon Prime created by Mark Engebretson.

Marty Griffin Show Hour 1: Parkway Closing! Tax increases on the South Side! Crazy! full 1765 Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:12:04 +0000 1nZbBeCBEY7BxBUn1Xk9s4jzhSOcQ2Hl news Marty Griffin news Marty Griffin Show Hour 1: Parkway Closing! Tax increases on the South Side! Crazy! On-demand selections from Marty's show on Newsradio 1020 KDKA , airing weekdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News https://pla

Big K Hour 01: Today's the day! The Parkway East will close at 9:00 p.m. tonight for 25 days. Plus, what are the chances for flash flooding today? full 2156 Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:49:00 +0000 vdhc5o1mI8UkILvxcFQWYDA6DXM7IXVc news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 01: Today's the day! The Parkway East will close at 9:00 p.m. tonight for 25 days. Plus, what are the chances for flash flooding today? The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

Larry talked to District 5 City Councilmember ahead of tonight's closure of the Parkway East and its detours through her areas of management.

Big K Hour 01: Hear about the parasite possibly effecting your produce and some new tips for navigating the Parkway East closure full 2020 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:50:37 +0000 xGnu2uLYPOOAXdhYWyqksU3b63P2SouG news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 01: Hear about the parasite possibly effecting your produce and some new tips for navigating the Parkway East closure The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

PennDOT's Senior Assistant Construction Manager, John Myler, talked to Larry about anything and everything about the project which will close the Parkway East for 25 days.

Big K Hour 03: All of the most important information you need to know about the Parkway East closure revealed! full 1573 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:16:29 +0000 kDlnKfbXptGfc6UxKjcM9QhmDQVHUX2m news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 03: All of the most important information you need to know about the Parkway East closure revealed! The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

Take the first half hour of Morning Live to go!  

Big K Hour 01: What are the most important things you need to know ahead of the Parkway East closure? full 2396 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 11:13:44 +0000 9N5A42a1YEqHXqaAvzQccUzfU9QL7CxW news The Big K Morning Show news Big K Hour 01: What are the most important things you need to know ahead of the Parkway East closure? The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

Brad Stevens & Bill Chisholm face the media and fall on their sword // Was it, or was it not, about the money Bill?! // Vegas still remains bullish on Celtics // Noticing some differences in the goodbye posts from Tatum // Belgium crushes USA hopes even after presidential pressure // Is Jayson Tatum preparing to play Hero Ball next year? // Could Jayson Tatum's voice have kept Jaylen Brown in Boston? // Why did Brad Stevens choose to make this deal now, instead of later? // Did the Broncos show interest in Bill Belichick? // Were the Celtics a better team with Jaylen Brown? // Jaylen Brown postpones pop up event to make room for more fans // We Call That Optionality! // John Karalis joins the show to talk holdin Brad Stevens feet to the fire // We launch YOUR Take Grenades! // Sweeping the leg with Tatum's goodbye tweets // Saying goodbye to 83 Leo M. Birmingham Parkway //

John Karalis joins the show to talk holdin Brad Stevens feet to the fire // We launch YOUR Take Grenades! // Sweeping the leg with Tatum's goodbye tweets // Saying goodbye to 83 Leo M. Birmingham Parkway //

This week on The Back of the Pack Podcast, we recap a busy Fourth of July weekend full of fireworks, frantic huskies, Patreon gratitude, race reviews, and questionable scheduling decisions. Kyle starts by thanking new Patreon supporters and talking honestly about how listener support, social media interaction, and community engagement help keep the podcast moving forward. From there, we head to Clinton, Missouri for the Old Glory Days 5K, a small-town Friday night race attached to a much bigger Fourth of July festival full of carnival rides, food, music, fireworks, and classic small-town America energy. The course may have ended up short due to a misplaced turnaround volunteer, but the race still delivered hills, humidity, a beautiful evening atmosphere, a great medal, and one unforgettable trail of pre-race funnel cake regret. After a quick turnaround, it was back to Kansas City for the Ward Parkway 4 on the 4th, where heat, humidity, patriotic outfits, familiar Rock the Parkway roads, and a much-improved medal made for a solid holiday morning race. Kyle also talks about managing overheating on course, including the surprisingly helpful trick of holding ice in the left hand during the final mile. The weekend wrapped with a bike ride that became Kyle's longest adult ride so far, right up until a blown back tire led to the dreaded biker walk of shame. And with Summer Argo and Kyle's first official bike race waiting next weekend, this episode is part race recap, part warning label, and part evidence that runners will sign up for almost anything if enough friends are doing it.

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

Michael and Ellen Gamble talk about the upcoming Parkway East closure! full 561 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 12:11:10 +0000 oeT1tjjeDXnI9VPWNV4RSJypOUOPvtsf emailnewsletter,news The Big K Morning Show emailnewsletter,news Michael and Ellen Gamble talk about the upcoming Parkway East closure! The Big K Morning Show 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News https://player.amperwave

Episode 296-Trump Pushes National Constitutional Carry Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 296 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, pistol brace, bump stock, Glock ban, iron pipeline, national constitutional carry, gun rights, anti-gun laws, gun safety, Hollywood depiction, firearm training, gun laws, civil rights, gun ownership, gun violence. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:21 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what have you brought to the table today? Teddy Nappen 00:33 Well, I’m always amazed by every single time they always try to say Trump’s not doing enough. Like you hear the horseshoe, right? It’s amazing the idea of just, oh, he hasn’t done enough, or they do the goal post move. Where they move it. They say he hasn’t done anything, or they move in and say he hasn’t done enough. I keep hearing this all the time about people with regards to the Second Amendment. They always try to highlight that stupid thing regarding the, what was it? The pistol brace at the time, because the writing on the wall that they try. Evan Nappen 01:16 Well, remember, keep in mind that with the pistol brace originally, NRA was not real keen on them either. You may remember, you know. So, Trump was trying to also go along with what the organizations themselves were doing, remember, because the brace thing was. But what you eventually saw, and what you’re seeing now, just on that is the elimination of the brace being an SBR, and that whole Merrick Garland insanity of having to register pistol braces. They put the reg forward on their, which should be official shortly, getting rid of that completely. We’re going to, on another shows talk about anybody if you happened to register a braced pistol as an SBR, what you need to do. Because that’s all history, and Trump has ensured that it’s now history, and let’s give credit there for that. Page – 2 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 02:35 And they always highlight the bump stock thing. By the way, the writing was on the wall of why Obama wanted to let that through was because they were going to equate ARs to machine guns, and that led to where. Evan Nappen 02:50 That’s right. So, remember the anti-rights, the oppressionists, they always have a game plan. So, their game plan was, look, if we have the bump stock thing going, then we can claim that semi-automatics are like machine guns. Then we can go after them and get a ban on semi-automatics as machine guns. And what Trump was doing politically in that sense was thwarting their political move. Now, if you say, ‘Oh, well, that isn’t.. how do you know that’s their plan? Or that was.. well, I’ll tell you what. If you want to see that as their plan, you could see it in action right now as they ban Glocks. California just banned Glock pistols, and what is your basis for banning Glocks? Oh, well, they’re easily convertible with Glock switches, you see. So, this is always the gambit of the Second Amendment oppressionists. Now we ban handguns that are perfectly legal, the most popular handgun in America, and we ban it, how? Oh, because you can put an unlawful Glock switch, which turns it into select fire. These switches are in and of themselves, just possession of a switch, is the same as possessing a machine gun. The switches are banned! But they use it as the pretext to expand it, and then ban the handguns themselves. Evan Nappen 04:35 You also saw them attempt this with the so-called iron pipeline. Teddy Nappen 04:40 Operation Fast and Furious. Evan Nappen 04:40 They were laying the groundwork for the iron pipeline. They wanted to say, oh, American guns, semi-autos, are going to Mexico to the narco terrorists, and all. And what did they do? They changed the 4473 to ask, are you Hispanic or not? Like, why are they asking that? And then they had multiple rifle reporting on border states. Why are they doing that? And then, of course, they do Operation Fast and Furious, so they could paint the picture to then push a gun ban based on the iron pipeline down south. But lo and behold, they step on their own toes here. We’ll use that word instead. And Operation Fast and Furious blows up in their face because they’re selling the guns themselves to the narco terrorists, and end up killing a federal agent, no less. So, that plan went all to hell. Evan Nappen 05:35 But you see, this is what they do. They lay the groundwork with these things, and that’s really what was going on there, on that. But with this Administration, we’ve never had an administration this pro-Second Amendment rights that it’s ever been president, ever. They’re now saying to California, get rid of that Glock ban or the Justice Department of the federal government is going after California. In other words, we finally have the federal government not pursuing oppression of the Second Amendment, but of enforcing our rights and preserving and fighting for our rights. They did it, and they’re doing it in all different facets. They’re doing it by administrative reg changes, 34 great changes. They’re doing it by Page – 3 – of 12 the litigation. They’re doing it by getting a focus of civil rights and putting the Second Amendment into that category. Evan Nappen 06:40 And now President Trump, just recently at a rally in Pennsylvania, said he wants to see and is pushing for National Constitutional Carry. Now, keep in mind this is beyond national reciprocity. National Constitutional Carry is the ability to lawfully carry your handgun anywhere in the United States with no permission slip. Ending the requirements, in effect, for permits. Or at least having it so that there’s national reciprocity that respects the majority of states that don’t require any permit. So that with National Constitutional Carry, a person who is a resident of a Constitutional carry state can carry, for example, in New York or New Jersey and all these oppression states with no permit, because it will be national. If you think about what the Second Amendment means, the right to keep and bear arms bearing is carrying, and the Second Amendment means that very thing. And that’s why it’s constitutional. Teddy Nappen 08:17 You also have to remember, Dad, like think back to Shaneen Allen. If this law comes into play, that would have avoided that entire BS that she went through. Her only crime was crossing the Franklin Bridge. Evan Nappen 08:40 Without the piece of paper that New Jersey recognizes. That’s right! Think of how many completely law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals, have their life destroyed, forced into a criminal judicial system for exercising a Constitutional right. They weren’t committing any crimes. They weren’t robbing, stealing, raping. No, no, no, nothing. Just, oh, you have a gun, and we’re not recognizing your right in this jurisdiction. That’s why this has to go. That’s why it’s a civil right, and it’s really great to see President Trump pushing it again. Teddy Nappen 09:21 If they were robbing, stealing, or raping, they would just be let off, no bail, no nothing. Evan Nappen 09:26 Well, if they’re an illegal alien, of course. Teddy Nappen 09:30 Yes, of course. Evan Nappen 09:31 And not only that, they would not even cooperate with ICE to have them deported, but that’s separate. Teddy Nappen 09:38 Yeah. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 09:38 We’re talking here about law-abiding Americans with rights that are getting oppressed. What’s really interesting is that President Trump is pushing it now, making it an issue. Not just leaving it in the shadows, but making it a specific issue out there. And at the same time, he’s pushing for the Save Act, so we have integrity in our voting system. He’s pushing like never before to get rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is what is stopping the Republican-controlled Congress from being able to pass the agenda that we voted for. It’s because of the filibuster. As it stands now, you need 60 votes, and that lets the oppressors still have power to stop these laws from going through. And you know, if the Democrats ever gained power again, the first thing they’re going to do is get rid of the filibuster. So, cut it out. I didn’t see the filibuster in our Constitution. It talks about majority for passing legislation in each house. Okay, that’s what it is. So, this filibuster thing is a contrivance, and it needs to go. It is time, because we can get these laws through, and we can get the changes that we need on so many fronts, including the Second Amendment rights. It’s very important, critical. Teddy Nappen 11:30 Yeah, and this also comes from this. It’s right an article from MSN. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-administration-is-working-on-nationwide-right-to-carry-legislation/ar-AA26oxMC) When he was unveiling the new aircraft at Andrews Air Force base, one of the attendees asked about it, and he said, “Yep, we’re working on it. That sends it right there, because that puts it in. Not only you just said not to the national spot, but it also had all the gun rights oppressionists jumping up, screaming, no, no, no. Like going, like just immediately. It’s so funny. Evan Nappen 12:07 It’s (Senator) Mike Lee’s bill. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4013/text) (Senator) Mike Lee has the bill, and they are working on it. This is a major, major law. It’s probably the single most important pro-Second Amendment rights law that we could pass in modern times. First of all, it will have a wonderful effect on reducing crime. We’re facing these criminals that were let loose into our country through four years of Biden and his policies, plus the blue state policies of the revolving door with no cash bails and all that. So, we need to be able to defend ourselves. But it also will make it so that carry is every individual, who chooses to have a firearm to protect themselves, and this will make it much simpler for individuals to do that very thing. Has a vested interest in preserving and fighting for their Second Amendment rights. It will be the biggest game changer that we could look for. Evan Nappen 13:22 Because as we evolve in our Second Amendments, where the base used to be the strongest base of our gun rights was hunters, it really has shifted. There’s less hunting and less hunting lands, unfortunately, and it shifted to a major uptick, tremendous uptick, in firearms for self-defense and personal protection and individual carry. This will solidify it to the ultimate, the ultimate lifestyle of Constitutional carry for all. That’s what we want to see. We will have a safer society. We’ll have a safer country. Individuals will be able to protect their families, their themselves, their loved ones. It is absolutely the best thing we could do for public safety and the protection of our sacred Constitutional rights. Page – 5 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 14:32 I will say, as well, I love just.. I pulled this from Giffords. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/06/giffords-condemns-trumps-push-for-national-right-to-carry-legislation/) Gabby Giffords, of course, who is one of the.. you know, out of.. I would say. Would you say Gifford is probably the smallest out of the gun rights of oppressors? There’s still a factor, but out of comparatively, compared to, like. Evan Nappen 14:49 Well, The Trace and Bloomturd and his organization probably has the most influence, but then you know. Teddy Nappen 15:00 They fund each other, and yeah, they do fund them, too. Evan Nappen 15:04 But, you know, the whole thing that also is true is that the anti-Second Amendment rights groups themselves are not really made of that many members. They don’t have anywhere near the passion and the numbers of which there are gun owners in America and guns in America. They like to gloss over that little fact. They’re basically small but well heeled, well financed. Slick and propagandized, and have an agenda of billionaires that they try to jam down the overwhelming majority of Americans’ throats that actually support the Constitution, and particularly the Second Amendment. So, that’s really, I mean, you don’t see it in terms of numbers. Now, they’ll hold rallies or whatever, and they’ll pay people to turn out. They’ll link in with other groups that are Left wing and such to make their numbers appear big. But there’s a tremendous difference between the pro-Second Amendment rights forces people and the anti-Second Amendment rights forces people. Teddy Nappen 16:32 And it’s also they never changed the argument. Because right here, right out of her own quote, concealed carry reciprocity is a dangerously reckless proposal, and would jeopardize the lives of the children, families, and police. People should not have guns who have no training, who have never passed a background check, and would be able to carry concealed weapons in every community, no questions asked. Evan Nappen 17:01 Yes, and that is absolute garbage. The majority of America already has Constitutional Carry. In the majority of states, 70% of the land mass of the U.S., you can carry now with no permit. So, obviously it’s flawed. I mean, look, murder rates have gone down nationally. But, of course, in the Blue cities, where they have the failure to cooperate with the federal government, where crime is out of control, it’s problematic there. But overall, guess what? The incredible decline in violent crime and murder rates corresponds brilliantly to civilian expansion of carry. That’s what you don’t hear. When they talk about how great we’re doing overall in terms of stopping and fighting violent crime and how those statistics show that we’ve improved, it correlates, it follows expansion of our ability to carry, either by shall-issue permit and/or Constitutional Carry. That’s why a national carry will enshrine it and make it the law of the land. We’ll see even better statistics and less people being victims instead of defenders. Page – 6 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 18:42 You always have to go to the fact, and they always say, if it saves one life. How about 2 million to 2.5 million in defensive uses of firearms that have saved lives per year. Evan Nappen 18:54 Right! Teddy Nappen 18:55 Just going off, you can even ignore the correlation / causation factor, and you can just cite to the fact that 2 million lives are saved from defensive uses of a firearm. If they go for the “save one life”, we’ve got to protect the children, yet it saves lives. Just flat out argument to that. But no, they always go to you’re going to be arming criminals and traffickers and lead to more gun deaths. All right. That’s ridiculous. Evan Nappen 19:24 Here’s the bottom line. It’s real simple. You can sum it up real easy. Guns Save Lives. Do you need to write that down? I mean, Guns Save Lives. And unfortunately, the cohorts of the oppressionists is the media. The mainstream, lame stream media that loves to push the agenda of the billionaire elitists that want our rights destroyed and that’s a fact. Guns Save Lives. And when you can, as an individual, protect yourself and your loved ones. Anyone who’s a gun owner knows that feeling of security and safety when you’re trained and know how to shoot and have your own firearm. You know that you can do it. And that is what enshrines it to the person, what puts it right in their heart. They go, yeah, I get it. I get it. Especially individuals who have actually had to use firearms, or they realize the famous saying of “I’d rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it”. And those that have needed one and not had it. Yeah, they paid a price, and those that have had it when they needed, it saved lives. Teddy Nappen 20:57 It makes me think back to, I don’t know if you remember seeing this. Do you know who Jamal Bowman is? Mister pull the Fire Alarm, because I can’t open a door. Evan Nappen 21:05 Yeah, right. That guy. Teddy Nappen 21:07 I remember him having a shouting match. It was like a couple years ago. It was him and Massie. He was arguing about, arguing for, more restrictive guns measures. Calling Republicans cowards, and he was screaming, and say, ‘You want more guns, you’re gonna lead to more death. Like, just screaming, screaming that it would cause more death. Screaming, ‘You’re all cowards. You don’t save children. Like, just screaming about it. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrat-calls-republicans-cowards-tense-exchange-gun-violence-rcna77342) They do not care about the statistics. They do not care about the facts and the logic behind it. They just see weapon bad. Weapon is used by the oppression. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 21:46 Wait. You’re telling me that Democrat issues are emotion-based? I find that hard to believe, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 21:53 I know, right. Whoops, sorry. Evan Nappen 21:55 Yeah, at least. Teddy Nappen 21:56 They banned logic in ’84. Evan Nappen 21:58 I guess they did. They did. Well, Teddy, let me talk about our good friends at WeShoot, our favorite range. It’s where you and I shoot and get our training and got our certificates, so that we can carry. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey, and a great facility. They are running an America 250th Anniversary sale. That’s right. This is a pretty cool sale, actually. They are offering 15% off all of their pre-loved firearms. You know what a pre-loved firearm is, right? Fifteen percent off for any of those, and 25% off their Heritage Collection. These are all these guns. There’s tremendously great guns that they have for sales, the 15% off sale across the board. You’ve got to check out what they have at WeShoot. They have an amazing selection and that’s of course on their pre-loved guns. Their Heritage Collection, man, is 25% off, and that is some sweet guns. Let me tell you. The Heritage Collection has, for example, I’ll just tell you about a few. Fox Sterlingworth shotgun, Fox “A” shotgun. You know, we’re talking these beauties. Fox AEs, and all these Richards. W. Richards SXs, you know, they’re the 10 gauge Richards. Fox CES, Parker Brothers, Trojan, the fevers, the nitros. We’re talking all the LC Smiths, Parkers. The classics of the scattergun world, man. The best of the best, and those are 25% off. Evan Nappen 24:17 So, you want to go to WeShoot and get your training there. It’s a great facility with a great indoor range. Conveniently located right off the Parkway, right in Lakewood, New Jersey. Central Jersey. Our ranges are critical. They are a resource. I mean, what good is it if you can’t shoot? If you don’t have any place to shoot? We’re lucky we have a great place to shoot. It’s called WeShoot. You can check out their website – weshootusa.com. Brilliant website with fantastic photography. They treat their customers so well. Teddy and I love WeShoot, and I know you will, too. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 25:03 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages. It’s over 120 topics, all question and answer, making it easy, so that you don’t become the next GOFU. New Jersey’s laws are complicated, and it can be very perilous. As a matter of fact, the case law even says, when dealing with New Jersey gun laws, you act at your own peril. Even the courts recognize that the gun laws are perilous. So, to help defeat the peril and manage it, get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Go to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com, and get your copy today. You’ll be glad you did, Teddy. What else have you discovered in your travels? Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 26:01 So, every time you turn on a TV show or movie, like out of modern Hollywood, you’ve probably seen some anti-gun messaging. It’s always there, some little. Evan Nappen 26:02 Yeah, some subliminal, some obvious. Nonsense. Teddy Nappen 26:12 An individual who is carrying, who ends up making the situation worse, or a kid finds the gun in the house and then shoots himself. These are others, or whatever, it’s always right, Evan Nappen 26:36 Mishandling. Teddy Nappen 26:37 You always see that. So, apparently this stems from Brady United, you know, Brady’s still a thing, apparently. They decided to meet with. This, is right from the NPR website. (https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104594849/hollywood-pledge-onscreen-guns) Two hundred screenwriters, producers, studio executives, talking about responsibility of depicting firearms in film and television. We are partnering with major partners like Paramount, Walt Disney Studios, CBS Studios. To date, an estimated 150 viewers have watched Project Brady has influenced things like from HBO Euphoria – it’s not even cracking anywhere – from people caring about that show to Netflix, Little House on the Prairie reboot. Again, something no one else also isn’t really watching. Just bear in mind, I love how everyone’s screaming about, like, Paramount is like big in with conservatives and Trump. They’ve made some good shows, but they also produced the most woke Star Trek series known to man, where you had a retarded AI who was also a he/she/it. Like it’s that, so it’s that level. Evan Nappen 26:37 They almost covered all the bases. Teddy Nappen 27:23 I know, right? And then, like, there was a gay. Evan Nappen 27:26 I heard they modeled a lot of it after Tim Walsh, right? Anyway. Teddy Nappen 27:56 Well, good luck with that. But yeah, and so they outlined this. Our show gun safety principles. I think they ripped this off of our range principle, but okay. To help Hollywood model safer behaviors around guns. We’re not just changing the story, we’re saving lives. Page – 9 – of 12 Evan Nappen 28:27 Well, you know, okay. What they’re doing here is they love to call every gun rights oppression law is a “gun safety law”. Gun safety to them is just banning guns, banning gun rights, going after in every way they can us and our rights and our guns. They just put it under a banner of safety. So, anytime I hear that they’re promoting so-called “gun safety”, well, gun safety to them is not what gun safety is necessarily to us. Now, if it was honestly showing better gun safety in the media, I’m not against that. I’m all for safe gun handling, but I tell you what. I have an idea better than what the gun rights oppressionists are pushing, where they’re trying to get the writers to write it into the stories. Evan Nappen 29:39 Here’s something very simple that could be done, but they’ll never do it. Here’s what needs to be done. You know, at the beginning of many movies and shows, there are warnings. Warning” contains sexual or smoking. They even warn about, you know, violence. They warn about all kinds of racial stereotypes. They put all these warnings at the beginning. Here’s a warning I want to see on every show and movie before it’s shown. “The following shows improper handling of firearms.” Put it as a warning. Do you know how many times you would see that warning? On every show. And what it would do? It would show America just how bad the entertainment world is, just how bad these shows are for what they show. Anytime a gun is used illegally or improperly, that show should have the warning. “Firearms here are being shown used illegally and improperly.” However, you want to word the warning. Evan Nappen 31:00 Every time that warning would come up, it would send the message. Look who is showing wrongdoing. It’s the media. So, it would go hand in hand with arguably what The Trace and these guys, Brady and all are trying to do. It would go hand in hand with it. They want to promote safety. We’ll put warnings when the unsafety is being shown. I’d love to see that. Look, I don’t want to restrict anybody’s First Amendment. It’s just a warning about what’s coming up. I’m not looking to have any kind of censorship on it. They can show unsafe gun handling all day long, but just put a warning up front that that’s what’s coming. If you can warn about smoking, warn about offensive language, if you can warn about all this other, why not warn about that? Teddy Nappen 32:02 I remember there was a, I think it was either Bloomberg or Everytown who put out after there was a big shooting, and they got a lot of Hollywood actors who were just naming off mass shootings. Someone did a super cut showing them misusing firearms in movies, just to show the hypocrisy. It’s very hilarious. This is just them also running cover because of the violence depicted in movies, because they have that. Not talking about, they don’t talk about that. They want to talk about the gun. But here’s the three principles, just as a reminder. Model responsible gun ownership, especially secure storage. Show the consequences of reckless gun use. What’s reckless? Oh, you know, defending yourself with a firearm. Have at least one conversation during pre-production on the ways guns will be portrayed on screen. And this is most important of all. Limit scenes with children and guns. That right there is important, because you want to. Page – 10 – of 12 Evan Nappen 33:10 Because they want to make the younger generation not have any familiarity or love of firearms whatsoever. It’s not let’s teach how to shoot safely and properly, and enjoy shooting sports, and mature to be able to have the ability to defend yourself and your family. No, no, shut them out of it. Shut them out of it. Get them out of it. We don’t want to have the young being gun owners in the future, and this is how we stop it. Teddy Nappen 33:47 Yeah, and then they highlight their successes. They bring up. I love this one. They bring up Tulsa King. There’s a scene where a character is teaching his girl how to shoot. He’s just going through like the very first rule of gun safety first. Safety always. It’s especially important. Always assume the gun is loaded. Never point anything you’re not intending to shoot. I like how they take credit for just basic range safety. Like we did that. Evan Nappen 34:19 I like, you know, back when America was America, you had great movies like Shane. I mean, one of the greatest scenes in Shane is with Alan Ladd and the young boy, who’s enthralled with him and his firearm. Like any young boy should be. And remember the mom is like, “Oh, I don’t want my son, I don’t want my son having guns and dealing with guns. And what does he say? Marion, a gun is just a tool.” And there you go. One of the, you know, most awesome, pro-Second Amendment rights statement. Making it clear a gun is just a tool, Marion. And it is. It’s a tool for our safety. It’s a tool for our liberty. It’s a tool for our freedom. It’s a tool for our security. That’s the kind of message we love to see. Teddy Nappen 35:17 For me, I like “The River of No Return”. Evan Nappen 35:22 You would like that. Teddy Nappen 35:23 Yeah. Where the guy has his son, who wants to learn how to shoot. He learns, and he saves his dad through back shooting. After he gets. Evan Nappen 35:32 Hey, there you go, man. He saved his dad. Hey, look, didn’t John Wayne in (The Man Who Shot) Liberty Valance kind of do that anyway? In The Shootest, he didn’t want to shoot anybody in the back, but I kind of thought that happened in Liberty Valance. Maybe was not crystal clear, but he definitely ambushed him to save Jimmy Stewart, right? Teddy Nappen 35:52 Yeah, Jimmy Stewart. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 35:53 He saved Jimmy Stewart’s ass with that shot. So, yeah, no, but look, what’s wrong with saving lives, and the good guys winning? I mean, that’s nice, you know. Beating the bad guys, not being a victim. Nothing wrong with that. As long as you’re justified and legal, and there you go. That works. Teddy Nappen 36:14 And then this is something I wanted to highlight, though, for people to remember. They got to all these show writers they had, for instance, like all signed this ridiculous letter. It was JJ Abrams, you know, the guy that ruined Star Trek. You have all these actors, producers, and directors signing this Brady show gun safety letter, this open letter. “Guns are prominently featured in TV and movies in every corner of the globe, but only America has a gun violence epidemic.” Okay, cut to the rest of the world. First, already debunked. “The responsibility lies with lax gun laws supported by those politicians more afraid of losing power than saving lives.” There we go. Another one right there. Lax laws. Thinking they’ll save lives. “We didn’t cause the problem, but we want to help fix it.” As America’s storytellers, our goal is to primarily entertain . . .” That’s not true in Hollywood. “. . . but we also acknowledge that stories have the power to effect change.” Evan Nappen 37:16 They’re a propaganda factory is what they are. Teddy Nappen 37:18 Correct. “Cultural attitude towards smoking, drunk driving, seat belts, and marriage equality have all evolved due in large part to movies’ and TV’s influence.” I’m pretty sure people are still drinking and driving. I’m pretty sure people are smoking, but now they’re vaping. So, that’s a whole.. and now, because that, they have to turn it towards vaping. And seat belts, okay, and marriage equality, okay. Now, the point now where they’ve lost. Evan Nappen 37:49 The whole political agenda through their propaganda efforts through entertainment. Hey, Teddy, I want to tell you about a very important GOFU this week. This week’s GOFU, remember, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. These are actual cases. Real deal things that you need to know. These are expensive lessons that somebody else has paid for that you get to learn for free. This week’s GOFU is really something that you may not have considered before, but you really should. If you ride motorcycles and such, make sure that the holster you use is not a clip-on style holster. You know, the kind. Make sure it’s an actual belt looped, so that your holster doesn’t come off while you’re riding your motorcycle. Because particularly susceptible. Evan Nappen 38:55 Now, granted, this can happen in a car, too. In a car, the firearm is going to end up on your floor of your car. But on a motorcycle, if that holster comes off the belt because it’s a clip on, even with the gun in it, or for that matter, if the gun falls out of the holster, you want to make sure your holster securely holds a firearm. You have to make sure the holster is secured to your belt. In motorcycling, with the vibration, the noise, etc., it’s very easy for an individual not to notice it falling off one’s body. You know you’re riding your bike and all that’s going on with the vibration and the road bumping and all these things Page – 12 – of 12 you’re dealing with, and it’s very easy to have that type of clip on holster come off. And then what happens? The gun and the holster fall off somewhere on your ride, and you don’t even realize it. Evan Nappen 40:12 Once you realize that you’ve lost it, you have 36 hours to report it lost or stolen in New Jersey, and this now jeopardizes, potentially, you being able to maintain your gun licenses. And if somebody else gets a hold of that gun, there can be further issues. So, please make sure that your holster is on your belt in a way that it cannot be removed unless you intentionally take it off through the loops. It’s very important. You don’t want to become a GOFU. Evan Nappen 40:54 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 3 41:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E296_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

We meet with Evan Guenther, the city's director of sustainable infrastructure to talk about the Wascana Parkway Extension Project, the Arcola Avenue Corridor Study & the Residential Road Renewal Program. Music by Ryan Hill (aka Guidewire). Originally broadcast on 91.3FM CJTR AccessNow community radio.

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

Morning Show 06-16-26 Hour 1 Northern Parkway by The Watchdog

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on June 10, 2026, was primarily focused on the revision and approval of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Recommended Budget and the five-year Capital Improvement Plan. The meeting featured a detailed presentation by the County Executive and Chief Fiscal Officer, followed by reports from seven key departments and extensive public testimony. Fiscal Overview and Challenges Chief Fiscal Officer Amanda Thomas presented an $8.9 Billion all-funds spending plan, which represented a $101 million operating deficit driven by two primary factors: Structural Deficit: The ongoing reliance on one-time funding to pay for continuing costs. Federal HR 1 Impacts: Changes at the federal level that shifted approximately $50 million in costs to the county, particularly regarding Med-Cal eligibility, indigent care, and CalFresh administrative costs. To address the shortfall, the Board had previously directed departments to implement a 2.5% initial allocation reduction. Departmental Budget Presentations District Attorney (Tan Ho): Ho opposed a proposed $4.1 million reduction (14 positions), arguing his office was already "running on fumes". He emphasized that "vacant" positions were actually committed to law students slated to pass the bar and that cuts would force him to scale back misdemeanor prosecutions and the Community Prosecution unit. Sheriff's Office (Jim Cooper): The Sheriff contested a $13.7 million reduction (48 positions), asserting that while "core functions" like jails and contracts were mandated, the cuts would decimate "non-core" but vital public safety units such as POP (Problem Oriented Policing), HOT (Homeless Outreach Team), and Marine Enforcement. He highlighted that the county already has the fewest officers per capita in the region and response times are double the national average. Public Defender (Amanda Benson): Benson reported a 20% increase in criminal filings and a 300% increase in City Attorney cases. She warned that cutting mental health diversion and post-conviction representation units would lead to caseload overloads and increased county liability. Regional Parks (Liz Bellis): Bellis noted that while the park system has grown 70% in acreage since 1991, permanent staff has decreased by 15%. Proposed cuts included three park rangers (a 17% reduction to the Parkway patrol) and a 46% reduction in extra-help seasonal staff. Human Assistance (Ethan Dye): Dye focused on the impacts of HR 1 on CalFresh, noting that every dollar spent by the county now only draws down $3.44 in state/federal funds, compared to $5.67 previously. Health Services (Tim Letts): This department accounts for 70% of health spending via Behavioral Health. Letts highlighted growth for a new youth facility but noted intense pressure from the Mays Consent Decree, which requires significant staffing and infrastructure investments in correctional health. Public Comment and Deliberations Over 120 residents and officials provided testimony. Business leaders and community members strongly advocated for restoring the Sheriff's HOT and POP teams and the DA's Community Prosecutors, citing their effectiveness in addressing retail theft and homelessness. Conversely, many community advocates urged the Board to maintain the DA and Sheriff cuts, suggesting the DA could save millions by ending the pursuit of the death penalty. Others pleaded for the restoration of foster youth transportation (Hop Skip Drive) and prevention programs like Birth and BEYOND. Final Board Actions After extensive debate regarding the use of the 9.9 million in funding: Sheriff's Office: Restored funding for the Marine and HOT teams ($7,894,989), but notably did not include the POP team. District Attorney: Restored four Community Prosecutor positions (~$1.37 million) contingent on an MOU to ensure the funds are used for that specific purpose. Public Defender: Restored funding for critical caseload support ($649,076). The Board agreed to revisit other high-priority "prevention" programs—including foster youth transportation, Birth and BEYOND, and public health initiatives—during the September budget revision when final state funding numbers are clearer. The final action left the county with a remaining contingency of $6,330,683.  

GLP-1s like Ozempic and Wegovy are all over the news and TV ads lately. Are they really a safe way to lose weight? Racquel Williams talks with medical professionals from Penn Medicine's Center for Weight and Eating Disorders about the benefits and risks of GLP-1s, plus how social media impacts body image and how mental health is connected to food. Then, Philly Pride is bigger than ever this year! Shara Dae Howard hits up the kickoff event at Sofitel Philadelphia to find out what's going on all month - including a performance by Patti LaBelle - and how the LGBTQ+ community feels about the Pride festival moving from the Gayborhood to the Ben Franklin Parkway.

Your All-Access Pass to the Marching Arts.Color Guard Joins the Patti LaBelle Pride Celebration at Philadelphia Pride 2026.In this Quick Sip, Trish O'Shea welcomes Dylan Watson back to On A Water Break to preview the Philly Pride 365 Colorguard and its role inside Philadelphia Pride 2026.Dylan talks about building a bigger color guard production this year, including parade choreography, stage movement, dancing, Philly music, and a celebration connected to the music and legacy of Patti LaBelle.Philadelphia Pride 2026 brings Pride on the Parkway to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway on Sunday, June 7, following March Into Pride in the Gayborhood. This year's celebration honors Philadelphia icon Patti LaBelle with a tribute recognizing her musical legacy, cultural impact, and connection to LGBTQIA+ communities.For Dylan, this is more than a parade feature. It is a chance to show audiences that color guard is a full production: visual, musical, emotional, and powerful.Featuring:Trish O'Shea – @trishdish1102Dylan Watson – @that_dude_dylan19Also connected:Philly Pride 365 – @phillypride365Patti LaBelle – @mspattilabelleNicole Younger – @o2binpjsLearn more about Philly Pride 365:PhillyPride365.orgFind On A Water Break:WebsiteListen EverywhereAll LinksBe a guestonawaterbreakpodcast@gmail.comFollow On A Water Break:Instagram: @onawaterbreakFacebook: @onawaterbreakYouTube: @Onawaterbreak

The Missouri State Highway Patrol's annual school bus inspections are out, and KMOX wanted to know exactly what goes into keeping a district's fleet of big yellow buses ready for the road. KMOX's Michael Calhoun talks with Travis Warren, transportation operations and fleet manager for Parkway Schools. Warren says Parkway received a 98% score on a recent Missouri state inspection, finding just one brake adjustment that needed to be made, and one faulty signal bulb, both were quickly fixed. 'It's quite a large operation' says Warren. (Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images)

This is your All Local 12pm update for June 1st, 2026.

Episode 292- Your Gun is in the Mail Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 16 Gun Lawyer — Episode 292 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, Second Amendment, Marxism, useful idiots, US Postal Service, handgun shipping, NFA silencers, firearm regulations, logical fallacies, self-defense, gun scams, dog safety, firearm training, New Jersey gun law, gun rights. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy Bear, what’s going on, man? Teddy Nappen 00:28 Well, I can’t believe you outed my middle name. Just kidding. It’s something where I don’t know this. Dad, do you remember growing up, and you saw, like, did you ever listen to Rage Against the Machine? Evan Nappen 00:42 Yeah, I actually will admit to that. Teddy Nappen 00:45 Yeah, do you remember that shirt where it literally has the picture of Che Guevara? Evan Nappen 00:50 Yeah. Well, I have one of those shirts, except my Che Guevara shirt has him wearing Mickey Mouse ears. So, I call him Mickey Che, and I thought Mickey Che was just hilarious. Teddy Nappen 01:02 Yeah, I think it’s funnier because of what if I was.. I just learned like more about who this individual was. Evan Nappen 01:11 Che Guevara? Page – 2 – of 16 Page – 3 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 01:14 I love how the Left tote him as their revolutionary hero. This guy put gays and Catholics in concentration camps. He tried to purify the Spanish race. And in details describing again, like trying to talk about black people, trying to remove them from society. He personally executed 100 people. Evan Nappen 01:38 He’s actually completely aligned with the progressive Left, if you really think about it. Teddy Nappen 01:43 True. Evan Nappen 01:44 I mean, the reality of what the Left does, you know. They are the kings of hypocrites. They are masters of double think. They have one goal and that is to destroy America. I mean, that’s their entire agenda. If you think about everything, they’re for, and every single item they are for harms our country in some way. Everything is harmful, and this is what they’re all about. Teddy Nappen 02:23 I think there is a good, I think the best way to think of it, and Crowder from Louder with Crowder gives the best line. They are Marxist because you see them take the most insane stances, like queers for Palestine. They’re for funding the war in Ukraine, but not for dealing with Iran. They take these crazy stances, which just looking at it, just from like it would make no sense, except from the eyes of a Marxist. Where in Marxism, in go right to the book, “The Communist Manifesto”, you have to define your enemy, oppressor and oppressee. No matter the individual, no matter the group, no matter the stance you take. You could be the most hateful group against gays, but if you are the oppressed, if you are the underdog, you are the good guy in their ideology. That is how screwed up it is, and they will take whatever political stance to achieve power for the sake of Marxism. Evan Nappen 03:18 Yeah, they are the useful idiots for the Marxists, for those that want to destroy America. They’re the useful idiots. And by the way, the only redeeming factor at all to their entire agenda of Marxism is that if they ever were to succeed, they’re the first ones that will get killed. They’re the ones that the Marxists will then kill when they don’t need them anymore, and that is exactly the playbook of the Marxist takeovers. Teddy Nappen 03:54 Cut to Iran with the students, which are all Islamo communists who took over. By the way, when the Iranian regime took over, guess who they executed first? The communists. Evan Nappen 04:05 Well, it’s the playbook every time. They’re just useful idiots until they’re no longer useful, and then they’re dead idiots. Page – 4 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 04:16 And then what is it, the old phrase. You can vote your way into communism, but you have to shoot your way out. Evan Nappen 04:21 That’s it. That’s it. So, luckily, we are exposing, you know, the truth is out there, and this political battle for the future of our country is clear and normal America gets it. I really believe they do. And the extremists on the Left, of course, are the worst when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. They’re not going to be in a general sense successful. Now they’re able to have pockets where you see their policies destroy cities, and you can watch the destruction of these cities taking place under their policies. But that’s just examples being set to the rest of America, what we never want to happen broadly in the country. Teddy Nappen 05:26 Yeah, and speaking of Marxism, as I always, again, we always have to check on the Left of what they’re currently whining and crying about. So, Evan Nappen 05:37 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 05:38 Our favorite, our favorite fans at The Trace. We check out their latest article. “People might soon be able to ship handguns through the mail.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/05/usps-handgun-mailing-ban-shipping-rule/) That was the article. Evan Nappen 05:38 Oh my G-d! Everyone clutch your pearls. Teddy Nappen 05:40 Oh my G-d. Jennifer Mascia writes this whole article where the U.S. Postal Service is set to lift a century-old ban, and experts warn of the consequences. I love the term “experts”. Evan Nappen 06:13 Experts warn the consequences. Right now you can ship via FedEx. You can ship UPS. Oh, but somehow if we allow shipping via the U.S. Postal Service, oh, well, now it’s a threat to our safety, our country, everything. You know, it’s just, the sky is falling because of that. Teddy Nappen 06:38 Yeah, and I love how they’re saying, the rule would allow handguns to be shipped through the mail, bypassing a longstanding law prohibiting such practice. Evan Nappen 06:51 Well, you know, I guess they’re not aware that currently you can buy NFA silencers by having them shipped to your door. Silencers are allowed to be sold in this manner, as long as it’s a dealer in the Page – 5 – of 16 state that is doing the shipping. Now, this is the model that is so interesting with Silencer Central, for example. You can buy a NFA silencer online at Silencer Central. (https://www.silencercentral.com/) You can do your NFA forms. They have a great interface where you do the interface. It interfaces you to e-forms, the federal government’s forms for NFA. There’s no tax on suppressors anymore because of the Big Beautiful Bill. Once you get the approval, then they ship from Silencer Central, which I believe is in South Dakota. I believe that is where their headquarters are. That is then sent to their local dealer network that they have already set up, and that’s who ships the suppressor direct to your door. Now, of course, if you live in the DPRNJ, you cannot buy a suppressor because the state law bans them. But in well over 40 some states that respect the Second Amendment, you’re able to do this. Evan Nappen 08:38 So, this model that they have, which is computerized and set up well, is the groundwork now being laid in the federal government for this to apply to guns. And by opening up the postal service to allow the shipping of handguns, it will allow yet another source for shipping of guns via the post office. And the ATF 34 new regs that they’re proposing is to have computerized the 4473 forms just like the NFA forms are computerized. So, you’ll have e-forms that you can do for that. I’m sure companies will set up an interface in the same way they have an interface set up to ease the process for suppressors. And then even if, for example, Silencer Central were to use their existing network, you could buy the gun of your choice online, and then it will be sent through their network. It will be shipped directly to your door. With the removal of the ban on shipping handguns in the post office, it could even come via the U.S. Post Office right to your door. Evan Nappen 09:54 So, we’re modernizing the business trade for firearms and making it so that we’re getting back to our pre ’68, pre 1968, ability to have mail order guns, and this is great. Especially for folks that have limited ability to get to a dealer. You know, not everybody lives close to an FFL, but everybody gets their mail delivered in some way. So, this will make the availability of firearms that much more easier for individuals to acquire guns. Of course, that’s what those that are the oppressors of our gun rights don’t want to do. They want everything they can come up with that can somehow be a burden on the exercise of our rights to exist. So, they fight everything and anything that in any way makes it easier. Teddy Nappen 11:04 This is even funnier because you could still ship your AR-15. Evan Nappen 11:10 Well, right, long arms are fine, even by the mail and by in-state dealers already. And, you know, although the law in 1927 about concealable weapons can’t be shipped, you know, concealable, they’d be mainly handguns, sawed off shotguns, etc. Concealable weapons. Long arms still could be, and it wasn’t until the ’68 Gun Control Act that the dealer network essentially got established and requirements for having to have the in-state dealer only for handgun transfers. So, you cannot buy a handgun except in a state where you’re a resident. You can buy a long arm in a state where you’re not a resident, as long as that dealer obeys the law of the home state and the resident state. So, as long as both jurisdictions’ laws are followed, long arm sales can occur right over the counter or at a gun show, etc. but not with handguns. This will dramatically change that for the better. We’ll be able to ship Page – 6 – of 16 handguns, and it’ll help establish these dealer networks to almost make irrelevant the restriction over having to have an in-state dealer on the transfer when it can easily just be shipped. So, that will be a great thing. Another improvement, thanks to President Trump and his administration on addressing the trade, the business model and trade in firearms. Teddy Nappen 13:22 It always makes me laugh from reading this article. The expert that they get, Robert Spitzer. Evan Nappen 13:23 Yeah, he’s a known quantity. Teddy Nappen 13:28 He’s written the Politics of Gun Control, and he writes this entire book making the claim that this is the time to push for gun control. Evan Nappen 13:46 Oh yeah, now. Teddy Nappen 13:48 He wrote an entire book trying to make the argument that the NRA is weak, and, and, and we’ve had such great strides in the anti-gun movement that we need to push for, and it’s yeah. Evan Nappen 14:04 Well, the NRA has been weakened due to all the internal strife, that is true. But the gun rights movement is not just the NRA. The NRA is important. The NRA does good work. The NRA has unfortunately had its internal problems that they’re finally getting beyond. However, we have the GOA (Gun Owners of America) out there doing great things. We have Firearm Policy Coalition, FPC. They’re doing great work litigating and such. We have Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Second Amendment Foundation. We have many other groups that are taking up the fight and many, many state groups that are also engaging. So, simply saying this is great because the NRA has been weakened hardly paints the picture. Evan Nappen 15:18 Then, of course, we have the most important aspect of why this is absolutely probably the worst time ever, and that has to do with President Trump. His dedication to the Second Amendment, and his administration with the appointment of the new ATF director, who is moving on President Trump’s Executive Order to look at all the regulations and gun laws, and to change the way America, the federal government itself, does business. To the degree of cutting the funding that was going to the gun rights oppressive groups, which they’re still. Talk about weakened. What’s really been weakened is the other side over the cutting of the monies to them that was taxpayer dollars. Page – 7 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 16:13 The other factor is, Dad, that they blew their entire control in COVID, where people were like, “Oh man, I’m in my home, I need to defend it”. I need to get a firearm. And currently, right now, all the Leftists are buying guns in droves, and they’re getting denied. Like, why can’t I own a firearm? Evan Nappen 16:37 They’re buying guns in droves? Where did they get these cars from the 1930s to go by guns with? Teddy Nappen 16:44 Nice. But it’s literally the most like weakest issue you could ever push for. Now, they still make, they still get their talking heads and all the others out there, but the vast majority at this point, like, are pro, and you can have your spurts of mass shootings, but it always comes back to, oh, who was the shooter? Oh, it was a transgender woman who thinks he was a man or some other mentally deranged individual. Oh, we can’t talk about that shooting. And it gets just stomped over and over and over again. It’s ridiculous. Just going back to the article here, the whole argument from Spitzer. Evan Nappen 17:26 Well, mental health is an issue. Teddy Nappen 17:28 Yeah. This college professor makes a logical fallacy argument against the rule change. He says handguns can be transported legally across state lines now, and it would be, and quite frankly, you could just drive your car and use your car to transport. Why would you need to mail anything? Evan Nappen 17:49 First of all, you can’t do that very thing. You cannot cross state lines as a non-resident and buy a handgun in another state. You have to be a resident of the state to purchase a handgun. Now, you can be, arguably, a dual resident if you reside in the other state at the time, either on the weekends or the summer months. You have property and you’re residing there. Then dual residency recognition is there. But if you’re not, if you’re just on vacation, or if you think you can just leave your resident state, go to another state, and buy a handgun legally, you can’t. So, that’s not legally true. Teddy Nappen 18:35 I think he was also referring to transporting, because the idea was. The other thing they were making the point of the argument was like you can ship your gun to yourself as well. One of the things that they were talking about, as one of the points for this. But here’s the key to the, what he’s making, he made a logical fallacy. It’s called a false dilemma or appeal to the alternative, where you give two choices where one exists. Therefore by that makes the other one is may makes false or true. Even though just because that exists, just because you are transporting a firearm, that doesn’t mean this negates the ability where you shouldn’t be able to mail. It’s a logical fallacy, and this is someone who’s supposed to be this politically smart. Evan Nappen 19:24 Similar to the Mott and Bailey. Similar. Page – 8 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 19:26 Yeah. Well, that’s why. Well, that’s the premise of most logical fallacies. You equate to something to make your argument seem reasonable when it’s not true. And this is why logical fallacies exist. You’re using them in debates. But here the Left can only use logical fallacies when making their arguments, because they have to appeal to emotion. Evan Nappen 19:47 Right! Speaking of logical fallacy, once you get into an argument with them and you’re destroying them, then, of course, their final, their last resort is, of course, an ad hominem attack. Teddy Nappen 19:58 Well, that goes back to. I Learned. Evan Nappen 20:00 Right. Teddy Nappen 20:01 I learned this term, just going to it. I think it’s called Godwin’s Law, where it’s the premise where basically everyone would keep equating to a political argument where someone would just say, oh yeah, well, that’s Hitler talk, or say someone is like being a Nazi or being like a fascist. Godwin’s Law is, if that get. Evan Nappen 20:23 Wait, and throw in pedo, somehow Teddy Nappen 20:25 pedophile, Evan Nappen 20:26 to your pedophile, Teddy Nappen 20:27 pedophile, Evan Nappen 20:28 I don’t, Teddy Nappen 20:29 Yeah. So, actually engaging with the subject, when you throw in that term, you have therefore won the argument, because they’ve now just resorted to the tactic of the idea. If the conversation eventually leads to Hitler, you’ve won the debate because they were right to that tactic. And I love he did this, though, because he was Left wing, where he was trying to make the argument about trying to be pro gun control, where you’re equating this to fascist, and then he tried to carve out exceptions. Well, if it Page – 9 – of 16 actually is showing real signs of fascism, then it’s okay. But it’s just the level, like, really? Yeah, you carve out. Rules for thee, not for me, obviously, so. Evan Nappen 21:13 It also goes back to their double think, and all that. I mean, it’s so Orwellian, man. The Left just lives the Orwellian dream here, man, with what they do. Every day we are fascinated by their shenanigans. It’s nuts. So, that is fascinating. Hopefully, as we move ahead here, we’re seeing all kinds of dramatic pro Second Amendment rights changes. Teddy, you said you had something else you wanted to share. I was wondering what that was. Teddy Nappen 21:57 This was probably from what is a lot of people in talking about is the Chud The Builder story, where he was a. Evan Nappen 22:07 Chud? He’s a chud? Teddy Nappen 22:09 Yeah. Evan Nappen 22:10 A chud is a stupid, ugly person, I think, right? Teddy Nappen 22:15 A self-given name, so, whatever. Evan Nappen 22:18 So, he’s calling himself a Chud? Teddy Nappen 22:20 Yes, that was his like tagline, and. Evan Nappen 22:23 Wow. He doesn’t have high self-esteem, if you’re calling yourself a Chud. Teddy Nappen 22:29 Yeah, there’s like, there’s all different, there’s so much stuff out there on the internet. Evan Nappen 22:34 So, what did Mr. Chud do? Teddy Nappen 22:37 Yeah, so he was a streamer. He would go around to different people. He’s a rage baiter, where he tried to say, like, you know, he’d say the N word to, like, go up to black people. Page – 10 – of 16 (https://www.soapcentral.com/entertainment/joshua-fox-victim-chud-the-builder-comes-scrutiny-alleged-past-crimes-emerge) Evan Nappen 22:48 A rage baiter? Teddy Nappen 22:49 Yeah, where he tries to get a rise out of people, which. Evan Nappen 22:51 Wait a minute. I understand he’s very, very skilled at that. As a matter of fact, don’t they consider him a master at that? Teddy Nappen 22:59 I would say so. Evan Nappen 23:00 Cause that would make him a masturbator. Teddy Nappen 23:03 Yep, he certainly is. Teddy Nappen 23:04 Okay. But what did this guy do? Teddy Nappen 23:07 Well, he went over, and he was, and again, we don’t have all the facts yet on this. It’s still coming out. But the basic summary is that he was saying the N word, and you know, making all the different jokes and going up to people. And then one guy came over and punched him, attacked him over that. Then he drew his gun on him and fired. There was a scuffle where he ended up shooting himself, along with the attacker. Evan Nappen 23:37 Holy cow. Well, okay, there’s a lot to unpack there, and we don’t have all the facts. But basically fighting words. So, if he’s approaching somebody and using what we might even generously call fighting words, or words to trigger, how’s that? This person. That still is not generally a basis where you can use force. So, the person who he may be offending is not necessarily justified in using force. But if he raised the stakes, the victim of this guy’s race baiting, raised the stakes to a physical assault, but no weapon, that still doesn’t rise necessarily to the Chud using deadly force. But, again, we don’t know all the facts. Fighting words themselves are not normally a good justification for use of force either way. And then if his response was disproportionate to what occurred, and plus he’s also, Chud there, is also treading in the bad area of “don’t be the instigator”. Don’t be the troublemaker. Don’t be the guy who started it. And that already is a strike against him for being that guy. So, this sounds like not a really smart person doing smart things. Page – 11 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 25:17 Yeah, and I will say, just from the quote, they’re also saying, again, unconfirmed, that the guy, the “victim” was stalking him because he was streaming and wanted to go there. So, that could be a factor because this individual was whatever. Evan Nappen 25:34 Maybe he was a stalker? I don’t know. Teddy Nappen 25:36 Yeah, we don’t have all the facts. Evan Nappen 25:38 You see, when dealing with self-defense, it becomes very fact-specific. It really does. Those facts come together, and the reasonableness of your actions – were you reasonably in fear? Was it a reasonable fear? Was it proportionate and reasonable, etc.? All that is what the jury is going to have to believe and understand and agree with. So, you better be able to convince 12 people, who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty, that you were extremely reasonable in what you did. Teddy Nappen 26:24 Under criminal procedure, though, would this be allowed to come out in the court? Where the “victim”, Joshua Fox, had a large rap sheet. He tried to set his house on fire with an aerosol can and a lighter. And when his wife tried to try to stop him, he tried to stab her with a screwdriver. Evan Nappen 26:41 It’s going to come down to a lot of the rules on what’s admissible, evidentiary. What can be demonstrated under what’s called “prior acts”. These are all important legal issues that the court will have to determine. Teddy Nappen 26:57 Multiple aggravated assaults, by the way. You know, DUIs. Evan Nappen 27:03 And maybe to what degree is there an awareness of the parties, of the background of the person. But these are all going to be things that will be in consideration. Teddy Nappen 27:15 It also kind of upsets me, though, Dad, is reverse the races, and what happens? Evan Nappen 27:21 Well, we all know what happens in our society, don’t we? Teddy Nappen 27:26 Yeah, and that’s Page – 12 – of 16 Evan Nappen 27:28 It’s apparently a one-way street. Just ask that woman who was. Teddy Nappen 27:36 Arena. Evan Nappen 27:37 Yeah, that was her. Teddy Nappen 27:38 You had a guy who was released nine times, gets on a subway station, stabs her, and then says to the camera, I got that whitey. I got that whitey. It’s disgusting. As they’re taking down the mural of her, by the way, because we don’t want to show offense. But why is it that it’s conditioned to say one word, how is that justified to be okay? We’re gonna beat the crap out of you, and also probably kill you over that word. That is the disgusting part. This goes beyond Chud The Builder. This goes to an issue. What was that documentary, the N word? Like, it broke down the utter insanity that has been created around that word to the point right now. Evan Nappen 28:24 It’s done on purpose, and you’re seeing, though, the demise in a way of that entire reverse discrimination. The entire thing that’s been placed on us as a society. It’s being rejected because the other side took it too far. I mean, once you start saying that math is racist, you’re losing people that are otherwise very supportive. Teddy Nappen 28:55 Also working out of. Evan Nappen 28:56 The original cause of having what Dr. King put out there, as it’s about your character, right? The content of your character, not the color of your skin. And that’s something that just about every normal American can embrace. We take each person as an individual, and we look at who they are in their character. When you start creating these groups that you either want to attack or groups that you just only want to help to the detriment of another group, then you’re going into what Americans viscerally know is racist, whichever way you’re going with it. It becomes racist, because racism really boils down to distinguishing based on race. You’re distinguishing based on race, and how that distinguishing takes place is where you can see unfairness coming from both sides. Americans are generally fair people. We don’t want unfairness. We want equal opportunity, but not equity. There’s a difference, not equity. Teddy Nappen 30:14 Yeah, that’s the problem. Page – 13 – of 16 Evan Nappen 30:15 Equality is something we can all believe in, because it’s fundamental to our existence. All men are created equal. We can all accept that we’re all created equal, and then we all should have equal opportunity. But once that equal is no longer equal, then people sense the unfairness and the discrimination, whichever way that discrimination is cutting, and that’s what you see. Evan Nappen 30:45 Hey, Teddy, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot, the place you and I love to go. We love to shoot there. It is a great range in Lakewood, New Jersey, conveniently located right off the Parkway. They have top deals, great specials all the time. They have a fantastic range, a state-of-the-art range, and the training there is second to none. You can get your certification for getting your New Jersey carry. Hey, you and I both got ours, and so did Brother Lou. He got his there, too. Lots and lots of folks we know have successfully gotten their training and certifications from WeShoot. WeShoot has a great website. You should really check it out. Go to weshootusa.com. Please go to WeShoot. You will love it. You’ll be glad you did. It is one of our favorite places, and you know ranges are important to support because they are a resource, a limited resource in the DPRNJ. WeShoot is first rate. So, check out weshootusa.com. Pay them a visit, and join as a member. Take advantage of this great resource for the exercise of your Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 32:21 Let me also shamelessly plug my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of Jersey gun law. It will help guide you through the insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws so that you don’t become a GOFU. That is my mission in life, to educate and help our brothers and sisters that want to be and remain law-abiding gun owners, even in tough environments, such as the DPRNJ. That’s why the book’s there. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy today. EvanNappen.com. Evan Nappen 33:03 Teddy, I want to talk about a double header GOFU. We’re going to do two today. We’re going to do two. Teddy Nappen 33:14 A binary GOFU? Evan Nappen 33:16 Well, actually, it’s going to be two separate GOFUs. One is a bona fide GOFU that you need to know about, and the other, they’re both bona fide GOFUs, but one we’re gonna call a DOGFU, and you’ll see why. We’ll save the DOGFU for a little later. Let me tell you about this actual GOFU. So, this is an individual who is new to guns. Now, I think many of my listeners are experienced with firearms, but you may be new to guns, which is fine. I welcome you on board, and as a listener. Everybody’s got to start at some point, where you learn, and your best way is to go to a dealer. I would highly recommend WeShoot for a first timer. They will equip you, train you, and you’ll learn right from the start the right way to do things. Page – 14 – of 16 Evan Nappen 34:19 But in this case, this individual didn’t know much about guns. He actually purchased a handgun via Facebook. Now, first of all, I didn’t even think Facebook allows the sale of firearms, but somehow, it must have come up on Marketplace or something. He thought this was a good deal. It was a Gen 5 Glock 20 with a number of magazines and a couple hundred rounds. It’s supposedly a private seller, and all this, and you know, it would still be going through, arguably, a dealer. It’s not unlawful to buy online, like if you go through Gun Broker or other sources. But it has to go dealer to dealer, and you need the permits. You have to do all that. This person, being new to this, wasn’t trying to avoid that. In fact, he anticipated they would be doing that, but thought, here’s a great way to get a gun. He paid for this gun but did not receive it. Instead, as I discover the story, I find out that the person tells me that the gun was shipped, the gun was shipped to a freight company. Evan Nappen 35:45 Now, folks, we’re talking today about shipping, about U.S. mail, about all that. If a gun is being sent, a gun is not sent via a freight company. I mean, that would be highly unusual. A gun normally gets sent UPS, FedEx, you know, the standard carriers like that, and it gets sent to the dealer. Well, this person is told by the person who they already paid for this Glock, which was, you know, $500, so that’s a great deal. It’s a phenomenal deal for Gen 5 Glock 20, right? So, immediately you need to wonder, why is it such a good deal? Oh, well, the freight company has the gun, but the freight company can’t deliver it unless you pay certain monies. Then they milk this person along to keep paying monies and claiming certain paperwork and all kinds of things have to be done before it goes to a dealer. Well, that’s ridiculous. It’s the dealer who’s going to do the paperwork. They just are the carrier, if they are even for real. Of course, here it isn’t. Evan Nappen 36:52 So, I asked, how much money have you paid to this freight company to sort this out? Have they been telling you? Two thousand dollars to the freight company already. And now they want to refund. Oh, they’ll gladly refund. But before they send the refund, he has to pay more money, like another $500 right? Okay, how was this paid for? Oh, Bitcoin, of course. Do you have an address for this company? No, it was just a phone number and communication over WhatsApp. Oh geez. I mean every flag you can imagine. And look, I’m not here to be mean. I’m not here to mock anybody. These people are con artists. They’re out there. The scammers are out there. There’s a reason they’re called con men, because they’re known as confidence men. They gain your confidence, and you have to recognize this. Evan Nappen 37:53 The GOFU is falling for the scam. The bottom line is, you know, don’t send them another penny. Report the theft, and you know it’s highly unlikely you’re ever going to recover a dime of what you paid. But the lesson needs to be learned. If you’re going to buy a gun, particularly as a new gun owner, go to your local dealer. Go to a dealer, go to a legitimate brick and mortar dealer in your state, and have them show you the ropes. It’s a great advantage to have a dealer there that not only can sell you a gun, not only do all the paperwork, not only be known to be legitimate, but also they can train you. They can help you pick the right gun. They can help you train. I mean, I’m not even sure whether a newbie should be starting with a Glock 20 in 10 millimeter. Yeah, it depends on the person and their skill. Maybe they had some prior firearm, I don’t know. But that’s not exactly. It’s a great gun. I love the Glock 20. But Page – 15 – of 16 that’s not necessarily the best gun for a newbie to be starting with, not necessarily. So, this is the kind of things, these are the factors that a dealer will be able to advise and help you. They’ll make sure everything’s done right and legitimately, and you have that dealer as a resource. So, this is important. Don’t be a GOFU, you know, the Gun Owner Fuck Up in that regard. Don’t get scammed. Be very careful with anything online. If you’re going to buy online, there’s protocols you need to follow, you know. If it’s through, like, Gun Broker, where it’s a legitimate site, then things have to go through dealers. They have to be vetted. Look at the feedback. You know, ask for help with others that have done these type of purchases. If you’re new to this, I wouldn’t advise jumping in to online purchases, not at this stage. Now, eventually, with what we talked about at the beginning of the show, it may be streamlined with major companies, and then you’ll be fine and safe. But that is definitely something you want to avoid. Evan Nappen 37:53 So, that is the first GOFU, but now let’s talk about the second GOFU, which is the DOGFU. Teddy, you have the background on the DOGFU. Tell us about the DOGFU. Teddy Nappen 38:43 So, just kind of going into it a little more, I think personally. Evan Nappen 39:36 This occurred in a person who was in a truck, right? They had their shotgun in a truck, and I believe they were parked in front of either a gas station or convenience store or something. Teddy Nappen 39:43 Yeah, and he left the gun loaded in his truck, and of course the dog. Evan Nappen 39:54 Now, this is farm country. I think it was out in Nebraska. I mean, you still shouldn’t have your loaded gun necessarily in your car. I don’t know whether that was lawful or not in Nebraska, maybe it was. Teddy Nappen 41:12 Well, the dog saw a squirrel running, and so he reached for the gun. Evan Nappen 41:20 Well, unfortunately, when it comes to dogs and guns, any pet and a gun, if you leave your gun loaded, safety, you know, all gun loaded never should ever load, even with the safety on. You know, dogs jump around, man. And all his paw had to do, which apparently happened, is get between the trigger guard and the trigger, and bang, that gun discharged. It actually hit a bystander, I believe, and caused immense problems. So, the take away. Teddy Nappen 41:52 I think the bystander was reported as a postman, by the way. Just kidding. Page – 16 – of 16 Evan Nappen 41:57 No, I don’t think so. But the thing that’s important here is that this is not that uncommon. It’s not regularly occurring. But dogs and other animals inadvertently discharging a firearm is not unheard of. And hunters, particularly those that hunt with dogs, need to be very careful. There are a number, any number of stories of hunters that put their loaded gun down, and the dog accidentally discharges the gun. You know, you might be looking to safely climb over a fence or an obstacle, you need to unload your gun before doing it. And instead of leaning it up on the fence, loaded, and then think you’re going to reach over and grab it, and a dog jumps up on it, and next thing you know, boom. You’re getting shot, or somebody else is, and that gun’s discharging. It can happen in a household, you know, leaving your loaded handgun on a table or on a chair, and a dog or other animal can jump up and cause a discharge. So, be conscientious about your loaded gun. Even if nobody else is home, it’s just you and another living creature, this type of DOGFU can occur. So, beware. Evan Nappen 43:27 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 43:38 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E292_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";

"It was a brutal killing, a terrible way to die. The killer was cold and ruthless. He gave no consideration to Alan when he tied him up and stole his cards."53-year-old Alan Holmes was living a quiet life in the winter of 1995. A longtime resident of Camden Town, Alan was unmarried and had no children. He had spent nearly two decades working as a garage hand at Kentish Town Police Station, where he was widely regarded as a gentle giant who was beloved but very quiet. He normally kept to himself.That Christmas, a longtime friend invited Alan over to her family's house for Christmas. He accepted, and spent that evening with her and her family. She'd later drop him off back at his flat in Camden, which sat above an empty shop. That would sadly be the last time any of his friends or family would see him alive...If you have any information about this story that you'd like to share, please reach through the following methods:Email: micheal@unresolved.meVoicemail or Text: +18312003550Learn more about this podcast at http://unresolved.meCheck out the podcast store at unresolved.dashery.comIf you would like to support this podcast, consider heading to https://www.patreon.com/unresolvedpod to become a Patron or ProducerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/unresolved-a-true-crime-mystery-podcast--3266604/support.

Mon, May 25 3:34 AM → 3:54 AM SHOTS FIRED Radio Systems: - METCAD - Champaign County, IL Backup - METCAD - Champaign County, IL

Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, and these switches are banned in New Jersey as well. The component is already illegal. So, trying to link Glocks to them so that they can further take away one of the most popular self-defense handguns in the world. This is their gambit. This is their gambit now to try to do that. Teddy Nappen 12:10 So, it was also interesting, is pull it was from the article. Out of the 15 FFLs that they subpoenaed, they were roughly, there was 15 of those FFLs were out of the total authorized Glock dealers. So, I’m trying to think the strategy of it. If they’re trying, if these were just the 15, were kind of like where they went after those two gun dealers and forced them to basically have to essentially declare and register every purchase or gun-related material. Are they just going for the small fish to then go after the whole? Kind of like a staff? Teddy Nappen 12:46 Out of curiosity. Could there be a constitutional challenge because there’s a federal firearms license? Could you either make the Supremacy Clause argument or just going with the idea of there shouldn’t be a state license, too? Evan Nappen 12:46 Okay. At a minimum, it’s designed to harass gun dealers. I mean, New Jersey is dedicated to that principle, given the excesses that they go to regarding being a New Jersey retail firearm dealer. I mean Page – 6 – of 14 having an FFL, that’s a federal firearm license. New Jersey also requires for a dealer to have a New Jersey retail dealer firearms license, and the retail dealer firearms license is what is managed by the state of New Jersey. And that’s where you see an incredibly excessive and additional amount of requirements, far beyond what federal law requires, designed to be a legal discouragement to being a dealer. Also, it’s been used in the past as a pretext to raid individuals that had FFLs but did not have a NJ retail dealer license. I’ve had cases on this where individuals that had a federal firearms license for Curio and Relic, collector licenses, the state alleged they were federal firearm licensees and acting as dealers, which they were not. They are collectors. And because they alleged they had a federal license, they needed a New Jersey firearm retail dealer license. They proceeded to conduct raids on the individuals that held Curio and Relic licenses. So, this is one of the risks out there. They were able to purge and merge the federal list to the state list of New Jersey retailers. Evan Nappen 14:31 Well, the problem is that the federal firearm law is expressly not preemptive. It’s designed to be the absolute minimum gun control harassment that exists throughout the entire country. And then states are invited to, you know, this was the philosophy, invited to go wild. So, you have the baseline of the federal law, which has many constitutional questions about it itself, expressly not being preemptive, and the states are left to their own devices to create whatever stricter and stricter and more harassing and more discouraging gun laws that they want to pass. And as long as those laws are somehow upheld constitutionally, they can keep on going. There is no cap. There’s no cap placed on the attack on our rights. It should exist, but doesn’t, except in a few very narrow areas where there is express preemption. Evan Nappen 16:22 One of those places where there is express preemption is Title 18 926 A for interstate transport of your guns. You can transport your guns cased, unloaded, locked, not readily accessible, etc., so that you can go through bad states in your travels. There’s areas of preemption, specifically for carry, like LEOSA, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, where retired and active law enforcement can carry, regardless of the state law that might otherwise try to prevent them from doing so. There’s actually preemption for carry. It was the original carry preemption, which a lot of people don’t know was for armored car security. Armored car personnel was actually the first federal carry preemption. And then today we’re pushing to try to get national reciprocity, which is in effect national preemption, mandating that every state recognize every other state’s carry rights to that particular resident in whatever state that resident might be in. But generally across 99% of all the federal gun laws, it is expressly not preemptive. So, this is where the problems come in, because there is no cap on the damage that states can do. Teddy Nappen 17:55 So, it would require an, it would basically either require an act of Congress to amend it to include the preemption. Evan Nappen 18:02 Yes, literally, what would be great is if we finally get a cap. Now, in theory, the cap on bad gun laws is this little thing we call the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment’s cap was fairly broad. The Page – 7 – of 14 cap, as I recall, it said shall not be infringed. Okay? Shall not be infringed. So, any infringement is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore no state or federal government, because we now have it incorporated to the states through the McDonald case, through the 14th Amendment, like many of our other constitutional rights. No state or federal law should infringe on our gun rights. Yet we’re knee deep in battles over various gun laws that are utterly passed with contempt of the Second Amendment, and then we have to go through these fights over it. Teddy Nappen 19:09 Yeah, and it’s definitely. I noticed that whenever it comes to New Jersey, I mean, I know people always talk about state powers, how they, you know, always leave it to the states. However, there are some things that there’s just so much abuse by the states that what they do, I mean, just right now, what they are doing right now is disgusting. Where they’re just harassing these dealers, going after them, wasting the taxpayers dollars. And it’s the level of where, all right, the federal government needs to step in, and I can see everyone’s like, “Oh, don’t allow the feds to get in, but here is the truth. They abuse it so much that there’s just no, there’s no value. Evan Nappen 19:54 Well, frankly, if we simply made the federal law, as it stands right now, as the preemptive. Just passed a law saying federal law preempts state law. Then every state gun law would become mooted out. Done. Invalid. Because only the federal law would apply. And currently under federal law there are no prohibitions on carry. There’s no addressing that in a negative way. Now, they might say, because the federal law doesn’t address it at all, then the states could still try to regulate carry. But then we still have the constitutional Second Amendment with the Bruen decision and such regarding carry. Then if we look at how the impact would be beyond that, well, everything else that these states try to pass, particularly on sale, possession, or on any of that, it would all be preemptively null and void by way of a federal law that they first engineered to just be a minimum to suddenly become the maximum. And that would concentrate our efforts only to having essentially federal fights, which would be pretty good, because instead of the pro-gun movement, those that defend our gun rights, and instead of having them fighting in every jurisdiction, everywhere, every state or county or town that passes some anti-Second Amendment gun rights law that we have to go in and challenge, we would have a preemptive federal law. So, every battle would simply be taking place, for the most part, at the federal law level of preemption, and it would basically gut that entire expenditure of the battle that we constantly have to foot the bill and pay for. It would be an interesting thing to conceptualize, to finally have a federal full preemption. I think it’s workable. Teddy Nappen 22:18 Yeah, and look, I never thought we’d ever see, like, the tax stamp removed for suppressors, and having a chance for it to be removed from the NFA, so anything is possible. We just need to get the right people in, and the right amount of votes. Evan Nappen 22:30 Yeah, it might, it might actually be, but then you’ll have even pro-Second Amendment folks, say, oh, states rights, states’ rights, you know. And they become so focused on so-called states’ rights that we still are losing our rights, because, as you say, Teddy, there’s an abuse by the states of our rights, and Page – 8 – of 14 this could end that abuse. So, when you have an abuse of state power, then the federal government really should come in to stop the abuse by the states. Teddy Nappen 22:53 I think it was in New York, and this might have been years ago. Do you remember they posted the map of who owned firearms? Evan Nappen 23:15 Yeah, it was New York, yeah, right. And then the public record, and then you could, it was searchable when you could find the gun owners. Teddy Nappen 23:25 Of course, a lot of them got robbed and harassed, and everything in that, which is just like, all right, fine. And you know what? When is it going to be enough for states’ powers? When they say everyone wears a yellow armband? It’s a picture of an AR, like states power, states rights. It’s such BS for allowing the abuse that comes down from New Jersey. Where you have the gulag that is the symbol of oppression of a totalitarian regime, and it just pisses me off so much when I hear that argument. I hear the people that make perfect the enemy of good, every time. How long did it take us to lose our rights to these people? Decades. And that’s what it’s going to take to get them back. It’s just disgusting. Evan Nappen 24:12 It is. But we’re in the fight, and we have to keep this fight on. Politically, the big picture is critical in our ability to win and get these changes. As much as all this is aggravating, if you step back, man, I can step back and look from having been practicing gun law for over 40 years. I can look and say we have come a long way. We’ve come a long way. The fact that we can finally have a carry permit in New Jersey is astounding. It’s astounding that we got to that, because that was something that seemed like an impossibility, and yet it got achieved. You can see amazing other advances. Evan Nappen 25:07 Hopefully, shortly, we will see the Supreme Court take a hardware case. We need them to take a hardware case. What I’m talking about is so-called assault firearms or assault weapons, magazines, where there is hardware that’s been banned. Where the constitutionality of the ability to ban hardware finally gets established out of the Supreme Court to end it, to stop it. That’s something that we’ve got to get to, and I think we’re going to see that soon. It is coming. There are so many cases, and they’ve been going up the chain. I think we’re going to see it. I don’t know if it’ll be, you know, this session. We’re getting close, and that’s what we saw, the prediction by even the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General saying they believe that ARs and others, Supreme Court will eventually pronounce they are legal. Teddy Nappen 26:16 I know there’s like, I know there’s rumors, everyone, about the different justices retiring. Imagine if Justice Thomas’s retirement, his last decision that he does, is he legalized and ends the assault firearm bans across the country. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 26:31 Oh, that’d be just wonderful. I’d like to see St. Thomas. Teddy Nappen 26:36 Yeah. You know they did the commemorative, like Heller, like revolver, I remember that they. Evan Nappen 26:43 Which I have, I have a commemorative Heller Smith & Wesson .38. Not only was it commemorative and put out by Smith when the Heller decision came down, so it’s actually a Smith & Wesson bonafide commemorative, but I have that, I think I showed it to you, Teddy, it’s signed personally by Dick Heller, who’s a friend. So, I have a signed commemorative of the Heller decision, signed by Dick Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 27:10 Well, the next one I want it to be just, it’ll say the name of the case, and it’s just the Clarence Thomas smile that you see. The GIF area Thomas commemorative AR. Evan Nappen 27:23 And then, of course, the Left would complain that it’s racist because it’s a black rifle. No. You can’t be racist against Thomas, right? I mean, they always talk. Teddy Nappen 27:37 No, no, they say you can, because they say that he’s not black enough. If you know his entire history, the like, his, you could not, you could not live as a like a black American, like his entire thing, like inner city kid, like I think he was a single, like single mom, they like raised, like literally did the like live the entire black experience like it would be a lifetime movie. It would be amazing. Evan Nappen 28:05 He is an amazing man with actually the embodiment of the American dream, in effect. Coming from an absolutely underprivileged, you know, situation where he rose to be one of the greatest Supreme, one of the greatest, for sure, Supreme Court justices. His amazing story about an amazing man. Just great. And they don’t, because just like with gerrymandering, where there are plenty of Republican minority reps out there, it’s not racism at all. It’s the Democrat power grab, and because Judge Thomas is conservative, they refuse to acknowledge the benefit of having such a great man. Teddy Nappen 29:03 Yeah. And he is what Joe Biden would describe as articulate, bright, and clean. Evan Nappen 29:09 Oh G-d. Teddy Nappen 29:13 I love how Biden said that to Obama. I know. Page – 10 – of 14 Evan Nappen 29:16 I mean. He would constantly say these things. And yet they will extrapolate 10 times out to try to paint Trump as racist when Biden was. He bona fide said stuff that was absolutely insane with racism. Stereotypical racism. Teddy Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Evan Nappen 29:45 Yeah, really. I mean, just come on. Insulting and amazing. Well, and let me tell you, Teddy, about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range. You and I have shot there, and you love WeShoot, don’t you, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 30:04 I had a great time. Evan Nappen 30:05 We always do, every time. We got our certifications there for our carries, and you can do the same. They’ve got a great pro shop, great trainers, great facility, and it’s really conveniently right off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. Lakewood, New Jersey. You want to check out the WeShoot website at weshootusa.com. And you should make sure you get on their email list, because WeShoot sends out a lot of great stuff via email. All their great deals and specials and cool events they’re doing and all kinds of fun things. WeShoot is extremely dynamic, and they are always doing something. WeShoot is just super fun. So, if you’re looking for a great range to belong to, a great place to shoot, a great place to hone your skills, get your training, you cannot do any better than WeShoot in Lakewood. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 31:18 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It is a book used by, well, everybody. If you want to understand New Jersey gun law, you need my book, which is not surprisingly titled New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. When you get the book, you’ll see it is very large. It is over 500 pages. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. And the greatest thing about my book is that the book itself can be used as a weapon. It’s that big. I’m not advising you to do that, but should you need to, yes, that is a book you don’t want to get hit in the head with. So, check out New Jersey Gun Law at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, I bet you have something else up your sleeve to tell us. Teddy Nappen 32:18 Well, one of the things that did come up, and I just thought, what the heck? This is in the feed of the New York Times. Where are all the AK 47s? Like, where have all the AK 47s gone? I know. Evan Nappen 32:19 I don’t know. Where have they gone? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 32:21 I know. It was a very interesting article, but it was also very strange. Just reading through, I don’t know if you ever heard of Jim Fuller? Evan Nappen 32:47 The Fuller Brush Man? Teddy Nappen 32:49 Apparently, he’s a gunsmith. He makes custom AKs. I’m not too familiar on that, but he was going into details of, like, and they were talking about the collapse of the AK market. Evan Nappen 33:01 Well, there is a downturn, but prices aren’t collapsing. Teddy Nappen 33:06 Yeah, I mean, how much are you going for? Evan Nappen 33:08 One of the Russian AKs going. You know the problem is, what led to the big boom, of course, was when we were importing AKs. We could have them from China and Russia. Although we were getting really cheap ammo, and there was so much of the surplus ammo, the 762 by 39 that it became extremely popular, because you could so reasonably shoot. Then it became so overwhelmingly possible that even American-made guns, like the Ruger Mini 30, for example, were being made in 762 by 39. Then you also had the influx of very reasonable SKSs. I mean, I remember when SKSs were under $100, for an SKS, and then you know the reasonable AKs and all that coming in with cheap ammo. Man, it was great. Then they started to ban the import, the ban of Chinese, ban of Russian, and the cheap ammo dried up. The guns that were coming in, the imports like those were dried up. Teddy Nappen 33:56 Apparently, it was in 1989 under Bush, because the shooter used the Chinese AK. Evan Nappen 34:32 Please remember, it was Bush. It was Bush, the Republican, the neocon, and this is one of the things that you got to always remember. Even though they may have the “R” there, they’re not necessarily a friend of the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 34:47 Yeah. And then the article tries to highlight more of like 2014 where the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. put sanctions on Russia. So, there goes all the Russian AKs. Evan Nappen 34:57 Well, not just Russian AKs. I mean, we were getting a lot of great guns, really cool guns from Russia, you know. We’re getting SKSs – originals, beautiful guns. I mean, phenomenal. Russian SKSs are probably the best SKS ever made, machined, gorgeous. Mosin-Nagant rifles, right? They were very Page – 12 – of 14 reasonable, and you know, you want to do the enemy at the gates, man. You got your gun and super strong, tough rifles. You know, a lot of great stuff could come in, and now we don’t see it anymore. And prices have skyrocketed. I mean, if you look at SKS prices today, holy crap. You’d be lucky to find a Chinese SKS that you used to be able to buy for less than $100, one in great shape today for 600 bucks, you know? I mean, easily 600, some even more. I’ve seen Russian SKSs pushing $2,000 a piece at the gun show. I mean, the prices are just unbelievable, because the market has a limitation now to the quantity that’s out there. And by the way, there’s probably only a 10th of the amount of Russian SKSs compared to Chinese SKSs. Even with that, the prices are way up there, and one of the reasons is that the SKSs, for example, are excellent functioning rifles. They’re handy. They function great and are very popular. Evan Nappen 36:36 With AKs, you know, there was that whole growth of it, and we were able to have all that great, cheap ammo. Once you got into an introductory, reasonable AK, then you wanted to up your game with other AKs, and all that. But what’s happened is, with the close out of that, we’ve become more, much, much more AR focused. The AR-15 platform, and everything about it. That’s all, a lot of it is U.S. made, and kind of America’s rifle. I would have to say today that America’s rifle, without a doubt, is the AR-15. Teddy Nappen 37:17 I would also say there’s also just the customization, and I think modularity. Evan Nappen 37:23 Its modularity seems to appeal to a lot of gun folks, because you can add and change and put all kinds of whistles and bells. Teddy Nappen 37:32 That also goes to the tone of American culture versus like the Eastern Bloc of the AK 47. We’re very individualistic, where we will make it so it is something that works for us, versus, you know, the AK 47 is designed, it is designed in that shape or form. You can do some small mods, but generally speaking, you pick up an AK 47 it’s, you know, hold it up to another one, like that’s the level of it. Evan Nappen 37:58 That’s an interesting point, Teddy, about how in those countries they don’t. It’s hard to find a Bubba AK in countries where they make the AKs, isn’t it? They don’t Bubbafi much, do they? But we love to modify, change, and customize, and that’s actually a lot of the fun of it. Let’s face it, it’s fun. It’s fun to add the accessories to fit your needs, make it look cooler, make it function better, make it more appropriate for whatever your needs may be. But then again, the anti-gun rights crowd will suddenly take any given feature and demonize certain features. So, if they are intrinsically evil, that if for some reason you have a telescoping stock on your AR or any other semi-auto, because your stock moves one or two inches back and forth, somehow that is such a huge impact on crime. Teddy Nappen 39:09 Or has a barrel shroud, which they can’t define. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 39:12 Oh yeah, well, they try to. Remember. Teddy Nappen 39:15 The shoulder thingy that goes up, you know, the seat belt. Evan Nappen 39:18 The shoulder thingy that goes up is a barrel shroud. Isn’t that interesting? These are the experts that are voting for these laws. They have no clue what they’re even voting for, nor do they care. As long as it’s going against gun owners, they’re for it. They don’t care what it is. Teddy Nappen 39:39 Yeah, and I will say, just from the article, like, they try to, of course, they try to say, oh, Trump’s tariffs is what killed the AK market. There’s like also going from Russia, Ukraine, which they tried to say, you, oh, Poland is one of the key suppliers of Ukraine. No, the United States is one of the key suppliers of military to Ukraine. We’ve, you know, what is it, 40 billion, 80 billion, like crazy amounts, like they’re just still in that. And then again, tariffs are non-inflationary. We’ve known that, we’ve proven it. And I love how they try to say, well, we could get more AKs if we removed tariffs on Poland. Evan Nappen 40:21 Well, you know, it’s pretty bad when the Left media is trying to lure removal of tariffs by saying we could get more AKs in the country. That’s a pretty interesting stretch for them. Teddy Nappen 40:34 I know why they’re doing it. They’re trying to turn gun owners. They’re trying their best to turn gun owners into the debt, which is a ridiculous concept. They’ve demonized them, called them racist, call them everything under the sun. So, good luck trying to convince a gun owner to be considered a Democrat. If they are voting Democrat, you’re voting for your own destruction. I’m sorry. Evan Nappen 40:54 And speaking of destruction of gun owners, that is what GOFUs are. GOFU is our Gun Owner Fuck Ups. Every show we like to highlight the GOFU of the week, and this week’s GOFU is something that is constantly coming my way in the practice of law. And some of you listeners may say, yeah, it’s obvious, but I still have to say it because I keep getting case after case after case. It’s real simple, folks. You need to know your state’s gun laws. Most people understand that they need to know their state’s gun laws, but it doesn’t end there. If you travel out of state, you need to know the state’s gun laws that you’re traveling to. I constantly get cases of individuals that come from other states and end up being criminally charged in New Jersey because New Jersey’s gun laws are nothing like the gun laws of the state they were traveling from. The reverse is true, my friends. The reverse is true. Evan Nappen 42:13 You may have a New Jersey carry permit, but you need to know, if you don’t know, that no other state in America is recognized by New Jersey. No other state’s gun license is recognized by New Jersey. New Jersey has no reciprocity per se. When you travel, there are states where you can carry, because Page – 14 – of 14 despite New Jersey not recognizing their carry license, they’re willing to recognize any lawfully issued state carry. Many of the states, over 70% of the land mass in America, is constitutional carry, where as long as you’re law-abiding, you can carry even without a permit. But you still have to know, because I get calls from New Jersey folks that are getting jammed up in other states, making the mistake that others frequently make coming into New Jersey. Evan Nappen 43:24 So, the GOFU is real simple. Know the gun laws. Know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you are residing in, and know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you may be traveling in. It’s critical! I see it every day as a classic of virtually all GOFUs. 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 3 44:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E291_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";

Episode 289-Remember Bryan Malinowski Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 289 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS ATF raid, Brian Malinowski, unlicensed dealer, Arkansas lawmakers, DOJ investigation, no-knock warrant, self-defense, gun laws, Biden administration, Waco incident, Ruby Ridge, gun deserts, consumer protection, defensive property, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Teddy Nappen 00:24 So. Evan Nappen 00:25 Teddy, what’s up, man? Teddy Nappen 00:28 Well, just flipping through Ammoland from John Crump, by John Crump. I never even heard of this story. Like, I’m going to be very honest. I did not know this happened under the, by the ATF. Arkansas lawmakers are demanding the DOJ investigate the ATF raid on Brian Malinowski. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/05/arkansas-lawmakers-doj-investigation-atf-raid-bryan-malinowski/) Evan Nappen 00:54 Are you talking about Malinowski? Teddy Nappen 00:56 Yeah, Malinowski. When reading the article, I was shocked, because I remember from all the criminal procedures of like, what you would do. And I’m like, this is the, I was getting flashbacks to watching the Waco documentary, from reading, like. Page – 2 – of 14 Evan Nappen 01:14 Teddy, let me explain. Yeah, I’m familiar with the Malinowski case. So, Malinowski was a total law-abiding guy. No priors, no issues, a law -abiding guy. He lived in, I believe, it was Alabama, and he was gun collector. He’d go to gun shows, and he would trade for guns. Sell private sale guns, etc., okay? A collector. And what happened was, as you may recall, the Biden bull garbage that we were dealing with. Trying to turn people into dealers who weren’t dealers. Well, ATF apparently believed that Mr. Malinowski was being an unlicensed gun dealer. Now, here’s the thing. He is a professional, first of all. As I recall, his background was in air traffic, you know, with the airline. Air Traffic Control, I think it was. Teddy Nappen 02:37 He was the, he looked like he was the head of the Clinton National Airport of Little Rock. Evan Nappen 02:43 Yeah. Here is a guy who’s a professional, head of an airport, that has his hobby of firearms, as many of us do. And Alabama is a private sale legal state. Teddy Nappen 02:56 I think it was Arkansas. Evan Nappen 02:59 Arkansas? Oh, yeah, yes, Arkansas, Arkansas. Teddy Nappen 03:02 Or the proper term, ArKansas. Evan Nappen 03:04 Well, it was legal for. Right! It was Arkansas, and it was legal to do. And what happened was just outrageous. They claimed he was in the business of selling firearms without an FFL. So, that’s the charge. You know whether they could prove it or not prove it or whatever, that’s what their claim was. And what happened was, ATF and Little Rock Police got a search warrant, and they came to his home at 6 am to look for evidence of wrongdoing. ATF breached the door with a battering ram. And I think, according to his wife, Malinowsky believed that these were intruders breaking into his home at 6 am, and he fired at the agents, not realizing, of course, what the hell’s going on. He hit one in the foot, and law officers there returned fire. Shooting Malinowski in the head and killing him dead. Evan Nappen 04:27 So, here’s what the lawmakers, they sent a letter to DOJ about this, and the letter reads, listen to this. “Awakened by the sound of the breach, Mr. Malinowski retrieved a handgun and encountered an armed silhouette entering his home. He fired toward the intruder’s feet. An ATF agent immediately returned fire, striking Mr. Malinowski in the forehead and killing him. Mrs. Malinowski was standing only inches behind him.” Now, this is activity by ATF, where they are going after, you know, what is essentially paperwork crime, if it even qualifies as crime. They busted down his door at 6 am. How come this was done as a no knock for this guy? Who knows? Crazy. He ends up getting killed. And yet here, Teddy, you didn’t even hear about it. Yet, we take cases with, and hear about cases with, with ICE, right? Page – 3 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:46 Pretti and Good. (Alex) Pretti and (Renee) Good. Evan Nappen 05:47 Yeah, Pretti and Good. Where, you know, with Renee Good, she was, you know, trying to run down, allegedly, this officer. She went there to protest. She was there knowing there was going to be agitation, knowing there’s going to be trouble going there. Same with Pretti, same with Pretti. Teddy Nappen 06:10 Who actually was fighting with the police. Evan Nappen 06:12 Fighting with them and going there. Evan Nappen 06:14 That’s not what happened here. We have a guy in his home! A law-abiding guy in his home, who at best, has paperwork violations. A licensing violation at best. Not even that that is necessarily legitimate, and he ends up shot in the head over the actions taken by ATF. And you don’t hear a peep about it in the lame stream media. Teddy Nappen 06:42 The other part that really, there’s two pieces that stick out. Three pieces, actually, stick out to me. Number one, the knock and announce. So, I remember, in criminal procedure, we talked about this. It is very important on the knock and announce for the officers. They waited 23 seconds. They knocked, waited 23 seconds, and then break the door down. They also had enough time to tape the camera, the doorbell camera. And no body cams, because apparently, their excuse was low funding. Not enough funding for body cams even though they are supposed to have. Evan Nappen 07:19 They had enough money to buy tape. Teddy Nappen 07:21 Yeah, they had enough money to buy tape. Yeah, they had enough. Evan Nappen 07:24 To cover the doorbell lock camera, cover the door. Look, if they’re there as law enforcement, don’t you want it known to this guy, who has no priors, who’s not a problem? Don’t you want it known that it’s law enforcement there? You want to make it crystal clear! Hey, Government, law enforcement here. Boom! You want to be seen on the Ring that you are law enforcement and not 6 am house hot invaders. Teddy Nappen 08:01 The other factor is there is clear. There have been other encounters with the ATF with this exact same scenario. You know what they did? They knocked on the door and said, Hi, we’re with the ATF. It’s the Page – 4 – of 14 Ring doorbell camera there. That situation. They’ll you say, No, I’m, you know, I’m not talking to you, or we’re here to arrest you. Okay, we’re, that’s it. They had so many other encounters where this could have been. But instead, they decided to go full Waco SWAT team and assassinate this man. Evan Nappen 08:30 It’s insane. It’s insane. And, you know, their history of activities. I mean, we know, you know, Waco was just horrible. They had a guy inside of the facility that could have easily made that encounter completely non- violent. Instead, way back in those days, you know, with Clinton and company, they did it to try to make an example out of this guy’s church, etc. And of course, it was all to “save the children”, to save the children, which all end up dying because of what they did. Teddy Nappen 09:13 And then tried to cover it up. Evan Nappen 09:13 With the fire, and then tried to cover it up. Oh, they bulldozed the scene as quick as they could afterwards. Teddy Nappen 09:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 09:21 You know, because the stuff they used lit the place on fire. Teddy Nappen 09:28 My favorite was, if you do, you remember the hearings? Where you know how the you could clearly see the Dems trying to justify the ATF murdering people? Evan Nappen 09:36 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:37 Republicans fighting, and I love the one. Evan Nappen 09:39 Don’t forget Ruby Ridge as well. Teddy Nappen 09:41 Yep. Evan Nappen 09:42 I mean, over a shotgun barrel, that was where they entrapped the guy, literally entrapped the guy. They ended up paying like $3 million in civil damages for their actions there at Ruby Ridge. Okay? So this kind of rogue insanity, oh, it’s fine, as long as it’s on gun owners, you know. Page – 5 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 10:08 But this is the key. What really bothers me the most, Dad. The biggest question they’re asking from the lawmakers, the political motivation. The question remains, is whether the timing and aggressiveness of the operation were influenced by the impending rollout, by the ATF’s final ruling of the “engaged in the business of selling firearms”. So, imagine if, right now, and I always have to tell this to all those out there who are trying to say, you know, Republicans and Democrats are the exact same thing. Or should have just voted for Kamala Harris. Imagine Kamala Harris now with their current ATF, and they enforce that law, where you and I are going to be assassinated in the night by armed guards bursting in accusing people of being unlicensed. It’s disgusting! Evan Nappen 10:58 The armed agent nonsense of doing this. Luckily, you know, President Trump and his administration are taking steps now to remove, in the 39 rule proposals, remove that absurd “doing business” expansion that Biden did. So, basically, if you sell a gun, you’re considered a dealer under the old Biden. Ending the so-called, where even going after dealers themselves by saying, one error, one error, and you can lose your FFL completely. I mean, these activities are just outrageous. What takes place there barely gets any attention. But if you’re out there causing problems regarding other wrongdoers, that being illegal aliens, that are themselves having broken the law, and here they’re trying to protect other lawbreakers. And then you go to this cause a conflict, the media blows that all over the place. But here, this guy gets shot in the head in his home. Teddy Nappen 12:30 You know, it’s also people don’t talk about that, comparatively to the ICE tactics. The ICE tactics, what they do are actually far much more safer. They do everything they can to not escalate and just go full SWAT team and shoot people on that. The two extremes, where someone is trying to run you over with a car, or the other individual who is attacking and fighting with them, and then during the scarcity of when in the chaos of all them trying to hold him down the confusion, he gets shot. That’s the clear difference here. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, justification, all right. He fired at them. They fired back. Looking at everything prior to where there was barely any knock. They taped the cameras. No body cams. They just went into the night. The wife says, I think there is an intruder. By the way, their warrant said not a dangerous threat, not a dangerous criminal. Evan Nappen 13:26 So, they were even told, so why are they taping the doorbell camera? Just act normal. You know, we’re here. We’re law enforcement. We have a warrant. Let us in. We have a warrant. I would bet you anything, as long as they made it clear they had a warrant, this guy is going to be okay. You have a warrant come in. Instead, he’s under this impression that his house is subject to a hot robbery. Teddy Nappen 13:53 Yeah, by the way, it’s dark. Where were the, you know, badges, anything, just to say, anyone, you bust down the door and yelled police on that front. SWAT teams are trained in that engagement where you’re going in to a situation, clearing rooms, if you’re going to go in that hot. I mean, where’s the justification for that? Where the guy had no priors, nothing. It’s insane. Page – 6 – of 14 Evan Nappen 14:17 It is. And, you know, I visited the site at Waco. If you ever get out there, they have a memorial site. This is, of course, not official, but they have it there, and you can pay a visit. You know, the I saw the actual warrant for Koresh for the raid on Waco. The actual search warrant that they were using. And one of the lines that stuck out to me was where they said they observed, when they had their inside man, that he had subversive literature there. This is actually in the warrant, in the affidavit for the warrant. That he had subversive literature. And the subversive literature, written in the warrant, was Shotgun News and Soldier of Fortune Magazine. Did you know that that’s known as subversive literature? SOF and Shotgun News. Yeah. That was Janet Reno. She was the Attorney General back then. Whoof. Bad news, bad news. Evan Nappen 15:29 And those incidents, you think they would learn from these other horror shows that they conducted. Not to pull that again. But once Democrats are pushing it, especially as you point out, when they want to make an example, they will try to do something like this to push their agenda. I’m sure that was part of their motivation. We’ve seen them try to lay groundwork anytime they want to push an agenda. A great example of it is the so- called, which you don’t hear about anymore after the incident, as you recall the Fast and Furious Operation. With the Fast and Furious Operation, they were providing arms to the Narco terrorists. So, the U.S. Government, through them, gave arms that supposedly had trackers or something to arm the bad guys. And one of the arms ended up killing a Federal officer later. (https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/facts-are-stubborn-things-connection-between-fast-and-furious-and-agent-terrys) I think it was Terry. Brian Terry was his name. They ended up killing Terry with guns supplied by the Government. Now, why were they doing this? Well, they were pursuing an anti-Second Amendment agenda. Teddy Nappen 16:52 Wasn’t it the steel pipeline? Evan Nappen 16:54 Well, the iron pipeline. What it was they. At the same time that they had tried this Fast and Furious Operation, to try to somehow demonstrate that guns are flowing from the U.S. to Narco terrorists. That’s when they also put in the multiple rifle reporting requirements on the border states. And that’s also when they changed the 4473 where you have to either admit or deny your Hispanic heritage. This was all part of this approach that was the iron pipeline idea. It blew up in their face. So, they had to abandon it after Fast and Furious. But that was their evil plan back then. So, it wouldn’t surprise me that this was part of their propaganda campaign, and it ends up with this guy shot in the head. It’s just outrageous. Teddy Nappen 17:59 As I recall, I think it was the head of the operation, during some interview where he’s talking about it. How we planned to put GPS trackers into the firearms to see where they ended up. And did you? No. They just handed the guns, just handed them over. Yeah, then when they found it for some murder or Page – 7 – of 14 some crime, they’re like, oh yeah. They trace the serial number, and like, oh, that’s one of ours. Our bad! Whoopsie. Evan Nappen 18:27 Yeah, yeah. So, as long as the U.S. Government was arming Narco terrorists, that’s okay. Teddy Nappen 18:34 I know, right? Evan Nappen 18:35 And putting guns into. You know, you see from the Left, and this even reflects in the Southern Poverty Law Center. Well, we don’t really have enough racism. So, I guess we’ll pay racists to make sure, you know. Hence, you get Charlotteville and all those things happening. By a creation. by the Left, to create the issue for them to then create more intrusion, more laws, more of their agenda by doing these operations. This is their M.O. Teddy Nappen 19:11 Take it a step further, Dad. You have to remember when it comes to the Left, and this is just, they recruit the mentally ill. I’ll give you the best one. 45% of liberals describe their mental health as poor. 45%. That’s right from a pole. Evan Nappen 19:29 I think that’s low. Teddy Nappen 19:29 It probably is higher, but this is my point. They recruit the mentally ill. They scream and call people Nazis, fascists. They’re going to kill you. They’re gonna go after your family. They’re doing everything they can. Evan Nappen 19:30 Pedos. Smear with everything they can come up with. Smear, smear, smear. Make sure you populate the internet with all the smears. Make sure you have the paid protesters pushing the smears. I mean, their propaganda machine is second to none. Teddy Nappen 20:02 And then when one of them, who’s mentally ill enough to say, yeah, let’s do it. And then tries to run down a hallway and get shot down by an MP7. Thank you, Secret Service. Or another individual tries to shoot at our President, multiple times, different ones. Evan Nappen 20:20 No. Now they want to blame, somehow it’s President Trump’s fault. Teddy Nappen 20:25 Yeah, yeah. Page – 8 – of 14 Evan Nappen 20:26 You know what? Teddy Nappen 20:27 It’s so disgusting. Evan Nappen 20:31 Well, and it’s not just Democrats, but also, as you call the black pillars. They don’t help the situation. Teddy Nappen 20:37 They’re the, I like what Stephen Crowder calls them. They’re the woke Right, the horseshoe Right. They’re saying they’re all the same, man. They’re all the same. Look at the inroads that Trump has made, and imagine. Do you really want to give the other party that power where they’ll send in a hit squad to kill you because they think you’re illegally selling guns? That is what you want? No, thank you. Do not hand it. You’re a bunch of accelerationists thinking that we’re gonna really make change. No, you’re handing power to the individuals that want to destroy us. That is insane. Evan Nappen 21:16 I mean, you know, look back just under the Biden administration, what we put up with. Curtailing freedom of speech, with the conspiracies that are shown to be absolute lies against the President and against Republicans. I mean, the stuff they did is unbelievable. I guess you saw Dan Bongino talking about the burn bag that has all that information in it. They wanted to burn it, and somehow ended up not burned. Somebody, I think, didn’t want that to get burned. Somebody there wanted the truth. Teddy Nappen 21:55 You also have to remember the Twitter files. Mark Zuckerberg admitting that he was pressured by the Biden administration to censor Republicans and the pressure that Democrats in charge to censor Republican and conservative voices. The YouTube censorship. All the big tech censorship, all up and down. Now you’re saying, no, no. Let’s give this back to the Left. It’s no. You’re ridiculous if you think that is actually a good strategy. So, yeah. Evan Nappen 22:23 Well, Teddy. Let me tell you what’s going on this week at WeShoot. So, WeShoot has Smith and Wesson Bodyguards, the 2.0 Performance Center, Carry Comp. This is a pretty hot gun. It’s ultra concealable, which is very important in New Jersey. And it has upgraded performance center tuning and an integrated compensator that keeps recall flat and control high. They also have the Radian Ramjet and Afterburner Barrel and Comp, which is really the ultimate Glock upgrade. It transforms that platform to having reduced muzzle rise, faster follow up and next level shooting dynamics. They also are offering the Daniel Defense DDM4 MK18, which is a short barrel legend with military roots, and that gun will deliver unmatched reliability and maneuverability in tight spaces. And you don’t want to miss Karly Morgan, she’s the “Dirt Bike” All-American Girl, bringing raw energy, independence and fearless spirit to the WeShoot lifestyle. Proving, once again, that freedom isn’t just protected, it’s lived. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 23:57 And by the way, WeShoot is running a Mother’s Day special promo, and they have some great deals going on there. WeShoot is the place. It’s an indoor range conveniently located in Lakewood, right off the Parkway. It’s where Teddy and I shoot, and we get our training there. You can get your training there, too. Get your necessary CCARE certificates for New Jersey carry. You can get any of the beginner to advanced training. WeShoot really has it all. It’s a great range, great place. We love it. You’ll love it, too. Check out. weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 24:47 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun laws. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer to guide you through the matrix of insanity that we call New Jersey gun law. It’s all done in that question and answer format. You’ll get answers to your legal questions out of that book in writing by me. That’s right. An attorney who has dedicated his life to defending law-abiding New Jersey gun owners and trying to make it so we don’t commit GOFUs. Because New Jersey is loaded with them. And protect yourself, man. Knowledge is power. Go to EvanNappen com. You’ll see the big orange book there and get a copy today. Hey, what else, Teddy, is on your mind that you’ve discovered? Teddy Nappen 25:47 So, this one came up recently. As everyone’s favorite, I am Spartacus, Senator Cory Booker. One of his staffers decided to bring a his carry into the Capitol. And every time I see that individual, I think of, didn’t you debate Cory Booker? Evan Nappen 26:09 I did. I debated Corey Booker. Teddy Nappen 26:11 When what was it? Evan Nappen 26:13 I debated Cory Booker a number of years ago on TV. He came in, and we were arguing about New Jersey gun laws. They brought him in as, big surprise, for the anti-Second Amendment arguments. And I’ll tell you upfront, as a person, he’s a very personable guy. Like personable. Talking to him, he’s friendly. But, of course, you know, the anti-gun arguments always fail. This was no different. Teddy Nappen 26:46 He’s a Gavin Newsom. He’s slick. Evan Nappen 26:48 Right. He’s slick. But you know, unfortunately, their agenda is that of being anti-rights. They love to claim that they, oh, I support the Second Amendment, BUT. It’s always that, BUT. And the but is, I want to ban all guns or whatever. But they somehow support the Second Amendment, and they’ve never met a gun law they didn’t like. So, so much for that lie. Page – 10 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 27:11 I always think of the Left. They always try. If they ever took power and packed the court, they’re just going to go to the Second Amendment and go, look, that’s a comma. See that comma? That means we can pass whatever we want, like. Evan Nappen 27:32 Well, it’s a living document. It’s a living document. In a modern society, there’s no reason why anyone needs, whatever, fill in the blank. Teddy Nappen 27:44 Yeah. Fill in the blank. Evan Nappen 27:45 As if need has got anything to do with anything. Teddy Nappen 27:48 You know, like the ATF rolling up on your house and trying to assassinate you. Evan Nappen 27:52 Well, you know, what do you need a sports car for? What do you need a supercharged bass boat for? What do you need any. You know, we’re not a needs-based society. We’re not each according to their needs. That ain’t us. Okay? Needs ain’t about it, all right? Teddy Nappen 28:14 Well, the Socialist got nothing to do with it. Evan Nappen 28:17 Yeah, and they do. Evan Nappen 28:18 And that’s a growing movement. You know, you hear the term Democrat socialist. The only difference between a Democrat socialist and a socialist is a Democrat socialist is trying to impose socialism by way of our elections and the political process, to make a socialist. And make the same. Yeah. Teddy Nappen 28:41 They’re communists. They’re just communists. They literally. You had Bernie Sanders honeymooning in the USSR, and you had Sean Penn praising Venezuela. And what was it? Jane Fonda and Cuba praising the Cuban regime. Evan Nappen 29:00 Just recently, Jayapal, the legislator, was caught trying to figure out how they can get oil past the U.S. sanctions embargo to Cuba. (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6395078651112?utm_content=other&utm_source=flipboard) Isn’t that great? Just try to undermine our foreign policy. Isn’t that cute? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 29:00 You know, some might say that would be aiding a foreign adversary, but, you know. Evan Nappen 29:25 Right. Yeah. I mean, who knows, but somehow they just keep on going with this stuff, with our enemies. With folks that are opposed to what has created the greatest standard of living in the history of humanity, and that is capitalism. Teddy Nappen 29:48 But going back to it Cory Booker. His staffer was a retired law enforcement officer. He had the gun on him, and he went into the Capitol. He was arrested last year, and of course, the charges were dropped without any consequences lingering. And now the debate on whether he could carry or not, I went. Evan Nappen 30:08 He may have been retired law enforcement. I don’t know if LEOSA applied in that particular situation in law enforcement safety. Teddy Nappen 30:17 Yeah, I pulled it from the U.S. Capitol Police. Their rules are all weapons are prohibited, even if you are a retired law enforcement officer. Evan Nappen 30:28 So, I don’t know how it got dismissed. Teddy Nappen 30:32 Well, you know why. Evan Nappen 30:35 Yeah, exactly. Teddy Nappen 30:36 But it could have been, the minutia of the staffer had gotten permission. Apparently, if you meet certain requirements, you could have, but it didn’t seem, there was no mention if he even met the requirements. Doesn’t matter. They just walked away the charges. It’s right there with, uh, Mr. Pull the fire alarm because I don’t understand how to open a door. What was his name? Evan Nappen 30:56 I don’t remember. But yeah, yeah, right, yeah. Teddy Nappen 30:59 Like that. Yeah. Charges dropped. But this is the thing. It’s always about the elitism. Where you have, here’s someone extremely anti-gun pushing the anti-gun agenda. Right here, the newest article right from them. U.S. Senator Cory Booker leads colleagues renewed push to establish safety standards for Page – 12 – of 14 firearms in an effort to save lives. Pushing a new bill right here. They’re going to add the Firearms Safety Act. It creates a Consumer Product Safety Act that was first passed in 1972. It corrects the gap. Evan Nappen 31:36 The gap, the so-called gap. What it is they want this mechanism in the Government so that they can ban guns via Consumer Protection. The idea is to abuse Consumer Protection laws, and you see New Jersey doing this state side. They’re alleging the Consumer Protection violations under state law against legitimate dealers, gun makers, etc. So, beware. This is yet a further angle that they’re pursuing to take away our rights. It’s the movement of gun rights suppression is to go at every angle. Whether they can link guns to a health care problem, whether they can link guns to a consumer protection problem, whether they can, you know, anything they can somehow tag it on with that’s what they try to do to expand their suppression of our rights. It’s classic tactics by those that oppose the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Well, what they’re trying to do is create and I’ve coined this term. I don’t know who else coined it, but I like it. Gun deserts. They are trying to, the Left are trying to, the Left are trying to push the stupid argument of a food desert, which you can have food delivered very easily. From what they’re doing, going after gun dealers in Jersey, making extremely hard to even open a shop. I’m taking this term gun desert. They’re trying to create gun deserts. Making it extremely hard to get a firearm. Because they know they can’t win on the legislation and our rights, so now they’re just going to sue our rights away by going after the very people. Evan Nappen 33:26 And what’s interesting, one of the regs being put forward, actually a combination of them, federally, will, and I haven’t read the text, but apparently, what they’re looking to do is have the 4473 computerized. Then you’ll be able to purchase a gun online, and the firearm can actually be delivered to your door. Now, I don’t know how that might work under New Jersey state law, probably not able to do it. But in many, many states, it will be feasible if it first goes through a dealer. They’ve recently allowed guns to be shipped even via the post office. Of course, it’s regulated how to do it, but there was at one point a complete ban. That’s no longer the case. Evan Nappen 34:20 And if they get this electronically set up and they change the rules, they can allow it. Right now, for example, you can buy a suppressor and have it go directly to your door. They’ve set up a network of dealers in suppressor-legal states. These companies like Silencer Central, etc, they’re able to process your NFA form online. They have an interface to the e-forms for the federal government. You can do the prints by way of a computer, and then once everything gets approved, you’re literally mailed your suppressor to your door. Now, of course, not in New Jersey. New Jersey has a state ban on suppressors, but that is currently being challenged as to its constitutionality. So, this is where we’re at. There is still good hope. I still am optimistic, seeing these fundamental changes take place federally, and we’re seeing victories politically still happening. The fight is full bore in the courts. Don’t lose hope. We are winning slowly but surely. We’re gaining ground in many of these areas, even though these Page – 13 – of 14 problems are still there that need to be addressed. But the good news is it is a new day when it comes to the ability to have the tools to fight for rights. Evan Nappen 36:06 And that’s something I’ve seen over four decades of gun law practice, my friends. I see it. I remember way back when I started, you couldn’t even find a law journal article that spoke about the individual right to keep and bear arms. And frankly, thanks to the NRA, let’s give credit where credit is due. Early on, they pushed the academic side of researching the truth about our Second Amendment rights, and that became critical in the Heller decision and decisions that have followed from Heller. Having that depth of historic scholarly research on our rights, which 40 years ago didn’t exist, did not exist, because it had been suppressed and ignored. Look, I started my practice with a very you know, I became an attorney, and I had the honor of working for the very first firearm law firm in America, which was Benenson, Kates & Hardy. There was no such thing prior to that of a firearm law firm. And back in those days, you know, another attorney would ask, what kind of law do you practice? I’d say, you know, firearm law. They go, what? What do you mean firearm law? They wouldn’t even know what it was. Couldn’t even wrap their head around it. Evan Nappen 37:44 And now, of course, with the Supreme Court decisions and this growth of challenges, etc, you see a completely different view and understanding of what firearm law means and its importance, and the practice of gun law is accepted. I remember at one point in the old Red Book, they called it, where they list lawyers by categories. And I said, hey, I want a listing of firearm law. They said, we don’t have firearm law. I said well make the category firearm law, because it even exist as a practice area, right that you would focus on for your practice. So there’s been a lot of advancement. The fight is, of course, on, but this is, this is where we are. It is interesting looking back and seeing and I do believe that we will succeed. We will succeed. Truth is on our side. Truth is absolutely on our side, and the day when we no longer have to be victims, but can be defenders, and not just our right to keep their arms being respected, but our right to self defense being respected, because that too is protected by the Second Amendment our right to defense. And don’t take that lightly, because throughout the rest of the world, particularly in the formerly Great Britain, use a gun to defend yourself. You get arrested, charged and prosecuted for using a firearm to defend yourself, right? That’s where our rights are critical, not just having the hardware to do it, but also the legal and lawful ability to do it, and our self defense laws, though, still need to be changed and worked on. Matter of fact, Teddy, we were talking about that, weren’t we? Teddy Nappen 39:56 Yeah, one of the big things we were discussing as well as back from the previous podcast. One of the previous episodes, we were talking about the right of defense of property. I felt that there should be a change in the law. I know you always said “life wins over property”, but. Evan Nappen 40:16 It does. Page – 14 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 40:16 There needs to be. Correct. But there needs to be a deterrence, because right now, heavy amounts of robberies, car jack, like carjacking, the car theft. It’s one of those where I always looked at Jeff Cooper’s quote. I always think to that quote. The criminal does not fear the police. The criminal does not fear the courts. The criminal must learn to fear the victim. That is the only way I can see us solving this issue of crime. To deter the individuals. Knowing, oh, my G-d, if I do this, I might get my head blown off. Evan Nappen 40:56 So, you’re right, and that brings us to the GOFU. The GOFU, of course, is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We look at mistakes and things to be very concerned about, where others have paid a dear price. And that is important when it comes to self-defense. Because self-defense in the law is known as justification for the use of force. And what a lot of folks don’t realize is that self-defense or justification for the use of force is an affirmative defense. And when something is an affirmative defense in law, it means the burden of proof initially shifts to the defendant. So, if you use force, deadly force, if you use that even though you may say, hey, it was self-defense, the burden of proof is on you to be able to prove that you were reasonable. And that reasonableness of your force gets determined by those 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty. So, you better be very reasonable. And the problem is if you depart from that knowledge where you are essentially guilty until proven innocent, and you better realize that if you pull that trigger, the burden of proof is, under our current laws, on you. Evan Nappen 42:35 Now, that’s not everywhere, believe it or not. In Florida, for example, they have put that burden back on the state initially before they can even proceed with the prosecution. They first have to demonstrate that you were not justified in using force, at least to the degree of making their initial charges. But in New Jersey and most other states, it is still an affirmative defense, where, in essence, you’re guilty until proven innocent. Make sure you know the self-defense laws. Make sure that your fear was reasonable. Make sure it was justified under the laws. Because, if not, you’re going to pay a very steep price. Evan Nappen 43:29 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 43:40 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E289_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Send us Fan MailIn this episode I am joined by Shannon Odom, executive director of the McDowell County Tourism Development Authority, to unpack why this corner of Western North Carolina is gaining serious momentum, and how it's doing it in a way that feels rooted, welcoming, and real.We talk trails first, because the growth is undeniable: new mileage on the ground, rebuilt sections after Hurricane Helene, and the validation that comes with Old Fort joining the North Carolina Trail Towns Network. Shannon explains the “trails for all” approach, from easy loops for beginners to the big headline project many people haven't heard about yet: backcountry adaptive bicycling trails tied to the Wilderness Gateway Trail. From there, we zoom out into the long game, a connected network that could link Marion, Universal Park, the Thermal Belt Trail, and eventually the Fonta Flora Trail.Then we go beyond the bike to the full McDowell County travel guide experience: Old Fort's railroad and frontier history, Marion's downtown businesses and brewery scene, Little Switzerland's Parkway charm, and practical updates on Blue Ridge Parkway access. We also hit the must-see waterfalls like Linville Falls, Catawba Falls, and Tom's Creek Falls, plus culture and festivals that make a weekend feel packed, from the Orchard at Altapass to Bigfoot sightings and gold panning.Mike AndressHost, Exploration Local828-551-9065mike@explorationlocal.comPodcast WebsiteFacebookInstagram: explorationlocal

At Parkway West High School, students play Monopoly and research current issues to learn about the effects of economic systems here in the U.S. and abroad. History and economics teacher Rachel Money — yes, that's her real name! — joins Parkway West senior Lily Overmann to share how such methods not only equip students for AP exams, but build their skills in media literacy, strategic thinking and problem solving.

The crowded field of candidates running for California governor has narrowed by one. Plus, San Diego's efforts to rename Cesar Chavez Parkway continues today. And, a brand new Navy SEAL museum is being proposed for San Diego's waterfront. NBC 7's Steven Luke has these stories and more, including meteorologist Sheena Parveen's forecast for Tuesday, April 21, 2026.

**This episode is uneditedOn April 8th, 2026, Rex Heuermann, a 62-year-old Manhattan architect, husband, and father from Massapequa Park, pleaded guilty to murdering eight women on Long Island over a 17-year span. The Gilgo Beach case, one of the longest-running unsolved serial murder investigations in American history, is finally closed.This episode is about how it stayed open for 30 years.It's about Sandra Costilla, killed in 1993 and uncharged for three decades. About Karen Vergata, cataloged as Jane Doe Number 7 until 2022. About Melissa Barthelemy's 15-year-old sister, who got phone calls from Melissa's killer for five weeks after she disappeared. About the Suffolk County Police Department leadership that refused FBI help for over a decade because the chief of police was running his own federal cover-up. About a planning document recovered from a deleted hard drive, a basement vault containing 279 firearms, and a piece of pizza crust pulled from a Manhattan trash can that finally cracked the case open.--------------------Keywords: Gilgo Beach Killer, Rex Heuermann, Long Island Serial Killer, Gilgo Beach murders, Rex Heuermann guilty plea, Long Island murders, Shannan Gilbert, Gilgo Four, Massapequa Park, Suffolk County murders, true crime podcast, serial killer podcast, Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman, Amber Lynn Costello, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Lost Girls, Long Island serial killer arrest, Gilgo Beach victims, We Saw the Devil podcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

Episode 285-Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 01:23 So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause. Evan Nappen 03:07 J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10 pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process. Evan Nappen 04:18 Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge. Evan Nappen 05:21 Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”. Evan Nappen 06:19 J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 07:42 Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed. Evan Nappen 09:47 The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, if they are, “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later. Evan Nappen 11:12 The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this ground until the hearing was all but completed. Page – 4 – of 10 Evan Nappen 12:20 Moreover, and this is important, the trial court failed to address whether JBL knowingly falsified his response. Now we’ve experienced, folks, in our practice that there are times, many times, as a matter of fact, this trifecta of a win here that we’ve had. Where the court will make any statement that they deem to be a false statement, not even over the application, to be a basis for denial. And here the court is making it clear it takes a knowingly falsified response, and it has to be based on what’s in the application. At the close of the hearings, after both parties have presented their arguments, the court pressed, pressed J.L.B. as to his understanding of the nature of his mental health treatment, his course of therapy with his doctor, and interpretation of the question on the FPIC application regarding mental or psychiatric treatment. Evan Nappen 13:19 Footnote three, and, folks, listen to what footnote three says. This is what happened in that court. Footnote three by the Appellate Court. “We note this line of questioning by the court was improper, as were other lines of questioning throughout the hearings. When presiding over a bench trial, the court may examine witnesses ‘to clarify testimony, aid the court’s understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the efficient conduct of the trial.'” “In this case, the trial court extensively cross-examined J.L.B. on multiple occasions and, in doing so, crossed ‘that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality’ and substantially prejudiced J.L.B.’s right to a fair hearing.” And I can tell you, folks, that there are plenty of others that have experienced that in Bergen County, the court goes on in the opinion. Teddy Nappen 14:42 If I recall, isn’t Bergen, pretty much the only county where they ever go after people for falsification? Evan Nappen 14:48 No, they’re not the only county, but they are the lion’s den of problems. And this is really great, that this case is shining the light on what went on in this case. And this is now critical, so let me just go on. J.L.B. explained that he had answered “no” because he had been treated by a psychologist who held a PhD, not a psychiatrist or physician. He further stated he never received a clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition, including depression or anxiety. He was never treated with any psychiatric medication. He noted he had not seen the progress notes until they were released during the hearing, and he had begun to address why he would not know what a doctor puts in her notes before being abruptly cut off by the court. Get a load of that, folks. The trial court did not address these contentions. Instead, it relied on the doctor’s progress notes, unknown to J.L.B. at the time he filled out his application, to erroneously conclude J.L.B. suffered from anxiety and depression and he had falsely answered the questionnaire. Whether J.L.B.’s response was false, however, is a question the record before us does not resolve for the following reasons: J.L.B. was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself, given the lack of notice, the record contains no clinical diagnosis of mental health conditions, nor evidence of any mental health treatment, and the doctor did not testify at the hearings. Evan Nappen 16:35 Importantly, the court’s analysis entirely ignores the statutory requirement the falsification be made knowingly. Even if J.L.B.’s response was false, he had no reason to know the contents of the doctor’s notes when he completed the application. These records were not produced until the hearings on his Page – 5 – of 10 appeal, long after the application was submitted. A finding of knowing falsification cannot rest solely on the contents of records J.L.B. had never seen. Additionally, the court also denied the appeal pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5), finding that no FPIC or PPH shall be issued “to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. “This is the “broadest” of disqualifications for obtaining an FPIC or PPH. “In re Application of Carlstrom”, by the way, is citing another Nappen case. The provision is intended to relate to cases of individual unfitness, even though not dealt with in specific statutory enumerations, the issuance of a permit or identification guard would nonetheless be contrary to public interest. Evan Nappen 17:58 The court’s reasoning in determining J.L.B. was disqualified pursuant to is as follows, and this is from the court hearing. This is the Appellate Court quoting this quote from the hearing in the Bergen County Court. This is the judge’s finding in that hearing. I also find that he’s disqualified pursuant to 58-3(c)(5), to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare, because the person was found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s really due to Mr. (J.L.B.)’s testimony. Particularly his testimony before the court here today, where he minimizes his course of treatment with Dr. Lenzi, and tries to divert attention away from Dr. Lenzi’s Progress Notes, in a very long letter, which states that Mr. (J.L.B.)’s treatment, while focusing on decreasing his anxiety, and the fact that he presented with depression and anxiety, both at Intake and at various times throughout the course of his treatment. The public health, safety, and welfare doesn’t just include the public outside of (J.L.B.) household. It also includes Mr. (J.L.B.) and his children. So, that’s the court’s decision. I do find that the state has met its’ burden by preponderance of the evidence.” Evan Nappen 19:13 Then the Appellate Court says, in response to that, “This reasoning is misplaced. J.L.B.’s discussion of Dr. Lenzi’s progress notes was not an attempt to minimize his treatment or divert the court’s attention, but rather an effort to explain why those notes did not render his answer on the application knowingly false. A self-represented applicant’s attempt to contextualize his counseling records cannot support a finding of unfitness within the meaning of 2C:58-3(c)(5). Indeed, we recently rejected the notion that an applicant’s credibility or dishonesty can serve as a sole basis for disqualification pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). What case are they citing? “See In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Mikhail Polatov’s Application for a Firearms Purchaser ID Card.” Another Nappen win case. They’re using it to win here for our client, in which they say. Teddy Nappen 20:20 Polatov Cocktail. Evan Nappen 20:21 That’s right. That was our last show. It was on that case. Finding no correlation between the applicant’s lack of credibility and the absence of essential character or temperament that would make him more likely than not to be a danger to public health, safety, or welfare if he had a firearm. The court’s reason provides no meaningful explanation for how the record supports a finding that the issuance of a permit would be contrary to public health, safety or welfare. See Weston v. State. In the final analysis for a Page – 6 – of 10 court to sustain an administrative decision, which affects the substantial rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record to support it. Because the foregoing is dispositive, they declined to address the remaining arguments we made. They reverse and remand the matter for a new hearing before a different judge. This case is a great win, and we’re very proud of it. We’re very glad to have helped our client here, and it is a trifecta of three wins coming out of what goes on in Bergen County, my friends. So, beware. Learn from this and make sure you have good counsel when fighting for your gun rights. Evan Nappen 21:45 Let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a great range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s the range where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we got our certifications and where we love to shoot. Great range, great pro shop. They’ve got fantastic firearms equipment and great training. Get your CCARE there, your certificate, so you can get your carry. Whether you’re beginner or an advanced shooter, WeShoot is a place for you. WeShoot is just wonderful. All I get is fantastic feedback from everybody that goes there. They treat everyone like family. You will love it. WeShoot is conveniently located in Lakewood, New Jersey, right off the Parkway. Easy to get to, right there in Central Jersey. It is a great resource. We need our ranges, folks. Without our ranges, you don’t have a place to shoot, and this is a great resource that you can take advantage of. Pay a visit to WeShoot. Check out their website at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. You will also really enjoy their website. They have the WeShoot girls. They have fantastic top of the line professional photography, and you can learn all about this wonderful experience that awaits you at our favorite range, which is WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:31 And let me also remind you that you need to get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It is 120 topics, all answered by question and answer in a 500 page book. That book is so big it is a weapon itself. So, get your copy today by going to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. You will help protect yourself from becoming a GOFU. You don’t want to do that. You need to know the insanity that is New Jersey gun laws. And that’s why I wrote that book, to make it as user friendly as possible for you to know. Hey, Teddy. What do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 24:07 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and one of the things that is always important is to keep tabs on our opponents, the gun rights suppressionists. I was perusing through EveryTown, and they put out their press release, patting themselves on the back. Everytown Gun Safety Action Fund Announces the Endorsements of Moms Demand Action volunteers for running in the offices of North Carolina and Texas. (https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-endorses-first-round-of-moms-demand-action-volunteersrunning-for-office-in-2026/) And they were, you know, it’s various people seems that are running in these districts because they’re trying to attack there. You notice that they’re trying to hit like North Carolina and Texas, specifically in those areas, because they’re trying to counteract a lot of the fights going on in all the other states. Page – 7 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 24:56 We all know the Democrats, their polling is lower than Trump’s and the entire Republican Party. They’re at the lowest point. You can cut to Harry Enten on CNN, who is just the golden retriever of CNN, freaking out at the numbers every time. But what I love, what actually caught my eye was what was highlighted. They were talking about the Everytown Victory Fund. Back in 2021 they launched a program known as Demand a Seat, an educational program that trains, quote, unquote, grassroots volunteers and gun violence survivors to take next steps in their advocacy efforts by running them for offices and working on campaigns. They highlight 1200 volunteers across 47 states. Operating and trying to claim and move into these positions. Teddy Nappen 25:55 So, stop right there. Here are the sycophants, individuals that are politically driven in removing and taking away our rights and trying to run in small localities. This is the game they play. This is how they chip away at our rights, and this is where they’re targeting elections. And you know their endowment of money, funding by Bloomberg of his actions. Where does this pan out? To see the results, cut to Virginia. If anyone’s been paying attention on that end, the insanity of gun laws that were rolled out by, was it Shinebomb? Of all the insanity that they were trying to pump out through the legislation, that giant omnibus. Remember, they ran a moderate campaign and then what? Evan Nappen 26:47 Well, this is what they do. They make believe they’re moderates, when in fact, they’re extremists. They’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to our rights. Teddy Nappen 26:57 Correct. And right here, they’re even bragging about it right on there. DemandASeat.org. On their whole website, 13 Moms Demand Action volunteers elected into the Virginia House. Evan Nappen 27:10 Get a load of that. They got 13 fanatical anti-gunners into the legislature. And why aren’t we running a counter program to get pro Second Amendment rights’ candidates from the grassroots to run? Where’s our candidates? Teddy Nappen 27:34 Here they’re out spending NRA’s 31,000 in the Virginia elections. So, it’s very much we need people. If anyone is out there who has time and ability to run locally, it could be anything on that in the positions. Evan Nappen 27:51 Yeah, anything. Teddy Nappen 27:52 You can be anything. Evan Nappen 27:53 Yes, I agree. Get active. Page – 8 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 27:57 Yeah, what ever it can be in the positions, because I’ll highlight, right now. Evan Nappen 28:02 Well, it’s the old, it’s the old thing. All politics are local, right? So this is critical. Teddy Nappen 28:09 I’ll highlight to you right here from the New Jersey Globe. This is back in 2023. National gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety endorses five New Jersey municipal races and candidates from their grassroots organizations. (https://newjerseyglobe.com/gun-control/everytown-endorses-five-candidates-for-local-office-in-n-j/) Here we go again. So, they’ve been running this program since 2021. You can go on the website. They’re bragging about it right here. It’s the DemandASeat.org. And they train them up on the lingo that they’re pushing, the language that they need to put in bills. Whatever program they can and will activate in locals, they will do so. Any ordinance they can get away with, they will do so. That’s how you get the air gage knife out of California. They don’t care. It’s whatever. Evan Nappen 28:54 One thing. You’ve got to give the antis credit. Because they’re always conniving some other strategy to try to screw us out of our rights. They are good at it. I give them credit for that. Where’s our counterforce to this? Where is it? Teddy Nappen 29:09 Well, it comes down to this. To all gun owners, who it was. Well, I forget the percentage number that vote. And look, you have to understand this is how they get us. Because I see the U.K. I see California. That is their goal. We talked about in the last episode. If they ever get in power, if they ever find the means to do so, they will take away our rights. They will take away our ability to possess firearms. They will take away our rights to defend themselves. They have already done so in all these other places, and they continue to push for it. They will continue to push otherwise. So, you see, right now, people need to be active locally. This is where they get started every time. Evan Nappen 29:53 It’s critical, and it’s very important. Hey, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, and it’s a really important one. It is a GOFU that became an epiphany to me. And I want to tell you about this. Because, you know, our GOFU is, of course, the Gun Owner Fuck Up, and it’s important to talk about these things. These are mistakes from actual cases that people make, and it can be very costly to them. Cost them their freedom, their fortune, their family, their careers, everything, and you, the listener, get to learn it for free. Well, I’ve got to tell you, folks. I just recently came across a case that has really shocked me about how this is a GOFU, and I want to tell you why. Because it has to do with the “Duty to Retreat”. Now in terms of self-defense, when it comes to the legal framework of self-defense, which falls under the heading of “justification for use of force”, justification. It’s an affirmative defense. And we talk about justification for the use of force. We can talk about non-deadly force. We can talk about deadly force. Then the law lays out when you can and can’t use force. Page – 9 – of 10 Evan Nappen 31:13 I’m not going to spend a whole, you know, three hours here explain to you the law of deadly force and force. But as all of you should be aware, New Jersey, like many other states, has provisions that even though they can allow and permit the justification for the use of deadly force and/or force, there is built into the law a check that has to be in place called “Duty to Retreat”. So, the Duty to Retreat is put into our self-defense law so that you might be justified in using, let’s say, deadly force. You might be justified in doing it, but the law says that if you can retreat with complete safety, then you’re required to do that. That’s called the Duty to Retreat. Evan Nappen 32:10 Now, what I’ve always thought about this, I’ve always realized that, look, what type of self-defense scenario would you be in where you know you’re in a life and death situation, or something where you feel you need to use force, deadly force, and, or, you know, even non-deadly force, but you’re in this position where you need to use force and you somehow can retreat “with complete safety”. Like, how do you have complete safety? And I always thought, you know, short of “Beam me up, Scotty”, how are you going to have complete safety in any scenario like that? I’ve never encountered a hypothetical until now, where it’s no longer a hypothetical of where Duty to Retreat might actually be applicable. Evan Nappen 33:06 And here’s the scenario, folks. Here’s where it’s a GOFU that you better be aware of when it comes to Duty to Retreat. You’re in a situation. This is based on actual case that I know of. You’re in a situation where you are encountering a threat, a threat to your life, a threat even to possibly others. And you’re, let’s say, outside of your home, encountering such a threat. And then in that encounter of the threat, you retreat into your home. Shut the door. The threat is outside. You’re inside. You arm yourself inside, perfectly lawful at that stage. What should you do? You should call the police. That’s what you do. You call the police. You’re in your home. You’ve gotten away from the threat. Evan Nappen 34:12 Where’s the GOFU? Well, in this case, leaving your home to re-engage the threat. No, no, no. You just retreated with complete safety. You now could even call the police. You now have armed yourself to protect yourself in your home. You go back out there to re-engage a threat. That’s a problem, folks. Potentially a big problem. Potentially an argument that could raise your failure to abide by Duty to Retreat. It’s a possibility, and it’s a strong possibility. So, what’s the GOFU? Once you’ve gotten away from the threat, stay away from the threat! That’s the takeaway. You got away from the threat. Stay away from the threat. Call the police. Do not take it into your own hands. Do not re-engage. You’ve escaped the threat. Leave it at that. That’s the important thing. To do otherwise may, in fact, be a giant GOFU. Evan Nappen 35:32 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. Page – 10 – of 10 Speaker 3 35:43 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York. New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E285_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";

There has been an update in the story of the Long Island Serial Killer (episodes #14-16 from 2016). On April 8th, 2026, 62-year-old Rex Heuermann pleaded guilty to the murders of Melissa Barthelemy, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Sandra Costilla, Amber Costello, Jessica Taylor, and Megan Waterman. He also admitted to an eight murder that he hadn't yet been charged with: 34-year-old Karen Vergata, who had been known as "Fire Island Jane Doe" for years...If you would like to support this podcast and others, consider heading to https://www.patreon.com/unresolvedpod to become a Patron or ProducerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/unresolved-a-true-crime-mystery-podcast--3266604/support.

One 911 call. Four bodies in the brush. Thirteen years. Yesterday, he pleaded guilty to killing eight women. New episode coming tomorrow. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

One of our 'favourite girls', Katy Vernon, returns to talk about her latest band's debut release, the big release party this Friday at The Parkway, and the importance of resiliency and staying positive in the face of all the darkness. Pro-Women, Pro-music and Pro-making the most of being alive, Katy is always a wonderful guest. Enjoy!!

Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns? Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 284 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Appellate Division, Bergen County, mental health crisis, firearm sale, handgun purchase permit, New Jersey law, firearm storage, third party disqualification, extreme risk protection orders, domestic violence, Second Amendment, gun confiscation, robots, Milgram experiment. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my firm has done it again. We have won yet another Appellate Division gun case, and again coming out of Bergen County, which is notorious when it comes to denials of individuals regarding their gun rights. And we have yet another case here that’s very important, and we’re going to discuss it fully. It really is significant in what the Court is stating. It’s addressing problems that we’ve seen throughout the practice of gun law and the gun rights oppression that has taken place judicially. And the expansion is now, finally, apparently being curtailed. Evan Nappen 01:29 Let’s talk about this case. So, this case is “In the Matter of Compelling the Sale of Maya Kun’s Firearm”. And if you want to read the actual case, the link, of course, is online at our website, where we always put the transcript of the show. We’ll have the link to the case. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) But let’s take a look at what this case is about and its legal significance. The petitioner is a Maya Kun and appeals from an order compelling the sale of her handgun and prospectively barring her from being issued, you know, in the future, a handgun purchase permit and a firearm purchaser ID card. And what happened here? The police were called to Kun’s home. Her boyfriend, D.G., is what we’ll refer to him as, and as referred to in the case, was experiencing a mental health crisis. Kun voluntarily surrendered her firearm, and that’s a firearm for which she was licensed in New York on the day of the incident. Evan Nappen 02:47 The State then filed a motion to compel the sale of Kun’s firearm, which Bergen is notorious in doing, by the way. And following the hearing, the Court granted state’s motion and ordered Kun, as follows. Kun was “prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving firearms and/or ammunition, and from securing or holding an FPIC or HPP . . .”, being a Handgun Purchase Permit or a Firearms Page – 2 – of 12 Purchaser ID Card, “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, or a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.” And the Court says that, after further review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court erred in compelling the sale of Kun’s firearm and reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion. Evan Nappen 03:47 And the facts are interesting in this case, and I’ll just give you it in a nutshell. Kun called local police. Kun was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and specializes in child psychology. The police responded to Kun’s home after being informed by a third party that Kun’s live-in boyfriend D.G. had made concerning statements about wanting to harm himself. Upon arrival, Kuhn said that D.G. had been drinking heavily and planned to kill himself over anguish regarding the anniversary of his mother’s death. The officer that came there smelled alcohol, said D.G. was mildly aggressive, had a bruise above his right eye from where he fell while intoxicated, allegedly, and the officers eventually decided to transport D.G. to the hospital for evaluation. D.G. was evaluated and sent home that same day. Evan Nappen 04:55 Now, Kuhn had voluntarily surrendered her firearm to the police on that day. The firearm was a Glock 19, and it was stored in a safe in the primary bedroom, accessible only with a code and a key. The firearm was removed after D.G. was placed in an ambulance and sent to the hospital. Kuhn had a New York Firearms ID Card for the Glock, and she didn’t have a New Jersey license. But, as you should know, in your home, under N.J.S. 2C:39-6.e., you can possess a firearm without a license in New Jersey under that exemption. Kun testified that they lived together for three years, and she was the only person who had access to the gun safe. And in response to questioning by the trial court, who often acts very aggressive in questioning in that court, we’ve experienced it and seen it, said that she would have given D.G. access to her gun because she had no concerns about his mental health. However, later in the hearing, she corrected that earlier statement and said she would not have given access. And at the hearing, Kun also produced, however, keep this in mind, a letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst, which said that he’s been seeing him for symptoms related to the mother’s passing and does not have any concerns related to suicide or homicide on his part. And this includes during the episode in question, which led to all this, and around the anniversary of the mother’s death. He has no history of violence and hasn’t had a drink in a year. And despite losing his father two months ago, he attends AA and in his professional opinion, he does not pose any danger to society or himself. Now that was on D.G., of course. The trial court found both officers credible and concluded D.G. was disqualified from having gun licenses and that he was likely to engage in conduct other than justified self-defense that would pose a danger to himself or others. And that’s of course, under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c). Evan Nappen 07:12 The court also found, here’s where the rub comes in, that Kun, our client, was not fit to own a gun, as she was a threat to health, safety or welfare of the public if issued a firearm. And in making its decision, the Court considered only Kun’s statement that she was willing to give D.G. access to the gun safe despite his mental health and did not credit her later testimony, correcting the earlier statement. In sum, the court held. Quote. This is the court’s holding. This is court in the trial court. “In my view, given the totality of evidence here, it is common sense given the fact that you would give access to a person who clearly has been very troubled. Who’s expressed suicidal ideation, has had an issue with alcoholism Page – 3 – of 12 and continues to treat with a psychologist for the past year, that cohabitates with you. Given the totality of evidence here, and your initial answer to me that you wouldn’t hesitate to give him access to firearms, I do find that the State has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and you’re disqualified pursuant to 2C:58-3.” The Appellate Court says, we review a trial court’s legal conclusions regarding firearm licenses de novo. They look at it anew. Evan Nappen 08:35 They then in the opinion, which you can read, reiterate through case law. Reviewing all the case law and such, the court says, as N.J.S. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of handgun purchase permits and firearms purchaser ID cards, a person may not receive either if they are “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” The Court then says later down in the opinion, “The statute does not require that an applicant provide information regarding other members of the applicant’s household, although there are requirements regarding the safekeeping of a firearm from minors.” Let me just tell you, folks. We run into this a lot, where guns that belong to innocent third parties in a home get confiscated due to the actions or conditions or issues of a third party in a home. Evan Nappen 10:01 Of the other party, and here the court is saying very clearly, the statute doesn’t require that the applicant provide information about other, about others. Further in the opinion, it says that the trial court erred in disqualifying Kun based on D.G.’s alleged mental health struggles. All of the disqualifiers under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) address the conduct of the firearm owner, not that of an adult third party who lives with the owner. Despite this clear language, the court’s opinion was overwhelmingly focused on D.G.’s conduct and risk propensity. The trial court found D.G. was disqualified from having a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card pursuant to several disqualifiers, including reputation in the community, mental illness, prior and voluntary commitment, character, temperament posing a threat to public health, safety, welfare. The Court considered the letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst as a “net opinion” and insufficient to prove D.G. no longer suffers from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with or handicap them in the handling of a firearm. Evan Nappen 11:38 But D.G. was not the owner of the gun. The weapon has not been seized from him. There was no domestic violence order in place, and he was not seeking a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Folks, this goes at this giant bugaboo, this issue that has been plaguing New Jersey gun owners, that leads to confiscations, that leads to individuals losing their rights because of another. And the court has addressed it here. “The court had no reason to make findings regarding D.G.” The State did not present evidence or prove issuance of a firearm to D.G. would be a threat to health, safety, or welfare from possessing. The incident in question happened over a year ago. The State presented officers responded to the scene, but they did not proffer any evidence regarding D.G.’s present condition, etc. So, all this discussion about D.G., all that, whatever, the bottom line is that’s not about Kun. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:54 Out of curiosity, applying this to what they’re trying to push now with the, what was it, the household background check. Evan Nappen 13:01 Well, this is just the thing. This is why they’re even trying to put legislation to make it part of the law that you can be disqualified because of somebody else. But that is not the law. And listen to this. The court then said, compounding the error, the trial court in Bergen then attributed the risk it found in D.G. to Kun because of her statement. “She wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access to the firearm in her safe.” Solely due to this statement, the court disqualified her under health, safety, welfare. The courts find that Kuhn wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access is not supported by substantial, credible evidence. The only basis of this finding was Kun’s answer, which she later clarified to the following hypothetical questions. Evan Nappen 14:01 This is a from the transcript from the hearing. Court: Would you ever give him access to the combination or key? A. Yes, I would. I don’t have any. And then the court interrupts, You would give him access? Answer. I don’t have concerns for him being suicidal or homicidal. I’m a psychiatrist myself. So, I don’t, I mean, you probably want me to say I wouldn’t, but like honestly, I don’t have. Court: Oh no, I don’t want you to say anything other than the truth, okay? Answer. I am telling you the truth. He’s sober. He’s not, this was a one time thing. He was grieving his mother. He drank for those six days. When the officers came in, he was taken to the hospital. The psychiatrist there evaluated him deemed him not a suicidal homicidal. Sent him home the same day. He’s been in therapy. I think his therapist provided a letter. The therapist also has not been concerned for his safety. Evan Nappen 15:01 Now this is the appellate court. “It was unreasonable for the court to construe this answer as anything other than Kun’s expression of her confidence in D.G.’s mental health and current stability. Far more probative testimony elicited at the hearing revealed Kun responsibly stored her firearm by locking it in a safe, accessible only to her. Moreover, she testified, in the three years she and D.G. had lived together before the incident, D.G. had never requested nor was ever given access to the firearm. The trial court’s finding lacks support in this record. Moreover, the trial court’s interpretation N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) improperly engrafted a storage requirement onto the statute.” Although there is a storage requirement for minors, there exists no New Jersey statute regulating the storage of firearms for people who cohabitate with other adults. Simply put, Kuhn was under no legal obligation to lock away her firearm simply because she lived with D.G. It is not the court’s role to rewrite NJ law 2C:58-3 to impose such a requirement. State v. Jones. Citing State v. Jones. It is not our job to engraft requirements on a statute that the Legislature did not include. Rather, it is our role to enforce the legislative intent as expressed through the words used by the Legislature. Evan Nappen 17:04 So, this is a great case. It addresses something that is seriously ongoing throughout New Jersey as a basis for search and seizure. We see this take place in ERPOSs. You know, the ERPOs, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, where third party guns get taken. We see it happen in domestic violence, where innocent third parties, who have nothing to do with the DV at all, where it’s often, you know, let’s say the Page – 5 – of 12 parents, but it’s the son and the girlfriend. Not the parents. Their guns get taken, too, and vice versa, when they’re not at all involved. And then you see the State saying, oh, well, these people are disqualified, so you’re disqualified, too. It’s this ridiculous approach of just having an agenda of disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights based on the act of third parties and the Kun case stands in sharp Appellate contrast to those ongoing activities that take place every day throughout the New Jersey courts. So, keep this case in mind. Teddy Nappen 18:31 Just to extrapolate off of this case, one of the things, because we know New Jersey down the pike, they’re going to try for this. They’re going to try to do this, family background check. What would be some of the legal grounds? Because you’re effectively, what you are doing is denying someone a civil right based on the fact that there’s someone who potentially should not be able to access or act or use said civil right. So that’d be the equivalent of, oh, I live with a, I live with someone who has a criminal conviction who can’t vote. So, therefore you can’t vote as well. Like it’s the. I don’t see the value. Evan Nappen 19:10 Well, what if somebody in your household posted threats online? Do you now? Does the court say I’m sorry, but you are not allowed to go and use your computer anymore because somebody might access your computer and write something unlawful. Do you lose your First Amendment rights because of a third party? No. You know this idea of costing us our rights. These are individual rights. Let’s underline and bold that word individual rights. Okay? They’re the rights of the individual. They’re not shared rights amongst a group. They’re the person’s rights. And the courts are and should never be able to take away one person’s rights because of another person. Why is that? Because we have no control over others. Who do we have control? Who do we have responsibility for? Ourselves! Who do we have authority over? Ourselves! All right? It is therefore absolutely unfair and absurd that an individual would lose their rights because of another and that is a slippery slope that we cannot go down. Evan Nappen 21:07 So, we’re finally getting case law that is pulling back this practice. It’s wrong. It is not justified under New Jersey law. It’s not justified under New Jersey licensing law. It’s not justified under New Jersey gun law, under the disqualifiers. And the court here makes that crystal clear why Bergen County was wrong in what they did, and this is something that has infected the system, and we have to be on guard and alert. We finally have a case law that is extremely instructive in this matter, and you can read it for yourselves, folks. And like I said, the link will be right there, and you’ll be able to read the case in its entirety. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) Evan Nappen 21:23 Hey, let’s talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is offering New York City CCW, New York City carry certification. So, if you want to get your non-resident or even resident New York City Carry Permit, you can get it via the course being offered at WeShoot. If you’re looking to apply for your New York non-resident carry permit, they are offering that course for only $289. You will be able to take the comprehensive 18 hour court course designed to meet all the requirements necessary so you can submit your application for your New York carry. This course spans two days, featuring 16 hours of classroom instruction and two hours of live fire training. You’ll cover critical topics such as firearm Page – 6 – of 12 safety and storage, pistol and ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, use of force, federal and state specific laws. And build live fire training. And have live fire training to build confidence and practical skills. If you’re seeking these certifications, you can go there. Evan Nappen 22:47 They also have optional DC for Washington DC and Maryland wear and carry certification, as well as your ability to obtain Washington DC permit for just $150. So, if you’re looking to expand your ability to carry outside of the state of New Jersey, look no further than WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. You’ll love it there. It’s conveniently located right off the Parkway. They have plenty of other training, too. A beautiful range and a great pro shop. They have great deals on guns and accessories. They can get you equipped, whether you are a novice or a pro. WeShoot is for you. Go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Check out WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey. Evan Nappen 23:44 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, and it is your guidebook to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. It’s written to be user friendly and to help you not become a GOFU, my friends. So, go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll be able to click the link right there and order a book. You’ll have it in a matter of days. EvanNappen.com. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us in Press Checks, which I understand are free? Teddy Nappen 24:28 Well, as you know, and you stole my line, Press Checks are actually free. I always want to look towards what would be if the Left had unfettered power. Where they pack the court, control the House, Senate, and President, what would they do? We don’t even have to look that far, because we are reminded to our neighbors of the North how completely, utterly insane they are when it comes to destruction of their rights. Canada, as we’ve spoken before, remember, they were doing a buyback program, the voluntary, even though it’s not it’s voluntary mandatory, even though they say, oh, it’s a voluntary program. Such a voluntary program that you have to turn it in or you’re going to be committing a felony. Yeah. Very voluntary. So, March 31 was the drop dead date of when you had to turn in your firearms that were banned. And this is the scheme that they’re pushing. This was done by the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree. I’m probably mispronouncing that. I don’t care. This is an gun right suppressor. So, this was their push. And after all. Evan Nappen 25:49 He’s a hose head. He’s a hose head. Teddy Nappen 25:52 Yeah, an imported hose head, let’s just say. But the one thing I always love is they show the breakdown numbers. This was from Colin Noir, a great Second Amendment guy. He won the Gundies Award for male influencer. A great individual. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNBwQSAYYiI) Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 26:12 I love Colin. He’s great. He does great stuff. Teddy Nappen 26:14 He did a good breakdown, along with Rebel News, where they talked about how out of all their gun grabbing, it got to 2.5% of the firearms in the country, which was effectively 52,000 out of 2 million of the of the confirmed guns. By the way, not to mention all the other stuff that people probably, you know, buried. Evan Nappen 26:39 Oh, like, you know that, wait, that’s what BATF stands for, by the way. It stands for Bury All Thy Firearms. Yes. Okay, go ahead. Teddy Nappen 26:49 Including the E for everywhere. But so I love how they point out, like, okay, we’ve screwed this up. So, now what? There was an exchange between the Minister Gary and the House of Commons Member Dane Lloyd, who pointed out the failure and explained. So, the plan was in quote, March 31 was the time to complete the enrollment. And what is the option? What is to be done? Well, they’re going to roll out the Royal Mounted Police and other agencies will be available in the spring and summer to do the collection. Okay, that’s a very Canada way of saying they’re going to send mounted police and other agencies to come into your house and take your property. Evan Nappen 27:40 Oh, God. I suddenly thought of that Mountie from the old Bullwinkle, Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. Teddy Nappen 27:47 Oh, yeah, what was his name? Evan Nappen 27:50 I don’t remember. But anyway, that would be, that’d be a good meme. They did the live action. Give me your guns with him. Hand over your guns. Please, may we have your guns? No, it’s Canadian. They’ll be very nice about it. Please, may we have your guns? Right. Teddy Nappen 28:04 Yeah. Oh, Dudley Do-Right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Do-Right) Evan Nappen 28:07 Dudley. Oh, perfect. Teddy Nappen 28:09 Dudley Do-Right. Evan Nappen 28:11 Dudley Do-Right. Could it be any better? This is the Dudley Do-Right gun confiscation scheme. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 28:18 Yes. Evan Nappen 28:19 Dudley Do-Right. Yeah. Oh, perfect, exactly. Teddy Nappen 28:23 Yeah. And by the way, they pointed out, after the, after the Minister recommended they use the Mounted Police, the House of Commons, Lloyd responded Minister, I find that very concerning. We’re going to send police officers door to door as frankly, many police forces across the country are refusing to participate in the program. Evan Nappen 28:51 Oh, man. I’m so shocked about that. They don’t want to go around and take citizens guns. I wonder why? Why? Teddy Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Yeah, gee, I wonder from the fact that they are disarming their people. The fact that Canada has a rampant crime wave, which, by the way, remember Canada’s the first of mass shooters. And the ’90s were even worse in Canada, and on top of which, their economy is already teetering. Their budget is overblown from the social safety net. Now, on top of the fact that they’re very thinly stretched forces, they’re going to send them door to door to people. I love this guy’s response, where he said, oh, don’t worry. We’re going to look to. The Minister said we’re going to look to voluntary, either retired police, or off-duty police, to go to the households. Evan Nappen 29:45 Oh, even better. I’m sure retired police wait to go door to door to try to take citizens’ guns in Canada. I’m sure they’ll volunteer in droves to do that. I mean, come on. Teddy Nappen 29:59 Well, I love how they stress the term. This is a voluntary program. We’re not, we’re not expecting much resistance. This is just voluntary, Evan Nappen 30:08 Yeah, voluntary! Teddy Nappen 30:10 Yeah. How much was that? And bear in mind, this comes from like the firearm, their version of the NRA, the Firearms Rights Coalition of Canada. (https://firearmrights.ca/1500-guns-banned-from-law-abiding-canadians/) Their fighters who point out the failure of this where, not only, by the way, not only were they saying, oh, we’re not going to come for your guns. They clearly are. I love, it’s just it drives me nuts. In 2010 Justin Trudeau, when he did an interview about the mass registration, what were the words? I always hear the argument that registration of guns will lead to the taking away of guns from Page – 9 – of 12 everyone. That’s just not true. The argument is false because we have a gun culture in Canada. We are just trying to do common sense. Evan Nappen 30:52 Oh, right. It’s always common sense. Listen, we know the four words, and we’ll say it again in case you don’t. Legislation. And then what comes next is Registration. Then Confiscation, and after that is Extermination. We’ve seen it repeat throughout history. Every major Holocaust is preceded by taking the guns. And you can see what lack of guns does in let’s say Iran. You want the people to rise up. You want them to knock out that evil terrorist regime? Cuba. Again, in all these places. What do you have? You have disarmed the population. So, Canada is going down the road of disarmament, and it is always a road that is paved to hell. Teddy Nappen 31:36 And the Coalition highlights then in 2020 the banning of 1500 different models of their version of assault weapons. The ending of buy, sale, transfer or use of military assault weapons. What is that? They don’t know. Evan Nappen 31:54 They don’t know. Just seize the gun. And here’s the thing, they’re having trouble getting anybody to go and seize the guns. And yet, that raises an interesting question, doesn’t it, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 32:11 Yes. Evan Nappen 32:12 And what is that? That we were talking about? Teddy Nappen 32:15 Well, I under, well, we were getting to the fact that the main issue, and the Left know this is the hardest part. If they had the power, they would. They want to do this. They want to disarm the people. Evan Nappen 32:28 Of course! This is, this is their end game goal, their end game. Teddy Nappen 32:32 But the issue is the feasibility, because they have to get so much cooperation from the police, from the locals, and that’s why it failed in Australia. They still can’t even get the guns through. They’re trying to do it now, and they, and half the country, isn’t complying. In the U.K., anywhere they go, they cannot get the compliance. Evan Nappen 32:51 So, what might be a mechanism that they can use? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 32:53 This where, this is where it’s going to come down to at this point, robots. They’re going to use robots. Evan Nappen 32:59 Wait a minute. Now, people might laugh. They might laugh and say, robots? That sounds ridiculous. But stop a minute. Stop a minute. We are entering into a new world. Within about a year or so, Elon Musk will be selling his robots, and robots are going to become a way of life. Just like, you know, years ago, you may not have even believed the internet could exist. You may not have believed GPS could exist. All these things. AI is exploding. Yet robots are the future. We see. What are drones that we’re fighting wars with? They’re flying robots, when you get right down to it. So, robots are going to become a tool, and they are arguably a threat to our gun rights in the future because robots can be used to actually effectuate the confiscation of guns. Think about it. Officers, normally, are not going to want to go, and may even in fact, refuse to go, if they have taken their oath seriously, to take guns from law-abiding citizens. But you know, who won’t refuse? Robots. Robots won’t refuse. Evan Nappen 34:24 You may don’t think of robots like a 1950s sci-fi movie. Modern robots are kind of amazing, and they can do things that people do. And they’re going to get better and better and better at doing those very things. Do not be surprised. And you can say, hey, I remember hearing this way back on Gun Lawyer, way back years ago. And it won’t even be that long ago, I heard about robots taking on a role of law enforcement. I could well see robots coming to houses talking about guns that they believe are there. Even having scientific mechanisms in them that can sniff for guns, that can search for guns. I mean, look, what do they do now with dogs? They have it, right? They have it now with Wi Fi, right? Teddy Nappen 35:21 Where you’re walking into. Evan Nappen 35:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 35:22 If you walk somewhere, it can actually track if you’re carrying. Evan Nappen 35:26 So, don’t, don’t right. And, yeah, don’t discount this. Teddy Nappen 35:31 Go a step further. Now apply it to, okay, think drones. Now they get the anti-gun whack nut group where you have the appeal to authority, where, like, oh, I’m supposed to do this, and controlling the robot from a screen, because that takes away the human element, where they’re no longer going door to door. Now you’re just sending some robot and commanding it to get the gun without being there. Without, like, following the logic, because it’s what they’re training them all for. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 35:58 Right! And now they don’t have to face the homeowner and they and it’s more impersonal. They can demand the seizure and have literally a robot army to seize guns. You think it’s laughable? I don’t. I don’t. Because they will stop at nothing to disarm us if we ever quit in our fight. The eternal vigilance that it takes to maintain our rights, and this will become a tool of the oppressionists to steal our rights, to take our guns, to essentially enslave us. That’s their goal. Teddy Nappen 36:39 Take it a step further to the Milgram experiment. You remember that? The famous experiment where the whole idea is you have someone in the room, and they’re supposed to test like, elect like electrical shocks to basically make it so you can react. There’s someone at the lab turning the dial, and they know full well. If they turn it higher it’s going to kill the person, but they keep turning it. Then the guy in lab coat goes, well, the experiment has to continue. You have to turn the dial. And that appeal to authority. And you know what really screws up every time they do this? 90% of the people turn that dial to kill someone. So, now apply that to where you’re controlling this robot and disarming it. Well, we have to do this because it’s for your safety. They have no standards to the Left. This is what they want. If they had the means to disarm you, they will. But currently, they are not. It’s not feasible. Don’t get. Evan Nappen 37:35 Well, I guess we’re gonna see all kinds of gun testing on robots. I’m assuming we’re going to see reports of that. Because what happens if a robot goes crazy and gets dangerous? What rounds are the best at stopping robots? Hmmm? Teddy Nappen 37:55 Ten millimeter. Evan Nappen 37:56 Maybe 10. I don’t think. Do we have to move up to a big 50? Probably not. We’ll see where the weak spots are in robots and all that kind of stuff. It may come down to some interesting times as the old curse goes. I’ll tell you, folks, beware, and stay vigilant. I think there is. We can never lose sight of what their end game is, and that is disarmament of the individual so that we can be controlled. And this goes to the very heart of what the Second Amendment is about. The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting, folks. It’s about a check on tyranny. It’s about enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is about our insurance policy for our freedom and to remain free. And these things are threats. As science and technology progresses, there’s so many wonderful things that can come from it. I’m not anti-progress or anti-science, but there also can be a lot of danger. I can foresee this danger, so stay vigilant. Evan Nappen 39:06 Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. Now this week’s GOFU. You know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. This is where you get to learn very cheap, meaning, for free, what can be very expensive lessons. And this week’s GOFU is this. If you’re transporting or carrying a gun, know your destination. Know where you’re going, and make sure that where you’re going doesn’t put you into a trap. And let me tell you right now, I have cases where individuals, maybe on the job or otherwise, or they get diverted because of some emergency, or they’re going to do something and don’t realize that Page – 12 – of 12 they are ending up, let’s say, for example, on military property, or at a protected port, for example, or at any other place like that where firearms are prohibited. If you enter these places, search of vehicles is absolutely permitted, and you’re essentially consenting to it by just coming up to that gate. And if you come up to that gate with a gun, you’re going to have a problem. You’ve got to know where you’re going to end up with your firearm, and even if that wasn’t where you were intending to go, you have to realize that suddenly you could have trouble. You could have a problem. Evan Nappen 40:35 If you’re in your vehicle with a firearm, and you end up having to go not just to a New Jersey sensitive place, but we’re talking about having to go on to property where there’s going to be active searching for firearms and where firearms themselves are prohibited, that can be a trap. We have cases where it has become a trap, and it is absolutely a GOFU. So, folks, be aware, be clear. Make sure you don’t bring your firearm to a prohibited place, and be very careful about Federal places that you may have to enter into that will pose this risk to you and your guns. Evan Nappen 41:25 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 41:36 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E284_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";

Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen  00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen  00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell  01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen  01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell  02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell  02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell  02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen  04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell  05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws. Robert Bell  06:16 However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense. Evan Nappen  07:05 And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right? Robert Bell  07:24 Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think. Evan Nappen  07:32 I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case. Robert Bell  07:53 They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but. Evan Nappen  08:30 But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct? Robert Bell  08:40 Correct. Evan Nappen  08:40 Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do? Robert Bell  09:16 They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules. Evan Nappen  09:31 But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence? Robert Bell  09:57 Credibility. Evan Nappen  09:59 Right! Robert Bell  09:59 Credibility. Evan Nappen  10:00 Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen. Robert Bell  10:13 It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them. Evan Nappen  10:16 Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed. Robert Bell  11:04 Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that. Evan Nappen  11:18 Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified. Teddy Nappen  11:37 Didn’t they just pass that law, too? Where they’re now, like doing what are they trying to know like now hold or the household background check? Evan Nappen  11:45 What I’m talking about here, and I think Rob knows. When we enter into these cases where it’s an innocent third party who’s being denied their gun rights or have had their guns seized because, say, somebody else in the household gets a restraining order against them. Robert Bell  12:04 Correct. Vicarious, vicarious disability, I guess you could call it. Evan Nappen  12:08 Right! And then they abuse the case where a person said, oh yeah, I’ve let the disqualified person have the gun, you know? And suddenly that makes everybody in a household is disqualified. And so, this is going to help to end that practice, and help end those arguments of becoming disenfranchised of your gun rights because somebody else in your household is disqualified. Because it doesn’t make you, the individual, have a character or temperament problem. Robert Bell  12:47 Correct! And it doesn’t even sound like the legislature knew that what they were doing there. They just had a temper tantrum, and they limited something that they liked to use Evan Nappen  12:57 Oh, yeah! Absolutely. Teddy Nappen  12:58 Rob, I just have a question regarding, I was reading through the case, just the background of like, what they were highlighting, where it was the they thought he “lied” about it. But I just didn’t understand about his history, the criminal history of the charge, of why they were denying him. It just seemed like it was a complete misunderstanding of the question when they were asking. Did he have, like, the history? Because I was reading through the transcript that was in the decision, and it just seemed like they were confused, like it just seemed. Robert Bell  13:29 Yes, at least in that first hearing, that I did not represent him in. It seems that way. It just seems like he said, whatever. And also I don’t, I don’t know that it’s in the transcript, but that was on Zoom. That was. Teddy Nappen  13:44 Oh, even better. Robert Bell  13:45 Yeah, so that hearing was on Zoom. Evan Nappen  13:47 And wasn’t both licensing hearings in front of the same Bergen County judge? Robert Bell  13:54 And that was a beautiful point. I like to tap myself on the back for that. I said the same judge and the cops have gotten in the way of this man arming himself for five years. Evan Nappen  14:05 And I would like to point out to folks, if they want to actually read this decision, we’re going to have the link. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a3720-23.pdf) There’s a transcription of the colloquy of the first hearing between the judge and the client. I think it illustrates what goes on in that court. Because when you read that, keep in mind the questioning you see going on there isn’t being done by the prosecutor. It’s being done by the Court, who is aggressively interrogating the applicant. Read it for yourself. You can see what goes on in that court when it comes to a Judge, who you want to be a neutral judicial authority, but he takes on the role of a cross examiner. It’s very interesting. It gives you a taste of what goes on there and what our client went through. You read it for yourself, folks. Robert Bell  15:11 Twice. Teddy Nappen  15:11 Now, multiply that times 1000 and that’s almost every gun case for New Jersey. Where you know it’s a prosecutor, a judge who you know, a political appointee who has a bias and wants to take away our rights. Evan Nappen  15:25 Well, we don’t know. Why? Why else? What is going on? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Is it just simply pursuing an agenda? Is it simply a rule that is now become something where the issuing authority is, is in  prepositioned here to be aggressively questioning on the side of the Government of taking rights and not the role of protecting rights, of expanding rights, of being the one who ensures the protection of individual rights, but rather the one pushing hard on whether to take rights! That’s what you can you can argue and reflect upon. Teddy Nappen  16:13 Well, I think it comes back to just look at the Bruen decision with the dissent from Jackson. What was her view of our rights? When you consider the Second Amendment, you have to consider the issues of gun violence and threats to the community and everything else, but not actually looking at the law. That is the mindset of these people. They always bring in that bias, every single time. You see it from reading that transcript. Evan Nappen  16:40 From Jackson and see. You know, these are what when we talk about individual rights, they’re supposed to be a guarantee of our individual rights, and that guarantee is not voided by way of all these other political arguments. Okay? That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Teddy Nappen  17:03 You also have the, I always think of the line from “The Untouchables”, you know, where the guy says, “let’s do some good”. Like, that’s the mindset. They think like this. Oh, man, you’re doing such a service in denying this, this poor guy who literally is, like, what was he? He was Russian born and was in the Polish military. Robert Bell  17:23 And he knew how to handle a firearm. Teddy Nappen  17:25 Knew how to handle a firearm. Did all this history. Comes here and gets a full degree, family, everything. And he gets denied because “I don’t like guns”. Well, it’s disgusting. Evan Nappen  17:36 It’s a constant battle that we undergo. And speaking of that battle, one of the key fighters for our rights is the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the state gun rights group. They are the umbrella organization for the NRA. They’re multiple gun clubs that all belong in the Association. They have a full-time paid lobbyist down in Trenton keep an eye on the shenanigans going on there. Plus they’re fighting in the courts. I mean, Koons versus Platkin. Guess what? Association is on that case. And these are the important things that are this great organization is doing. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org That’s the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Make sure you join. Make sure you’re part of the solution. Evan Nappen  18:32 I also want to talk about our really good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. We’ve all shot. Rob, you’ve shot at WeShoot as well. Robert Bell  18:43 Correct you are. Evan Nappen  18:43 And so has Teddy. Yep. And we love WeShoot. That is the range. it is right there in Lakewood, conveniently off the Parkway. You can have access to a fantastic resource for being able to shoot right there. They have great training and a great pro shop. That’s where we got our CCARE certificates for getting our carries, and you can get yours there as well. And get all kinds of training – both advanced and novice. Make sure that you check out WeShoot and the WeShoot website, which is at weshootusa.com. You can see the famous WeShoot photography and the WeShoot girls. They have a lot of fantastic deals on firearms that they’re running. You’ll love it. Everyone loves WeShoot. Go there and have a great day at the range. Evan Nappen  19:43 And let me also take a moment to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s a book used by, well, everybody that wants to know about New Jersey gun law. You need to get your copy. Go to EvanNappen.com and order a copy today. It will help you get through the matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun laws and hopefully not become a GOFU, which is always a challenge in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. So, Teddy, what do you have today for us in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen  20:23 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always make it a point. And everyone who has been listening on the show knows I always want to do opposition research. What are they talking about? What is the argument? And you know, our good friends at The Trace. They always keep us abreast on whatever, you know, with their little message and propaganda. And there’s been this huge push where they’re trying to, like, you know, push Trump out and say, oh, he’s anti-gun. He’s hurting gun owners. They always try to make this argument that he’s anti-gun. They go on this Trump deranged rant, but they’re an anti-gun outlet. So, they would be praising Trump for this, but they still go after him. It’s very confusing. And it’s just the, it’s because whenever it comes, Evan Nappen  21:11 They’re schizophrenic, man! Teddy Nappen  21:12 Well, no, it’s the issue of the fact, you always have to remember these people are Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, it doesn’t matter about standards or beliefs. It’s about defeating the opposition. They don’t care what position they have to take, so long as they defeat their opponent. That’s how you end up with, you know, where you end up with crazies. Where they have, like, the groups of the Left trying to join, you know, “Free Maduro” and “Free Iran”. Like, that level of insanity. So, their latest article from this guy by the name of Champe Barton. I don’t care. “Trump’s Tariffs Are Driving Up Ammo Prices”. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/03/trump-tariffs-ammunition-prices/) This is something they’ve been pushing for for the longest time. Evan Nappen  22:01 So, they should be totally in favor of tariffs then, because it helps promote their anti-gun agenda, right? Teddy Nappen  22:08 Oh, that would be the argument, but they’re like. Iinstead, it’s just this whole the pro-gun President is hurting gun owners. And they go on this whole stupid thing, like pro-gun President squeezing the ammo industry. Gun owners, bullets, all the humanity, like it’s the level of like they try like the turbulence has arrived. Trump has billed himself the most pro-gun president ever. Yet steeping tariffs in metals and chemicals used to make ammunition is ratcheting up the prices and costs for ammunition. And according to the Ammunition Depot, the average daily price of nine millimeter full jacket, as widely used by the caliber of the market, has ticked up steadily. In January, it’s twice topped 35 cents, the highest level since 2023. About 10 cents more than the average price during 2025. So, I love the game. They always like try to quote, oh, this is a respective source. So you know what? I actually went to the Ammo Depot. I actually went to their sources. And let’s give a little history. So, in December 2020, full metal jacket was of Evan Nappen  23:28 Nine millimeter, full metal jacket? Teddy Nappen  23:30 Full Metal Jacket, 1000 rounds was about 180 prior to 2020. Then it jumped to like 600 to 700 dollars per you know, per 1000. You remember that 2020 days? Evan Nappen  23:34 I remember. Teddy Nappen  23:44 Those golden bricks. They were selling. Evan Nappen  23:46 Crazy prices. Robert Bell  23:47 Gaslighting. Teddy Nappen  23:48 Yeah, oh, yeah. And then cut to February 2021, and the prices was like 70 cents, a round, 90 cents around. And then 2023 to 2024, things finally started to calm down once the end of Covid, where it was 20 cents and it was 27 cents. Then it was 23 cents. Just hovering around that number. And then 2025 it’s at around 21 cents to 24 cents. And of November, 2025 it dropped to 20 cents. I went to the prices index. Went right to the index, it hovers around 12 cents per round to 30 cents per round. So, what the heck are they talking about? This whole stupidity of an argument which, by the way, the experts are still trying to figure out, where’s all this inflation? I mean, we’ve been saying tariffs are inflationary, but none of the inflation has hit. Evan Nappen  24:42 That’s because a lot of the manufacturing has just absorbed it in a cost-of-doing business, and competition has made it so it did not skyrocket. Teddy Nappen  24:51 Yeah. Also, we are the largest producer of lead ore. We exported 864 million of ore. Know how much we imported? Evan Nappen  25:01 Ooooh, and a lot of that lead comes out of the front of a barrel of a little gun, right? Teddy Nappen  25:07 I know, right? Evan Nappen  25:08 Exporting it all around. It’s great. Teddy Nappen  25:08 I know. We, you know, it’s good. You know what? We should export more to Iran. Evan Nappen  25:15 We are really exporting a lot of lead to Iran. Teddy Nappen  25:20 I know, right? But then I even pulled up. I always do this. I like citing Left-leaning sources to prove they’re against their argument. MSN, they brought on expert. You have to understand. Step one, tariffs on imports do raise the price on imports, but you have to remember U.S. experts earn the withdrawal by buying imports from other countries. So, if you have a tax on imports, it’s exactly the same on a tax of exports. That’s called linear symmetry theorem, exactly the same. And therefore what happens is, all the exported goods and services, their prices will fall. So, the increase of price imports is matched by the fall of price. So, it comes down to net zero. That’s their whole argument. That’s their whole long winded claim of like this is the reason. Instead of just admitting tariffs are non-inflationary and just accepting that reality. Because if you look to the price all the time. Evan Nappen  26:16 Let’s step back and look how they’re trying to twist that into somehow Trump is hurting the Second Amendment, or something. Like, first of all, they would be rejoicing if, in fact, he was hurting it. So, why are they putting it out that it’s in any way a problem? Instead they’re trying to just convince what? A MAGA base of some sort that he’s betraying them or something. The politics of that is just bizarro for The Trace, otherwise they should just praise it. In other words, they’re in favor of it. Teddy Nappen  26:49 Dad. Evan Nappen  26:49 What? Teddy Nappen  26:49 Well, this is the trick. Cut to the Germans in World War Two. You’re already lost. Your allies have abandoned you. You are losing men and materials. Your tariffs are causing inflation. Evan Nappen  27:03 Right! Exactly. Teddy Nappen  27:04 This is their game, where they’re trying to break up MAGA in that idea. Evan Nappen  27:08 Right! Teddy Nappen  27:10 Whereas that’s why you have all the black pillars, you have all these stupid people trying to make propaganda, yeah, and that’s the truth, and that’s why you push all these lies. And, you know. Just cut to Harry Entonces, the golden retriever of CNN – MAGA support, 100% on the GOP. Evan Nappen  27:30 Yeah, 100! Teddy Nappen  27:32 That’s, I thought like, he’s making that up. There’s no way. But it’s CNN, like they already undervalue it. So, at this point it’d be 110% for Trump, because it’s that level of. Evan Nappen  27:43 Right! Teddy Nappen  27:43 It’s so stupid. So, this psyop, they try to do a breaking up Trump from the gun owners, breaking up MAGA. This is all lies. And I have the articles here from that. From the Ore World, from showing the levels of production. It’s all lies, factual inaccuracies. Evan Nappen  28:05 Well, I appreciate you pointing that out. I’m sure the listeners do as well. And Rob, what a great job and what a fight you had all through. From the trial level through the appellate level, but victory is yours! Because it is not just a win on the appeal, but it is a published case that actually establishes law for New Jersey and even brings in now the federal case law. It’s quite an accomplishment. It’s really great. Robert Bell  28:40 Thank you! Evan Nappen  28:40 And I want to want to tell you that at the end of the show, we always do the GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We try to educate our folks about not making mistakes that we’ve seen others make in our practice. They’re expensive mistakes, and they can learn here for free not to do them. So this week’s GOFU, I want to ask you, Rob. Based on anything you’ve been dealing with or observing as any kind of GOFU that you’d like to let our listeners know about for this week? Robert Bell  29:18 Sure thing. But before I do, I forgot to mention that in the Polotov case, the judge and prosecutor are absolutely seething. Evan Nappen  29:26 Oh, really? Wait, what is that? Why is that? Robert Bell  29:29 Well, I very triumphantly emailed an order to the Court and ccd the prosecutor who originally was on this case. Evan Nappen  29:42 And wait, wait. An order for what? Robert Bell  29:44 Granting the permit! Evan Nappen  29:46 Well, let’s explain why. Because the Court in the appellate decision ordered, not just reversing the decision of the lower court, but ordered the issuance of the Firearms Purchaser ID Card. So, you sent the Court order to the trial court saying, here do this order, reversing denial and ordering the issuance of the of the FID card, as the appellate court has so stated, right? Robert Bell  30:16 Correct! Evan Nappen  30:17 So, you did that, right? And what happened? Robert Bell  30:19 Yes, and the Bergen County prosecutors, there were two of them on the email said, oh, please hold off on that. We need to, we need to. We need to talk about this. We need to confer to see if we’re going to appeal or file a stay. So, they’re running scared. Evan Nappen  30:37 For reconsideration or something? Do they actually think they could get a reconsideration of an appellate case that the Appellate Division chose to make published? Robert Bell  30:49 Let’em try. Teddy Nappen  30:50 When it comes. Evan Nappen  30:51 Oh, boy. Teddy Nappen  30:52 When it comes to guns, they’ll always make an exception for us. Evan Nappen  30:57 Well, I don’t know why, but they’re taking it, they’re not taking it very well, huh? From what you’re saying. Robert Bell  31:05 I would say that what they’re doing may be a GTFU – a Gun Tyrant Fuck Up. Which brings us to the GOFU. Evan Nappen  31:15 Well, that does. And wait one second. You know anybody who’s had their firearm license, FID Card denied, this may now present the opportunity to go back. And if you were denied and if it wasn’t based on a criteria that would now fit in the violence area, right? If it was “public health, safety, or welfare” denial of old that this opens a door for you to at least put in for re-application or give a call to us or your other attorneys and see maybe we can do something about reviewing the denial that should not have occurred. So, it opens the door to that for that. Robert Bell  32:08 They have the right not have a denial on their record if it was erroneous the first time around. Evan Nappen  32:13 Right! So, this opens that door. But go ahead, what’s the GOFU, Rob? What is your GOFU? Robert Bell  32:19 I have encountered it multiple times – voluntary registration of an inherited firearm. And I just don’t understand why someone would do that. I hope no one out there does do it. But in New Jersey, for example, if you inherit a firearm from a loved one, a parent, what have you, you do not have to go through the rigmarole of getting a purchase permit. It simply comes to you. However, there is voluntary registration in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. You can go to their website and voluntarily give them the information – serial number, the make and model. I don’t know. That’s like talking to cops. And with that, I’m like, I’m good. I’m good. Evan Nappen  33:01 Yeah, I don’t know why anybody would voluntarily register. The first word is voluntary, which means you don’t have to do it. So, you don’t. There’s no reason to voluntarily register your firearm. I’ve yet to find the reason that makes it a good idea. Haven’t seen it. Now, if someone can tell me that reason, that’d be nice to know. But I don’t see it. And instead, all you’re doing is putting yourself on the radar when there’s no reason to do it. Then people that do voluntarily register, then raise the State and looking into them. So, now you’re simply saying, hey, look at me, check out the reason for registration, and what I’m writing and everything else about it. And so, all you’re doing is waving a big flag at the Government to focus on you as well. It’s completely unnecessary. Absolutely a classic GOFU is anybody stupid enough to voluntarily register one of their guns. Evan Nappen  34:12 This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, and Robert Bell, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2  34:27 Gun Lawyer is a Counterthink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E282_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";

03/13 Hour 1: Capitals Are Clawing For A Playoff Spot - 1:00 Falling Tree Kills A Driver On GW Parkway - 12:00 Are The Vikings Legit With Kyler Murray - 30:00

From 03/13 Hour 1: The Sports Junkies react to a tragedy on GW parkway.

Tonight we will be speaking to Seth and Seth writes "I grew up in Lynchburg, Virginia, and went to college there too. That's where this story took place. It's not a Bigfoot encounter at least I don't think it is. Honestly, I'm not sure what kind of encounter it was. All I know is that it happened to me. I've often wished someone could explain it, tell me what it was or what it meant. It happened on October 31, 2001, under a full blue moon, along one of the quietest stretches of the Blue Ridge Parkway. At the time, I was driving a 1970 Chevy Bel Air an old steel boat of a car and I had pulled into the James River overlook near Goff Mountain Road. It was close to midnight. The moon was so bright it almost felt like daytime. I shut the engine off and decided to stretch my legs. There's a small trail there that leads down toward a bench maybe a hundred yards from the parking area. I'd spent a lot of time in the woods so being out in the forest at night didn't bother me. I knew what normal nighttime woods felt like. And I also knew when something felt off. As I walked down the trail, the stillness felt unnatural. No breeze. No insects. No rustling. Nothing. I sat on the bench and looked through the bare branches while the moonlight spilled across the slope below. It was beautiful, but something about it felt wrong. Like I was being watched. Then I heard a Snap. A single limb breaking somewhere downslope, maybe fifty to a hundred yards away toward the Bellamy Creek drainage. At first I didn't think much of it deer snap branches all the time. Then it happened again. And again. What caught my attention wasn't just the sound it was the pattern. The breaks started coming from different directions. Not like one animal moving through the woods. I counted five, maybe ten distinct snaps, each spaced about four or five seconds apart. Then the timing changed. The snaps started coming faster… one every second or two… and they seemed to be moving in a circle around me. That was enough. Instinct kicked in, and I stood up and headed back to the car. When I got inside the car, I didn't start the engine right away. I just sat there with the keys in the ignition, ready to leave if I needed to. At first, nothing happened. Then something hit the hood. It sounded exactly like a Douglas fir cone hitting steel hard, solid, unmistakable. The problem was that there were no pine or fir trees there. Only deciduous trees, and by that time of year all their leaves had already fallen. There was nothing up there that could drop. Then another hit. Then they started falling faster like something was throwing them. They weren't rocks or dirt. Every impact sounded the same weight, the same size, the same hollow thunk of a heavy cone hitting metal. The hood, the roof, the trunk maybe even the sides of the car. But I couldn't see anything falling. Nothing bouncing off. Nothing rolling away. Just the sound. I looked up toward the treeline in front of me, expecting to see bare trunks and branches in the moonlight. Instead, I saw figures. At first I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me. The shapes looked like people standing among the trees. They weren't trees. They were tall figures six to seven feet high wearing what looked like long hoods or cloaks. Completely black. No faces. No hands. Just darkness beneath the hoods. Some stood still. Others seemed angled toward me. It was like they absorbed the moonlight instead of reflecting it. I turned to my left, toward the grassy median beside the car, and saw more shapes there. Maybe three to eight of them, lying flat on the ground like bodies. Each time I looked away and then looked back, they were closer. But they never moved while I was watching. No sound. No crawling. Just different positions every time my eyes shifted. Then I noticed something near the driver's side of the car. Three smaller figures, only five to ten feet away. These weren't tall like the ones near the trees. They were crouched or hunched close to the ground, almost like children playing. Under each hood there was a faint flicker like someone trying to light a cigarette lighter that never quite caught. Meanwhile the impacts on the car were coming faster and faster. At that point, instinct completely took over. I turned the key, threw the car into Drive, and sped out of the overlook as fast as I could. As I pulled away, those smaller figures were right beside my door. If the window had been open, I'm certain I could have reached out and touched them. They just watched. I drove for about five miles before finally pulling over. Nothing had followed me. When I got out and inspected the car, there wasn't a single dent. No scratches. No debris. Nothing at all that explained what I had heard hitting the car. I've looked at that location on maps many times since then. But I've never gone back in person. Not once. I haven't even driven that stretch of the Parkway again. There's one detail that still bothers me, though. When I later looked at the spot on Google Maps, the overlook where I had parked appeared to be on the wrong side of the road. I clearly remember pulling into it on the right side from the direction I was traveling. But according to the map, it should have been on the left. I've tried to make sense of that for years, and I still can't. For a long time, I never told anyone about this." Now, I'm telling you."