Podcasts about united states supreme court

This short episode explains two paragraphs of a United States Supreme Court decision that has influenced the thinking of many Christian leaders that it is politics and law that can shape and create culture.

Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 302 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey assault firearm law, Third Circuit Court, Supreme Court, stay granted, unconstitutional laws, Second Amendment, sensitive places, National Firearm Act, suppressors, Jordan Salinas, good guy with a gun, training, legal advice, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen,. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, the wins keep coming. These are great times. You know, we have suffered from the oppressors on our gun rights for decades upon decades, and now we are seeing the collapse of all their machinations over the years. It is great and getting greater. And so, just within this short period of time, we’ve had the spectacular win in New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the full en banc panel, all the judges, of course, finding that New Jersey’s 36-year-old assault firearm law and magazine law is unconstitutional. It’s a fantastic decision, as we’ve discussed, written by a Biden-appointee judge who happened to be the first woman of color appointed to the Appellate bench. That is fantastic and has multi-dimensional impact, of course, having that great decision. Evan Nappen 01:52 Now, with that having been said, yes, a stay has been granted in terms of the implementation of the finding of unconstitutionality. So, that stay is granted essentially because traditionally these kind of stays do get granted, especially when the Supreme Court itself of the United States has taken this issue and has granted certiorari over the assault weapon, what New Jersey calls assault firearm law under Viramontes and Grant. They’ll be deciding that. Essentially we’ll have a decision by next June on that issue affecting the nation. Now, New Jersey has got their stay because they’re requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari over New Jersey’s case, and the stay has been granted pending the final resolution, essentially, of these issues, or at least in good part, these issues by the United States Supreme Court. So, in the meantime, Teddy Nappen 03:12 I don’t know if you caught what the AG Davenport wrote in their press release, Dad. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:20 Well, they can continue to irreparably harm law-abiding, honest gun owners over these unconstitutional laws until that finally happens. But what exactly did Davenport say as they try to turn an utter defeat into some sort of short-term victory? Teddy Nappen 03:45 We are thrilled that the Third Circuit this morning stayed its ruling on our assault weapon / large capacity magazine case while our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds. That ensures this 36-year law will remain in place. (https://www.njoag.gov/statement-from-attorney-general-jennifer-davenport-on-third-circuits-grant-of-a-stay-in-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazines-case/) 36 years of going after people, putting them in jail, taking away their rights, providing ruining their lives. Evan Nappen 04:07 Hey, wait, Teddy, are you reading from their news release? Teddy Nappen 04:11 Oh, you know, I read their news release and then added the little context that they forgot. Evan Nappen 04:16 Did they actually use the word “assault weapon”? Teddy Nappen 04:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 04:20 Or did they say “assault firearm”? What did they say? Teddy Nappen 04:21 Assault weapon. Evan Nappen 04:22 Davenport called it “assault weapon” law? Teddy Nappen 04:26 Yes, assault weapons. Evan Nappen 04:27 Okay, just so you know, this is the top law enforcement attorney for New Jersey who is calling their law something it is not. We do not have an “assault weapon” law. We have an “assault firearm” law. Now, granted, it’s a similar issue, and you know it’s the same idea of going after New Jersey’s version of semi-automatics. But you would think if you’re a lawyer, and you’re a lawyer for the State that has this case that you might want to refer to it as the actual name that your State utilizes, because that term “assault firearm” is the term embedded in New Jersey’s law. It is a defined term under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. Page – 3 – of 12 They are called “assault firearms” in New Jersey by law, by law. But you know, why would she bother actually using the correct legal term when discussing laws? That would be amazing, wouldn’t it? Teddy Nappen 05:46 Well, Dad, I mean, just the abuse alone, just to give you the one-to-one. You’ve had many times where people have been charged with having a “assault firearm”, and it’s not. But they love to abuse it and just use whatever term they want. I mean that goes right back to Josh Sugarmann, and his whole idea of making that term “assault firearm” to confuse the public so they could pass their laws. I mean. Evan Nappen 06:10 Yep, it’s exactly that. Well, Sugarmann wrote the manifesto “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. That’s what laid the groundwork for this issue. It finally has one foot in the grave, is bedridden, on its deathbed, and the Supreme Court will hopefully administer the coup de gras in June 2027. I believe the odds heavily, heavily favor us, virtually to the point of I would be shocked if we lose. I just don’t see that happening, and the antis know it as well. Those oppressors get it that they’re going to lose on this issue. Teddy Nappen 06:54 It’s Viramontes and Grant. Evan Nappen 06:58 Yeah. Those are the two cases that Supreme Court has granted certiorari on. Just so you know, one is a local law out of Cook County, Illinois, that bans assault weapons, and has incorporated into the definition, magazines into their definition of assault weapon. So, the Supreme Court might actually address the magazine issue because it’s actually part of Viramontes’ law itself. e may see that. The Grant case deals with Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, state law, and when they challenged in Connecticut, they didn’t challenge the magazine portion. They only challenged the so-called assault weapon portion. New Jersey’s case, in the Cheeseman v. Platkin case, that court addressed both assault firearms, aka assault weapons, and magazines. And now, with New Jersey requesting certiorari, meaning requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, it also opens up the magazine issue. So, the Supreme Court that can do anything it wants might choose to address the magazine issue in the Viramontes and Grant decision. They might even, arguably, they could even take up New Jersey’s case and make it part of that. They might, and what most likely they’re going to just have it in a holding pattern. Evan Nappen 08:47 And we have the Duncan case that deals with magazines as well out of California, the Duncan v. Bonta case (25-198(. So, what it means is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with magazines by next June, but just the guns, then they may very well take New Jersey’s case and Duncan with the split in the circuits there, and then deal with magazines. Like I said, they might do it all together. They might not. But New Jersey proceeding with this actually weirdly in the long run may present and give us a great opportunity because it presents magazines as a complete win by the court from our circuit. So, this may be one of those situations where you know the word to New Jersey is be careful what you wish for. This Page – 4 – of 12 is very interesting to follow. But I believe that all these laws are going to go to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time. Evan Nappen 09:59 But as I have advised listeners, even when this decision came out, not to do anything because of the ability to get a stay. To wait and see. Well, that’s proven correct. I’s been proven out to be the wise thing to do, and have our listeners not end up being GOFUs by obtaining the firearms and magazines that are not yet technically lawful. So, for these continuing months, New Jersey is still free to enforce the magazine and assault firearm laws. Of course, if you have such a case or such a charge, your attorney, if they’re anywhere competent, will raise these very important issues and hopefully get your matter, your criminal matter, stayed pending the outcome and preserve the constitutional issues on your behalf in fighting it. So, be careful. Don’t end up with a GOFU where you’re facing these charges and your current counsel isn’t doing anything about it. I’ve had a number of those cases coming to me from other attorneys, where the client is like, my attorney never raised the constitutionality on these issues. Well, that is a huge mistake because you need to raise these issues, preserve these issues, because ultimately your odds of success are so great here, and it is essentially, arguably, malpractice to not, especially now, raise the constitutional issues if someone is facing in New Jersey or in the Circuit that has decided that these laws are unconstitutional. So, it’s very important that you be aware of that. Teddy Nappen 12:05 Would it be better if the Supreme Court does the other two cases and then take this one up as a mag separately, or is it better to do it all in one go? Evan Nappen 12:13 The best for everyone would be complete victory as soon as possible. However, if they’re not going to do that, if they’re just going to address guns now and then we have these cases to address mags, fine. We’ll fight the fight, and there you go. But the important thing, honestly, is that they’re taking the cases. Remember, for years they did not take these cases, and instead, luckily, wisely, maybe by planning it correctly-I don’t know-maybe intentionally, the groundwork got laid for the challenges to ultimately be successful. Because look, way back in May of 1990, I was an attorney. I remember this horrible New Jersey assault firearm law and magazine law passing. It was disgusting. Of course, it also became the Evan Nappen Full Employment Act. But the fact is, they passed this ridiculous law, and I remember thinking at the time, yeah, you know, in my heart, I knew this has got to be contrary to the Second Amendment. But we did not have any of the cases at that time. We didn’t have Heller finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We didn’t have McDonald incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. We didn’t have Bruen laying out the test of constitutionality and what test is to be used to see if guns laws, if gun laws are proper and constitutional. We didn’t have any of that. We didn’t have the giant body of historical research that is critical in these wins. We didn’t have any of it. Evan Nappen 14:08 And what the pro-second amendment gun rights side has done is nothing short of Herculean. All the forces together have built this fortress of the ability to defend and to fight and to take on the fight and to attack. Built this up so that we’re now in a position to have victory after victory. Yet, we see another Page – 5 – of 12 victory, another victory. Just determined in the Fifth Circuit, a nationwide injunction as applied to the members of the parties and their members, such as NRA and GOA and SAF, and FPC, etc. (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260805/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-requirements-for-suppressors-short-barreled-rifles-and-short-barreled-shotguns-in-nra-case) All joining, attacking the National Firearms Act under a legal argument that was made possible by President Trump in the Big Beautiful Bill. Remember, the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a reconciliation bill, that was dealing with money, taxation, funding, money. When it’s done as a reconciliation, then what you have is no need or ability to run a filibuster. Since simple majorities can pass the reconciliation bills under the Senate rules, the Democrats, the anti-Second Amendment rights oppressors, could not stop its passage because they would. You know they would demand the 60, have the filibuster cloture, and the laws would die on the vine. But this did not, because it only needed simple majority. In that bill there was a specific repeal of the taxes. The taxes that get paid on suppressors, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, on any other weapon, and silencers. The tax was eliminated to zero. And by doing that, it opened up the ability for the Big, Beautiful Lawsuit that was just a success in the Fifth Circuit, and how it worked was not based on Second Amendment arguments. It was based on jurisdictional arguments. Evan Nappen 16:55 You see, the National Firearms Act is premised upon the federal power of taxation. It is not founded upon the federal power of interstate commerce. Nor is it founded upon the military power. The federal government’s powers are limited. And back in the ’30s, when the National Firearms Act passed, they did not have the insane expansion of the commerce powers under the federal government. Therefore, the first national gun laws, which the NFA was, was jurisdiction by taxation. They imposed a $200 tax on suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc. Now, $200 in 1934 was just a little bit under $5,000 in terms of it being adjusted for inflation. So, imagine today passing a law that said any semi-automatic firearm that you want to possess, you must pay a $5,000 tax to the federal government in order to obtain it. Evan Nappen 18:26 You see how prohibitive that makes the possession, and then go through a registration scheme that is hidden in a pretext of taxation, which is blatantly excessive. And what has happened is by the elimination of the tax to zero, the court essentially said if there’s no tax, then there’s no law. Therefore, the NFA collapses in the enforcement proceedings regarding the paperwork, registration, printing. All the things that get done on the acquisition of NFA items. That law has been stayed for seven days, even though this is a permanent injunction. There’s been a seven-day stay to see if it progresses further, but that is a tremendous win on yet a different front of fighting for Second Amendment liberty. ‘ve had both of these great wins, and we have a lot to be proud of, and a lot to be optimistic about. Teddy Nappen 19:39 Regarding the big win with the NFA, I always want to see what is the what are the gun rights oppressionists? What are they pushing on this one? The Trace didn’t bring up something. However, Giffords, they’re flipping out, and I love this. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/08/giffords-reacts-to-federal-court-striking-down-background-checks-for-firearm-silencers-short-barreled-rifles-and-shotguns/) They go right to the. Just laugh, just reading it. This came from Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Remove the tax on these devices. The court has struck down the National Firearms Act, requiring background check and registration of firearm silencers, short barrel rifles, and shotguns. Page – 6 – of 12 Silencers and short barrel firearms, and other than handguns, are rarely used in crimes today because current laws have stopped them. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. Logical fallacy alert, everybody! Logical fallacy alert. Correlation does not equal causation. Saying that this will stop that these things have prevented crime does not make it so. What is your argument? Oh, they didn’t. They don’t have access. Even though prior to that, they weren’t used in crime. Generally speaking, as well. Number one is handguns on that front. But I love how they just try to toss that in every time. Just a red herring every single time, and they try to push it. Evan Nappen 20:56 Yeah, they’re just propagandists, and they’re losing left and right. It’s going to end up, my friends. You can mark my words. It’s going to end up that their entire world of gun law schemes, machinations, all these things that they have hoisted upon us as they die. I am greatly enjoying watching these gun laws die. As they die off and are impossible to find workarounds that, as well, get killed and die off. That they’re simply going to be left with only one mission, and their one mission of the oppressors, the one mission of the Second Amendment rights haters, will be to repeal the Second Amendment. And that’s where a fight’s going to end up. A fight over the oppressors trying to remove the Second Amendment. Of course, they’ll push this through their socialist, communist political movement. Remember, they want to make all kinds of institutional, governmental, radical changes, including getting rid of the Senate, including ending the nine-person Supreme Court and expanding it, getting rid of the presidency being elected where it’s an appointed, et cetera, and going at all different constitutional rights and turning America into a communist nation, and in so doing, they will also push. And Teddy, I think they even are saying, even now, to get rid of the Second Amendment. And you’ll see them joining hands. You’ll see the anti-Second Amendment rights folks joining hands with the Communists, with the DSA, the Democrat Socialist Wing, as the Democrat Party in its civil war implodes over the monster that the Democrats have created themselves. This is their Frankenstein that is now running loose on them. Teddy Nappen 23:27 Yeah, and quite frankly, just going back to them where they have pushed and pushed and pushed, where they said we don’t. They and there was a great video where this guy was basically trying to argue the socialist dilemma of the Second Amendment because it’s that catch 22 where they want to ban arms but they need arms for the revolution. For their great, you know, seize the means of production, but they cannot because they still push for red flag. They still push for universal background checks. Evan Nappen 23:58 Teddy, it’s like the meme with the guy sweating as to which button to push, you know. Ban guns so that you get, you know, so they could disarm the populace, or don’t ban so that their radical, violent Left can have access to firearms. Right? You know, they’re conflicted over that choice. Yeah. But regardless of what politics may lay in the future, right now the wins in court and legislatively. Okay. Remember, this is a combination. The reconciliation bill, etc. That’s all an important legislative changes that open the door to the ability to win on the front of the NFA tax attack and the big beautiful lawsuit. We are making tremendous gains and wins. And it is absolutely a reason to be optimistic. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:03 I’m looking forward to seeing the decision in Koons and Siegel cases. Those that’s the case that addresses New Jersey’s sensitive places. We’re waiting for that same full en banc panel of the Third Circuit. Now, this is the same court that just killed New Jersey’s assault firearm and magazine law. That same court will be rendering an opinion over the constitutional validity of New Jersey’s sensitive places in the very near future. We’re going to see it. We’re just a matter, any day they can come out with that decision. Keep in mind, it’s going to be very important in countering and destroying the Carry Killer bill that Murphy and company got enacted. They did it. How? They did it because of their hissy fit to the Bruen decision, mandating carry permits get issued. So, they tried to make it so that this insane matrix of sensitive places makes it so incredibly difficult to actually exercise that right. is same court that gave us this fantastic pro-Second Amendment decision will be coming out with the sensitive places decision shortly. I’m cautiously optimistic about that. Keep in mind that the vote of the judges on the assault firearm magazine case. That was a panel of 15 judges, and the vote was 10 on our side, and five against us. So, it was 15 judges. One of the judges that opted to stay in was a judge that had been on a temporary assignment in, and that judge was a known opponent to Second Amendment rights. So, of course he wanted to stay in, and of the votes of the 10 to five ruling, one of the five judges was the anti-Second Amendment judge, but that judge is not part of the decision that will come out of Koons and Siegel. Therefore, it’s a 14-judge panel. And if we see the same voting as occurred on assault firearms and magazines, we should see a 10 to 4 ruling. Keeping our fingers crossed here in favor of knocking out New Jersey’s sensitive places, which would be really fantastic. And so, hang in there, folks. We’ve suffered a long time, but our suffering is slowly but surely being relieved. Evan Nappen 28:18 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot has some pretty cool offers and things happening. They’re offering the Bull Armory Ultralight Pro, and Bull is proudly recognized as North Jersey Friends of NRA Gun of the year for 2026. It’s lightweight. It’s exceptionally accurate, and it’s built for everyday carry. The pistol earned its title through outstanding performance, craftsmanship, and innovation. You can check out that Bull Armory Ultralight Pro at WeShoot. WeShoot is also offering Hornaday Critical Defense ammunition. Now, you know, Critical Defense and that Hornaday line of Critical Duty, as well, is one of the most trusted names in personal protection. That round is designed and engineered for reliable expansion, and dependable feeding, and confidence when it essentially matters most. And let me tell you, the Hornaday Critical Defense and Critical Duty, those are polymer-tipped rounds that perform arguably even better than hollow nose. But are not hollow nose bullets under New Jersey law because the nose is actually not hollow. It’s got an insert filling the hole. So, because of that, it is an ideal round for carry in New Jersey. You can’t carry, at the moment, actual hollow nose, but you can carry Critical Defense or Critical Duty. And frankly, it’s got advantages over hollow nose. Evan Nappen 30:12 Not just because it performs as well or better, but also because of the nose having the polymer plug. It actually feeds even more reliably than hollow nose. So, it’s actually far superior, at least in these terms, to your normal hollow nose ammunition. So, check out Critical Defense at WeShoot. Also, WeShoot has the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. Now that Mini 14, that’s an American classic. It’s earned its reputation through decades of proven reliability, versatility, and timeless styling. And let me tell you Page – 8 – of 12 about the Ruger. The new Rugers are incredibly accurate. You know the old Ruger with the pencil barrels-they were called pencil barrels. They weren’t known for their accuracy. hey functioned well and sure looked cool when the A-team had them rolling, right? But accuracy-wise, not so much. However, the new Rugers are extremely accurate. The barrel is thickened toward the base, and it is a redesign that gives incredible tack driving accuracy to the new Ruger Mini-14s. The Ranch rifle will be able to deliver for you, and of course, it’s set so you can not only have the scope rings, the classic Ruger scope rings, but even a Picatinny rail that fits in where you could put the rings, and then you could Picatinny it up to whatever optics you like as well. So, Ruger has come a long way, and the new Mini-14 is something you need to check out. I really do love the new Mini. I have one myself and greatly appreciated having had the old ones as well. So, you can get yours at WeShoot. Weshootusa.com is their website. Evan Nappen 32:26 I want to also remind you that if you want to get a New Jersey carry permit, you really should get it. Join our ranks of 100,000 or more here of permitted carry holders. The more folks we get with carries, the closer we get to constitutional carry. So, make sure you’re part of that. You can get your CCARE certification from WeShoot. They have all the great training there. It’s a fantastic facility. It’s a wonderful resource, conveniently off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. So, make sure you stop by and check out their website as well. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 33:10 Let me also shamelessly plug my book, New Jersey Gun Law. The Bible of Jersey Gun Law. You need to have it. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, so that you don’t become a GOFU. Make sure you have that book. Go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll see the big orange cover right there. Click it, and you’ll have it in a matter of days. Go to EvanNappen.com to get your New Jersey Gun Law book. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 33:48 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I imagine you’ve caught all about the In and Out shooting. What happened there? Evan Nappen 33:59 Well, maybe our listeners aren’t aware of that. would be surprised, but they may not know there was a major shooting that took place at, at and outside of and around this In / Out Burger in Idaho. Hey, I don’t know if any of you’ve ever eaten at In / Out Burger. It’s a West Coast thing. I really do love In / Out Burger. Just a side note, by the way, guys. But anyway, I digress. So, I could have well seen myself ending up at In / Out Burger in Idaho if I was out there. And Teddy Nappen 34:33 Isn’t there mustard on the burger that they do? Evan Nappen 34:35 No, no, that’s Whataburger. Another great burger chain. Oh, listen, we’re gonna have to call this the Burger Show shortly, instead of the burger lawyer, hamburger lawyer. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 34:44 What’s the best at In / Out? Evan Nappen 34:47 I like to get you know they have the secret menu and all that. I get the protein wrap where they take their In / Out Burger and they wrap it in lettuce. You know, I’ve lost over 200 pounds, and I avoid the carbs. I love the lettuce wrap, the protein. They call them the protein wrap. They wrap their In / Out burgers strictly in lettuce, so you have no carbs, and they’re delicious in-out burgers. So, that’s my favorite. But their stuff is really delicious. However, on this particular occasion, it was not so good. We had a bad guy going there with a gun and decided he was going to shoot up the place. And lo and behold, what happened, Teddy? What happened? A fellow by the name of Jordan Salinas. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 35:35 Yes, good guy with a gun. Jordan Salinas, where he was with his girlfriend, and they had planned a quiet Saturday. You know, going horseback riding, so and you know, going out for a nice lunch in Twin Falls. And as the gunman Chad Williams has been identified, who was shooting up the In-N-Out, Jordan drew his holstered FN five seven semi-auto pistol with a suppressor to fire back and save the people inside. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/armed-citizen-used-a-suppressed-pistol-to-save-lives-at-twin-falls-in-n-out/) Evan Nappen 36:10 Okay, so first of all, that gun standard has a 20 round magazine, and it’s readily available to have a 30-round mag, so that gun with its standard capacity magazine, you would you would up until the recent case, and even though there’s a stay at the moment, you still can’t have that handgun with the standard capacity magazine. But I’m confident we will be able to. So, you couldn’t have that gun in New Jersey unless you had a lame 10-round magazine in it. Which what’s the point when you have an FN five seven that can hold 20 or even 30 of the five seven ammo? And then his gun has a silencer or suppressor on it, which is just great. Again, that is prohibited in New Jersey because New Jersey doesn’t allow silencers at all. So, here we have this crime being committed by this Chad fellow, and lo and behold, the hero, the good guy with the gun, breaks out his five seven with the suppressor and starts laying down fire on the bad guy. It was fantastic, and he was credited, wasn’t he, by law enforcement with saving lives, Who’s Crowder? Teddy Nappen 39:28 Stephen Crowder, Gladworth Crowder. He did a full breakdown on it, where it’s about training, where you just do enough to where you can handle yourself in a situation. And what Evan Nappen 39:36 did he? What did he say hasn’t been? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 39:39 So the one thing that caught is the fact that he’s has a suppressor attached to it, and it was identified in one of his other videos as he uses an FN five seven USG fitted Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor, firing Vanguard 55 grain subsonic five sevens. Evan Nappen 40:00 Nice. Teddy Nappen 40:00 That was I so that may not now they may not be his exact rig at that moment, but that was what was reported to what he was practicing with. But that being said, this is one to one of what he was using in the and so Evan Nappen 40:12 you know when you step back, Teddy, and look at this. Normally, when there is some bad guy shooting up soft target area, the antis just cheer because they get to do a blood dance to try to attack and oppress gun rights, because it’s the old saying of they never let a tragedy go to waste. However, here the entire thing was turned on its ear because we had an armed civilian who saved lives and did it with a 20 to 30 round capacity handgun with a suppressor, okay, and so this completely turned around this incident to be one of the greatest current examples of why citizens need to be armed and ready and trained, and so the antis can’t even respond because in their normal blood dance that they like to do, it just always goes back to well. Look, we had a good guy with a gun make the difference. That’s the key, and it’s so important, so great that Jordan Salinas was there to save the folks that he did. He rendered aid even to the injured after. He’s just a great person as well. It was amazing to see this, that, and it so turned it around that I’m going to put on my conspiracy hat the way we sometimes see happen with the shootings that they use to go against our gun rights, I’m going to put my conspiracy hat on and say I think this, given how the outcome was, that this was a false flag operation run by us, because it’s had such tremendous-I’m just kidding about that. Of course, it’s not run by us. We, but you know, yeah, Candace Owens might run with it. Oh yeah, it was-it was the pro-gun side that engineered the entire thing. To no, but the thing is, the impact has been tremendous, and it’s now iconic of Jordan Salinas in his position. It’s like as iconic as Sophie Cunningham pointing is Jordan Salinas in his perfect firing position with his suppressed five seven. Seeing Teddy Nappen 42:57 the I’ve been seeing the citizen cowboy joke that’s been circling. Oh yeah, Evan Nappen 43:02 as compared to Citizen Vigilante, it’s now Citizen Cowboy. Teddy Nappen 43:06 Yeah, Citizen Cowboy because he has. But he’s Citizen Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 43:09 Defender. He’s not a vigilante. He’s a defender. He’s a defender at the moment. Being a man, imagine that being a man. Actually, is that your greatest example of so-called toxic masculinity, right there, called saving lives. I guess so. The Teddy Nappen 43:25 the other thing is, and I want to take this step further. I see where we win in the argument of common use. I want this to be a common thing where people are using suppressors in self-defense shootings. I want people to start carrying and doing that. I think there’s a lot of advantages to Evan Nappen 43:44 having them in self-defense shootings because Teddy Nappen 43:46 if you go back to the old where it was like we’re using 45 for the stopping power or nine, this guy had a five-seven with the suppressor. We were putting out more rounds, and you’re protecting your hearing on that. So it’s definitely that new frame. It’s a very interesting Evan Nappen 44:01 choice, and I’m sure on the technical side, people will can always debate what’s the best. But the bottom line is, well, someone Teddy Nappen 44:09 was going to say like, but look, what’s really the best Evan Nappen 44:11 is that a good guy with a gun helped save the day, and that’s what really matters. Evan Nappen 44:17 And Teddy, I need to tell you about this week’s GOFU because I’ve been seeing a lot of it. GOFUs, as you know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. It’s where gun owners make expensive mistakes, costly mistakes, and you get to learn for free. I got to tell you, this week’s GOFU something I see. You know, when it comes to restoring rights, when it comes to getting an expungement, I have to say, do not do it yourself. Seek professionals that know how to do it. I’ve been getting more poorly, improperly done pro se, where the individual themselves tried to expunge their record. There’s too much to that law. Too many complications. Too many nuances. Too many things you have to know to do it right. And when you do it wrong, it’s 10 times more difficult to fix it, and it can end up costing you. If you expunge poorly, and then you apply to get your firearm because you think your rights are restored and they’re not, you end up with a denial. Now you end up with falsification of the application because you wrote no when you should have wrote yes. You wrote no because you thought you were expunged, but you didn’t do it properly. We see this all the time. There is an entire procedure. There are things you need to know. You need to go to a professional. Whether, you know, and I just don’t mean me. Like some attorney. We do them at my firm. We do plenty of expungements. We help people with that. It’s great. But you need to make sure whoever is doing your expungement really understands it, and especially does it Page – 12 – of 12 with gun ownership in mind. Because when it’s done poorly, it can absolutely come back and bite you in the behind. Evan Nappen 45:54 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 46:01 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 E302_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";

How did the United States Supreme Court go from the Roe v. Wade in 1973 to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022? Join me as I sit down with Amy Littlefield to discuss her book Killers of Roe which seeks to answer that question and more. In this conversation we explore the history of abortion rights in the U.S., the impact of policies like the Hyde Amendment, and the political strategies behind anti-abortion movements as well as using the past to inform future activism and policy change.To learn more about Amy's work, check out her website: amylittlefield.comAnd to buy your copy of the book, visit any fine bookstore, or check out my affiliate shop on bookshop.org here. Support the show

The fight from the Trump Administration against mail-in voting continues today. Over the weekend, an appeals court sided against the President, saying he's not allow to impose restrictions on mail-in voting. Now, President Trump is taking that fight to the United States Supreme Court. Greg and Jim are both skeptical of a win for the administration; they explain why.

Calls for Congress to forego August recess and pass SAVE America Act instead Congress is about to head out from Washington, D.C. for about a month, but Utah's own Senator Mike Lee says members of Congress should forego the trip back home to meet with constituents and pass the SAVE America Act instead. The problem is that the bill still doesn't have the votes, even among Republicans. So why's Senator Lee pushing for this move? Deseret News Congressional Correspondent Cami Mondeaux explains the Senator's recent moves.    - WSJ: Major companies hiring retired CEOs to run their business A new article in the Wall Street Journal says more and more companies are bringing older CEOs out of retirement to run major corporations again. These aren't younger guys who retired early; they're generally men older than 70. Cracker Barrel, Boeing, and Verizon are just a few of the latest companies to go this route. Is that wise? Could it jade younger people who are already struggling to get a foot in the door? Millennial and Inside Sources Executive Producer Andy Cupp shares his thoughts.    - Ask the Attorney: Brian Kohberger wants to withdraw guilty plea At what point is it too late to take back a guilty plea? The man accused of killing four students from the University of Idaho in 2022 is now trying to take back his guilty plea and go to trial. Brian Kohberger is petitioning a judge to withdraw his earlier guilty plea, saying he wants this to go to trial now instead. What would have changed Kohberger's mind, and it is a smart move? KSL Legal Analyst Greg Skordas breaks it down.    - Pres. Trump asks SCOTUS to take up executive order on mail-in voting The fight from the Trump Administration against mail-in voting continues today. Over the weekend, an appeals court sided against the President, saying he's not allow to impose restrictions on mail-in voting. Now, President Trump is taking that fight to the United States Supreme Court. Greg and Jim are both skeptical of a win for the administration; they explain why.    - The ongoing effects of gambling on America's young people It can sometimes feel a little weird to talk about gambling in a state like Utah, where we're not allowed to gamble. But that doesn't mean people don't find ways around it. And more and more, we're seeing the negative effects of gambling -- how it can really impact a person and our communities. Jay Evensen, Opinion Editor at the Deseret News has a new piece examining how gambling can affect young people; he joins the show to share his thoughts.    - 98 days to go until the midterm election Gambling might not be allowed in Utah, but that doesn't mean we can't make some predictions on the upcoming midterm elections. With less than 100 days to go until folks cast their ballots around the country, Greg and Jim discuss the chances Democrats have to regain the House and/or the Senate.    - More homebuyers looking at wildfire risk when purchasing a new house When buying a home, people tend to look at the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the size of the yard, and the amenities like a hot tub, den, or a double oven. And now, more and more people are also looking at wildfires when shopping for a new place to live. Is this just our new reality with warmer temperatures and a hotter climate?    - Social: Fly 24 hours straight or take a few layovers? If you had to travel to the other side of the world -- say from Europe to Australia -- would you rather take a single nonstop flight or split it up with a layover or two? Overnight, plane maker Airbus and Qantas Airways broke a world record in an initiative called "Project Sunrise." In a journey lasting 24 hours and 24 minutes, a brand new plane flew from southern France to southeast Australia. Inside Sources Executive Producer and self-proclaimed plane nerd Andy Cupp has the story; Greg and Jim give their thoughts on the option.    - Utah ranked as number one state in the nation… for the 4th year in a row Utah's been ranked the number one state in the nation for the 4th year in a row. But it's not all sunshine and roses and unicorns -- we come in near the very bottom of the list in one category: natural environment. Greg Skordas and Jim Bennett go through some of the rankings and why U.S. News and World Report says the Beehive State is the best in the country.

Women Series. Episode #3 of 4. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court released one of its most important and revolutionary rulings: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, usually better known as Brown v. Board. The ruling overturned the infamous ruling in Plessy v Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that established the ‘separate but equal' precedent that made Jim Crow discrimination legal. The Brown ruling required that the federal government integrate public schools, bringing white and Black children together to receive equal education. While this story is often told as one part of a progressive and inspiring story about the Civil Rights Movement, a movement for rights that we now sort of all agree was good. But in reality, Brown v Board and the wider movement were met with extreme resistance from white supremacists. While white male politicians like George Wallace got the most attention, they were riding a wave of racism and resistance created and kept alive by white women. Today, for this episode of our latest women's history series, we're talking about the white women who fought back against the Civil Rights Movement. Find transcripts and show notes at www.digpodcast.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump is now moving for an immediate rehearing at the United States Supreme Court over the birthright citizenship case after reports surfaced of billboards near the southern border advertising birthright citizenship-related maternity packages with “deliveries starting at $4,000.” Trump blasted the situation, declaring that American citizenship is not for sale and arguing that the Supreme Court must reconsider its ruling.The controversy comes after the Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Now Trump is pointing to the billboard scandal and birth tourism concerns as evidence that the ruling has opened the door to what he calls a massive citizenship scam.In this video, we break down Trump's full statement, what the billboard controversy means, what a Supreme Court rehearing would involve, why this issue is exploding politically, and why the fight over birthright citizenship may be far from over.Is American citizenship being exploited? Should SCOTUS rehear the case? And did nobody see this coming?Drop your thoughts in the comments.For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (656) 218-0931 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/nez✅ Reach out to me: https://bio.site/professornez✅ ORIGINAL MADE IN U.S.A 250TH AMERICA DESIGNS: https://professornez.myspreadshop.com/✅ Check out our Official Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@professornezclips▶ Support the Channel and Buy us a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/professornezEducational Commentary & Original AnalysisThis channel presents educational, lecture-style analysis created by a university professor and educator. Content focuses on contextual examination, historical background, legal frameworks, and evidence-based analysis of widely reported events, public records, and institutional processes.The approach emphasizes academic methodology, media literacy, and source-driven interpretation rather than advocacy, persuasion, or real-time news reporting. Viewers are encouraged to consult primary sources and form independent conclusions.All content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or professional advice. Views expressed are solely those of the creator.This channel may include references or links to third-party websites or products for informational purposes. Some links may be affiliate links, which may generate a commission at no additional cost to the viewer.In this video expert Professor Nez analyzes and educates on what happened and why with fact based, data based, verified and researched expertise reporting.All original content is protected by copyright. Fair use applies where permitted by law.Category: News Analysis & Educational CommentaryMethodology: This report utilizes primary source verification and comparative analysis

It is not that common to have an agricultural law case at the United States Supreme Court, but this term, Monsanto v. Durnell was argued, and in June, the Justices issued their decision on the important questions of whether FIFRA's labeling requirements preempts state law failure-to-warn claims.  Jennie Zwagerman joined me to talk through the case, the Opinion, and what this means going forward.   Contact Info for Jennie  Phone: 515-271-4119 Email: jennifer.zwagerman@drake.edu https://www.drake.edu/law/fac-staff/profile/jennifer-zwagerman   Links to Topics Mentioned on the Show Ag Law in the Field Podcast Episode: So You Want to Go to Law School  Drake Law School Ag Law Program  AALA Texas Agriculture Law Blog: US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA   Restaurant Recommendation:  WASABI   Where Jennie keeps up with ag law news:   Texas Agriculture Law Blog Ag Law in the Field Podcast AgriPulse Politico Ag National Agricultural Law Center Congressional Research Service Reports

Send us Fan MailNon-United States citizens are at more risk than in decades with their criminal cases, and many times starting while the prosecution is still pending in court. Harsh treatment of non-U.S. citizens did not start from whole cloth with Donald Trump, but he and his tough-on-immigrants supporters have taken the matter to an entirely higher quantum level. And still we have safeguards, including the Senate's non-action on H.R. 875, which would have made green card holders deportable for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (aka DUI, DWI, OWI and OUI). With the situation for non-United States citizens and undocumented people in the United States getting no better -- and in many instances worse (for instance with the widespread application of no bond for immigration detainees) -- the time is ripe for the return after sixteen months of crimmigration expert Ofelia L. Calderón, to whom your host Fairfax criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Katz repeatedly turns for on-the-money advice and opinion letters for his non-United States citizen criminal defense clients. Criminal defense lawyers need to understand the immigration risks for certain convictions, sentences, and procedures.  In 2010, the United States Supreme Court included correct advice about adverse immigration consequences from criminal cases within the Sixth Amendment's Effective Assistance of Counsel clause. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Crimmigration law is so nuanced that no primer exists to teach this to criminal defense lawyers in but one sitting. This Virginia crimmigration chart from Amica does not end the essential learning needed by criminal defense lawyers, but at least propels the matter forward. Beyond the political winds that affect immigration law and enforcement policy, we have practical considerations that have been around for decades, including Crespo v. Holder, 631 F.3d 130 (4th Cir., Jan. 11, 2011), which lets us know to beware whether a seeming sweetheart deal is really a sweetheart deal when considering the adverse immigration, financial and personal consequences that can come from a wide panoply of criminal case dispositions. Furthermore, non-United States citizens without legal permanent residence / green cards need to be particularly cautious about leaving the United States while their criminal cases are pending in court. Learn much more about all of this and plenty more in this podcast episode. This podcast is also available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYSoVvHK3PI and on Apple podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/winning-by-navigating-the-crimmigration-landmines/id1721413675?i=1000776851879This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text).  If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

Brown v. Board: The Cornerstone of Change When we began this series, we started with the election of 1964. From there, we journeyed through 1968... 1972... 1976... and finally 1980. Each episode explored another chapter in America's political realignment. At first, those elections appeared to be separate stories. Different candidates. Different issues. Different moments in history. But as we followed the threads connecting one election to another, a question kept returning. Where did all of this really begin? If there is one event that changed the political landscape of modern America... one decision that quietly altered the course of history... I believe we find it not in an election. Not in Congress. Not in the White House. But inside the United States Supreme Court. On May 17, 1954. To understand Brown v. Board of Education, we must first understand another Supreme Court decision made nearly sixty years earlier. In 1896, the Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson. That decision established the legal doctrine known as "separate but equal." Under Plessy, states could legally separate Black and White citizens in public facilities, provided those facilities were supposedly equal. On paper, the doctrine sounded reasonable. In practice, equality rarely existed. Separate schools. Separate waiting rooms. Separate entrances. Separate drinking fountains. Separate lives. For nearly six decades, Plessy provided the constitutional foundation upon which segregation rested throughout much of the South. Then came Brown. The case itself began with families who believed their children deserved the equal protection promised by the Constitution. One of those families was that of Oliver Brown, whose daughter, Linda, was required to travel farther to attend a segregated Black school even though a White elementary school stood much closer to their home. Brown became more than one lawsuit. It became a constitutional question. Could public education ever truly be equal if students were separated solely because of race? Chief Justice Earl Warren understood the importance of the moment. He believed that a divided Court might deepen an already difficult national issue. Working quietly with his fellow justices, Warren achieved something remarkable. On May 17, 1954, the Court issued a unanimous decision. Its conclusion has echoed through American history ever since. "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." With those words, the constitutional foundation established by Plessy began to crumble. Brown did not instantly integrate America's schools. Nor did it immediately end segregation. Instead, it began a long and often difficult process that unfolded over many years. Across much of the South, many political leaders sought ways to preserve the existing social order while responding to the Court's decision. The methods varied from state to state. The debates were often intense. The legal battles continued. But the constitutional conversation had fundamentally changed. Brown had established a new principle. As resistance continued, the federal government found itself increasingly drawn into issues that many states had previously considered their own responsibility. Little Rock. The Freedom Riders. Birmingham. The March on Washington. Selma. Each became another chapter in a growing national conversation about civil rights and equal protection under the law. Eventually, Congress responded. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. These landmark laws did not emerge in isolation. They grew from constitutional questions that Brown had brought to the forefront a decade earlier. The political consequences would prove just as significant. The Democratic coalition that had dominated national politics since Franklin Roosevelt began to change. Regional loyalties shifted. New political alliances emerged. Election by election... 1964... 1968... 1972... 1976... 1980... America's political map slowly transformed. When we began this series, those elections appeared to be separate stories. Looking back now, we can see they were connected. Each represented another step in a much longer journey. History often remembers presidents. It remembers campaigns. It remembers elections. But sometimes the most important political event in a generation is not an election at all. It is a court decision. Brown v. Board of Education did more than change public education. It changed the constitutional framework within which future debates would occur. Its effects reached into schools, communities, legislatures, courtrooms, political parties, and presidential elections. History rarely changes all at once. More often, it changes because one event quietly alters the foundation upon which future events are built. I believe Brown v. Board of Education was one of those moments. It was the cornerstone of change. And once that cornerstone was laid, the political realignment we have explored throughout this series became possible. As we've discovered together, history is not a collection of disconnected events. It is a conversation across generations. One decision leads to another. One response creates another response. One generation leaves questions for the next. And perhaps that is the greatest lesson history has to teach us. Understanding how we arrived here is the first step toward understanding where we go next.

in 1991, Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court and it was the biggest downgrade in American History. Marshall is maybe the greatest civil rights lawyer of all time and Clarence has spent the last 35 years undoing it all. Patreon: https://patreon.com/redactedhistory?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink Listen to the pod: https://pod.link/1609909822?view=apps... Subscribe to the YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@redactedhistory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're still unpacking the slew of consequential Supreme Court decisions that came down at the end of the term last week. Among them was a 6-3 ruling on digital data privacy.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found digital data does fall under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, law professor at George Washington University and author of the recent book “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance," explains more.More on this“Chatrie v. United States” opinion from the Supreme Court of The United States“Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns” from ABC NewsBluesky thread post on the 6-3 ruling from Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

We're still unpacking the slew of consequential Supreme Court decisions that came down at the end of the term last week. Among them was a 6-3 ruling on digital data privacy.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found digital data does fall under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, law professor at George Washington University and author of the recent book “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance," explains more.More on this“Chatrie v. United States” opinion from the Supreme Court of The United States“Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns” from ABC NewsBluesky thread post on the 6-3 ruling from Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview trial lawyer Rena Leizerman of the Law Firm for Truck Safety about Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a trucking case in which her team won a unanimous 9–0 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing negligent selection claims against freight brokers like C.H. Robinson to proceed under the FAAAA safety exception.   CASE DETAILS: The case stems from an Illinois crash where broker-hired carrier Caribe Transport, with a conditional FMCSA safety rating, struck Shawn Montgomery's parked tractor-trailer, causing severe permanent injuries including a leg amputation. Leizerman explains the circuit split that led to Supreme Court review, the Court's focus on interstate vs. intrastate issues, and a deliberate amicus strategy emphasizing safety, truck drivers, and 30 states rather than plaintiff groups. She notes ongoing regulatory and legislative broker pushback and that the case is headed toward trial. (READ MORE)   GUEST BIO: Rena Leizerman concentrates her practice in trial and appellate litigation involving serious personal injury and wrongful death related to commercial motor vehicle collisions. She has successfully opposed Petitions for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, litigated numerous issues of first impression in courts across the country, and obtained the first punitive damage verdict against a freight broker for negligent selection. She also drafts and submits amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys and consults with other advocacy organizations regarding amicus curiae submissions. (READ MORE)   CONNECT WITH OUR GUESTS: MEET RENA LEIZERMAN RENA LEIZERMAN ON LINKEDIN TRUCKACCIDENTS.COM   LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services  Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2  

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";

E. Jean Carroll has AGAIN kicked Donald Trump's butt in court. And this time, it was in the United States Supreme Court.Remember a first jury found Donald Trump liable and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million. Then, a second jury found Donald Trump liable once again for defamation and awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million. And now - the Supreme Court told Trump, "Nope - we're not going to review or undo that first $5 million jury award." So, what did Trump do? He defamed Ms. Carroll a third time! Because of course he did!No one can ever accuse Trump of learning from his mistakes. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

E. Jean Carroll has AGAIN kicked Donald Trump's butt in court. And this time, it was in the United States Supreme Court.Remember a first jury found Donald Trump liable and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million. Then, a second jury found Donald Trump liable once again for defamation and awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million. And now - the Supreme Court told Trump, "Nope - we're not going to review or undo that first $5 million jury award." So, what did Trump do? He defamed Ms. Carroll a third time! Because of course he did!No one can ever accuse Trump of learning from his mistakes. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Will we return to the bad old days of existence in substandard hospitals and nursing homes?  Or will we fight to preserve our lives in the community? Sadly, this is not a rhetorical question.   In 1999, the United States Supreme Court passed the Olmstead decision determining that people with disabilities should not be forced into institutions when they can be safely and appropriately supported in community settings. Or, in other words, people with mental and other disabilities no longer had to be incarcerated in oppressive institutions when they could reside in whatever type of community living was most appropriate to the individual.  But in a memo issued in June, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel upended that guidance. It argued that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor Section 504, two major disability rights laws, requires states to provide services in the most mainstream setting.   Pushing Limits on Friday, July 3 interviews Eric Harris, Associate Executive Director of External Affairs for Disability Rights California, to discuss Olmstead and the threat against it.  This Program is hosted and produced by Eddie Ytuarte.  Click here for a relevant article. For more info on our guest click here or read below:  Eric Harris is DRC's Associate Executive Director of External Affairs with an extensive career working closely with disability leaders, community members, and elected officials throughout the country to progress change for the disability community. Eric Harris Harris brings significant local, state and federal policy experience, having worked for Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Democratic National Committee and the California and Hawaii State NAACP.  Mr. Harris has led discussions on disability pride, inclusion and access on platforms throughout the country. He has spoken at Harvard Law School, the University of California at Berkeley School of Medicine and at the White House.   Harris started his time at DRC in 2019 working in the legislation and estrategic partnerships and community engagement units. He served on the State Independent Living Council as a Governor Newsom appointee and as a board member for the Resources for Independent Living in Sacramento. He grew up in Sacramento, California and was an elite wheelchair basketball player.  “Creating public policy that improves the lives of disabled people has been my life's mission. I look forward to working closely with intersectional disability leaders throughout the state to improve the lives of all people with disabilities.”  For a full program transcription, click here The post Olmstead Under Threat – Pushing Limits – July 3, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

In this powerful episode Gene and Michael reflect on America's 250-year journey, discussing why millions around the world continue to admire the United States.As international visitors arrive for the FIFA World Cup, many are expressing amazement at America's freedom, opportunity, and unmatched scale. The conversation also explores the latest Supreme Court rulings on immigration, birthright citizenship, and the growing political divide shaping the nation's future.In this episode:✅ America's 250-year legacy of liberty and freedom✅ Why foreign visitors are praising the United States✅ Supreme Court immigration decisions explained✅ Birthright citizenship debate✅ The future of the Democrat Party✅ Socialism vs. American principles✅ Why patriotism is making a comebackDo you believe America is experiencing a renewed sense of patriotism? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Washington, D.C. – June 30, 2026: Today, the United States Supreme Court released a decision in two cases: West Virginia v. BPJ and Hecox v. Little in favor of keeping men and boys out of women's sports. This decision is a landmark victory after many notable women athletes have shared their stories of having to surrender victories and their safety when they were forced to compete against male athletes. Texas Values signed onto a legal amicus brief with other family policy organizations in support of female athletes in this case. Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, said: “Today is a monumental day for women and girls in the United States. What the Supreme Court decided today was simply the truth. No woman or girl should have her victory in competition or her privacy in locker rooms be taken from her. Idaho started this bold fight in saving women's sports and Texas will help them fight to the finish on Tuesday.” Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values and U. S. Supreme Court Attorney, who was present in the court room at the U. S. Supreme Court during oral arguments, released the following statement: “This is one of the most important decisions ever by the Supreme Court for young girls, women and fairness in sports, and I'm so glad the court got it right!” Texas currently has two laws protecting female athletes: The Save Girls' Sports Act (HB 25) by Representative Valoree Swanson, which protects girls in sports K-12, and the Save Women's Sports Act (SB 15) by Senator Mayes Middleton, which protects women in collegiate sports. Representative Barbara Ehardt, the author of the Idaho law being challenged at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, has come to Texas to testify and support our legislation in Texas to protect female athletes. Currently, 26 states have laws protecting women and girls from being forced to compete against men. The issue has gained national support as polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe that men should not compete in women's sports. The movement gained momentum when Riley Gaines began sharing her story of being forced to compete and share a locker room with male swimmer Will “Lia” Thomas. Texas Values has worked with Riley Gaines and a number of Texas athletes including Kassidy Comer, Brooke Slusser, Jade Dickens, and more. To learn more about the Save Women's Sports laws in Texas, please visit SaveWomensSportsTexas.com/. Texas Values law and policy team members are available for comment. To schedule an interview, please email Ashley at media@txvalues.org or call 737-314-2450 (m). ### About Texas Values Texas Values is the largest statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at txvalues.org. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to http://txvalues.org/give/

In episode 185, we sit down with Judge Myron Duhart to break down what an appellate court actually does and why those down-ballot judicial races deserve more than a passing glance.Judge Duhart is a native of Toledo, Ohio. He is the proud father of three and has been married to wife Nicole for 29 years. Myron grew up in the central city. He graduated from St. Francis De Sales High School and after graduation, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and was later commissioned as a lieutenant in the Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG).While serving his country he earned a B.A. in Political Science from Wright State University Dayton, Ohio and went on to receive his J.D. from the University of Toledo College of Law. Judge Duhart received a L.L.M. in judicial studies from Duke University School of Law and he attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Also Judge Duhart has been a long time adjunct lecturer in law at the University of Toledo College of Law where he teaches trial practice.Throughout his legal career, he litigated a number of high profile criminal cases all over northwest Ohio and was one of a select cadre of attorneys certified by the State of Ohio to handle death penalty cases. He has been admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.In January 2011, Judge Duhart was appointed by former Governor Ted Strickland as one of ten (10) judges who serve on the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas bench. In addition to hearing serious felony criminal cases and large civil cases, Judge Duhart has served as a commercial docket judge hearing cases dealing with business-related disputes. In 2020, Judge Duhart was elected to the Court of Appeals where he served as Presiding judge.As an Army veteran, Judge Duhart served this country with distinction. As an attorney he worked tirelessly to protect the rights afforded to citizens both rich and poor. As a volunteer, he has unselfishly devoted his time and talent to a wide variety of causes. As a judge on the 6th District Court of Appeals he will continue to act with fairness and integrity.Resources: * Re-elect Judge Myron Duhart* Social Media:* Facebook* Instagram* Article about the Capital Care Network/Reproductive Rights case Judge Duhart worked on in 2016We're bringing together digital creators from across the state to build a powerful digital organizing network called Ohio Creators for Progress. Support and donate to this effort below! ⬇️Connect with United SHE Stands:* Substack* Instagram* TikTok* YouTube* Threads* Buy us a coffee ☕️This episode was edited by Kevin Tanner. Learn more about him and his services here:* Website* Instagram This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.unitedshestands.com/subscribe

Washington, D.C. – June 30, 2026: Today, the United States Supreme Court released a decision in two cases: West Virginia v. BPJ and Hecox v. Little in favor of keeping men and boys out of women's sports. This decision is a landmark victory after many notable women athletes have shared their stories of having to surrender victories and their safety when they were forced to compete against male athletes. Texas Values signed onto a legal amicus brief with other family policy organizations in support of female athletes in this case. Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, said: “Today is a monumental day for women and girls in the United States. What the Supreme Court decided today was simply the truth. No woman or girl should have her victory in competition or her privacy in locker rooms be taken from her. Idaho started this bold fight in saving women's sports and Texas will help them fight to the finish on Tuesday.” Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values and U. S. Supreme Court Attorney, who was present in the court room at the U. S. Supreme Court during oral arguments, released the following statement: “This is one of the most important decisions ever by the Supreme Court for young girls, women and fairness in sports, and I'm so glad the court got it right!” Texas currently has two laws protecting female athletes: The Save Girls' Sports Act (HB 25) by Representative Valoree Swanson, which protects girls in sports K-12, and the Save Women's Sports Act (SB 15) by Senator Mayes Middleton, which protects women in collegiate sports. Representative Barbara Ehardt, the author of the Idaho law being challenged at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, has come to Texas to testify and support our legislation in Texas to protect female athletes. Currently, 26 states have laws protecting women and girls from being forced to compete against men. The issue has gained national support as polling indicates that the majority of Americans believe that men should not compete in women's sports. The movement gained momentum when Riley Gaines began sharing her story of being forced to compete and share a locker room with male swimmer Will “Lia” Thomas. Texas Values has worked with Riley Gaines and a number of Texas athletes including Kassidy Comer, Brooke Slusser, Jade Dickens, and more. To learn more about the Save Women's Sports laws in Texas, please visit SaveWomensSportsTexas.com/. Texas Values law and policy team members are available for comment. To schedule an interview, please email Ashley at media@txvalues.org or call 737-314-2450 (m). ### About Texas Values Texas Values is the largest statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to standing for faith, family, and freedom in Texas. More information is available at txvalues.org. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to http://txvalues.org/give/

Barry Markson joined Bruce & Gaydos to explain the United States Supreme Court decisions on birthright citizenships and transgender athletes.

In breaking news, fireworks have started early in DC, as the United States Supreme Court issues 3 bombshell decisions against: Trump's attacks on mail-in ballots and the midterm elections; his attempt at a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve; and his efforts to have himself absolved of sexually abusing E Jean Carroll. Popok reports. Select Quote: Save more than 50% at https://SelectQuote.com/legalaf today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Secretary Fontes joined Bruce & Gaydos to explain the United States Supreme Court decision that ruled states can count late-arriving mailed ballots, rejecting a Trump-led challenge. Secretary Fontes explained why this decision does not impact Arizona.

Two strong earthquakes in Venezuela just seconds apart leave the country in shock. The death is regrettably rising as rescuers from around the world are heading to the disaster zone. Plus, from immigration to guns, new major decisions from the United States Supreme Court.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins The Marc Cox Morning Show live from the steps of the United States Supreme Court — and the stakes couldn't be higher. With 12 opinions still pending and seven on the watch list, Shannon breaks down why birthright citizenship, trans athletes in women's sports, and mail-in ballot deadlines could all drop at any moment. She sounds the alarm on the socialist sweep reshaping the Democrat Party from New York to Washington D.C. itself — where a majority of primary voters now favor socialism over capitalism. And she reveals the frightening security reality facing Supreme Court justices who live under 24-7 protective details after swatting incidents and death threats. This is history happening in real time — and The Marc Cox Morning Show has a front row seat. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #ShannonBream #SupremeCourt #SCOTUS #BirthrightCitcitizenship #FoxNewsSunday #TransAthletes #ElectionIntegrity #DemocraticSocialists #ConservativeRadio #STLRadio #AmericaFirst #MAGA #ConservativeTalk #BreakingNews #America250

Bruce & Gaydos react to the United States Supreme Court decisions reegarding asylum seekers and the U.S. border and the Temporary Protected Status program.

Barry Markson joined Bruce & Gaydos to discuss the United States Supreme Court decisions on asylum cases and the Temporary Protected Status program.

Samuel Alito may very well be the most dangerous man on the United States Supreme Court. Since the 1970's he has been conspiring in the conservative circles. He has been involved in dark money schemes and has most likely been bought at this point. And he has been on the wrong side of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings of the last 20 years. Let's talk about it. SCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aEIWOgdzD85riAwHIoMB6v9ieY1uKos6a6XObly7ENs/edit?usp=sharing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Chief Justice's Open Bible #RTTBROS #NIGHTLIGHT #USA250 #AMERICA250 #NATION250The Chief Justice's Open Bible“"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”— Psalm 119:105THE STORYJohn Jay is one of the most important and most forgotten men of the founding era.He co-authored the Federalist Papers alongside Hamilton and Madison. He served as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, appointed by Washington himself. He was a diplomat, a governor, a statesman of the first rank. And he was, without qualification or apology, a committed Christian who made no separation between his public life and his personal faith.Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers," Jay declared, "and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.Jay served as president of the American Bible Society. He believed that the Bible was the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. The first Chief Justice of the United States spent his final years distributing Bibles.THE REFLECTIONThere is a tendency in our time to divide the founding era between religious founders and secular founders. John Jay will not cooperate with that narrative.Here was a man at the absolute center of America's legal and political founding, the first interpreter of the Constitution, and he believed that the Bible was the foundational text for human happiness. He said it publicly, repeatedly, without embarrassment.What he models for us is something rarer than political savvy: the integration of faith and public life without apology. He did not have a public faith and a private faith. He had one faith, and he carried it everywhere.Psalm 119:105 was not a decorative verse for John Jay. It was an operating principle. The Word of God was the lamp by which he navigated the most consequential legal questions of the new nation.THE PATRIOT'S PRAYERLord, we thank You for men who carried Your Word into every room, the courtroom, the congress, the cabinet, without shame and without compartmentalization. Forgive us for the faith we have kept private when it should have been public. Let Your Word be a lamp to our feet in every room we enter today, not just the sacred ones. In Jesus' name, Amen.PRAY IT FORWARD: Is there a room in your life, a workplace, a relationship, a role you occupy, where you have left your faith at the door? Ask God for the courage to carry it in.

Bert Mizusawa is a retired major general in the United States Army, serving in the Army from 1979 to 2015. Mizusawa also served in the United States Senate as a professional staff member and as a Senior Executive in the Pentagon, making him one of only a handful of individuals to serve at flag rank in the military as well as in both the legislative and executive branches. Mizusawa is also an attorney and is admitted to the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, Virginia and the United States Supreme Court. Awards: Distinguished Service Medal Silver Star Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal Combat Infantryman Master Parachutist Ranger Air Assault Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge Humanitarian Service Medal 1983 Soviet defector incident Mizusawa led the Joint Security Force in a historic firefight against North Korean forces. Mizusawa was awarded the Silver Star for “exceptional valor and gallantry in action” while serving as the Commander of the Joint Security Force (JSF) Company at Panmunjom, Korea on 22 and 23 November 1984. His citation reads “In reaction to thirty attacking North Korean soldiers in pursuit of a Soviet defector, Captain Mizusawa's outstanding leadership and aggressive actions in leading his company while under fire were instrumental in defeating the enemy. Additionally, he personally led the defector to safety while under fire and deliberately, at great risk to himself, exposed himself to the enemy in front of his own troops to ensure the success of his company's combat action. Throughout the intense firefight, Captain Mizusawa displayed a complete disregard for his own personal safety while accomplishing his mission.” Some have credited the successful firefight and rescue of the Soviet defector, which unexpectedly did not result in a Soviet demarche, for convincing President Reagan to hold firm in his negotiations with the Soviet Union, which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. Meritorious Civilian Service Award

Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins The Marc Cox Morning Show and the conversation covers everything the left hopes you miss. In just minutes, the United States Supreme Court could drop rulings that reshape America — birthright citizenship, biological males in women's sports, post-Election Day ballot counting, and presidential power to rein in rogue federal agencies are all on the table. Shannon breaks down exactly what's coming and what it means for every conservative in this country. Then Marc presses her on California's legalized vote harvesting — including that jaw-dropping two-dollar homeless woman video — and even the Washington Post is calling it a damning indictment of blue state governance. Plus FISA expires at midnight tomorrow night and Shannon explains why both sides are scrambling. This is the kind of conversation that reminds you why The Marc Cox Morning Show is the most important hour of your morning. Don't you dare miss it. HASHTAGS: #MarcCoxMorningShow #ShannonBream #FoxNewsSunday #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #TransAthletesBan #ElectionIntegrity #BallotHarvesting #California #FISA #ConservativeTalk #MAGA #AmericaFirst #MorningRadio #PatriotMedia #StLouis

The Honorable Zoila Cassanova serves as the Surrogate Judge of Passaic County, where she oversees matters relating to probate, estate administration, guardianships, and adoptions. Known for her thoughtful, compassionate approach to the law, Surrogate Judge Cassanova brings a deep commitment to justice, integrity, and public service to the Surrogate's Court. Since taking office, Surrogate Judge Cassanova has prioritized accessibility, transparency, and efficiency in the Surrogate's Court.  Within months of assuming the position as Surrogate of Passaic, Surrogate Judge Cassanova launched her “Make a Will” event initiative, partnering with legal services and the state bar association, as well as other pro bono legal groups, to provide FREE Last Will & Testaments, Powers of Attorney, and Advance Directives/Willing Wills to Seniors, Veterans, and first responders.   She is also a vocal supporter of initiatives aimed at modernizing court operations, such as becoming the first in the State and County government to introduce Artificial Intelligence as a means of making the Surrogate's Court more accessible to non-English and English speakers alike, which garnered her national recognition as the 2024 National Top 100 Influencers in Local Government.  She has also worked to improve the public's understanding of probate law and guardianship, by expanding legal resources for underserved communities through multilingual information sessions and printed materials.   Passaic County Surrogate, Zoila Cassanova, Esq., is an experienced attorney licensed to practice law in New Jersey, New York, and the United States Supreme Court.  Prior to her election, she built a respected legal career in both public service and private practice, serving as a trusted advisor in the areas of estates and trust, labor and employment law, medical malpractice, immigration, and criminal law. Her legal acumen, combined with a steadfast dedication to the people of Passaic County, has earned her a reputation as a strong advocate for fairness and equity in the legal system.  In 2025, Surrogate Judge Cassanova was nominated by her peers to serve as Surrogate section Chief representing all County Surrogates.  From 2023 to present, she has served on the Judiciary Liaison committee, working with the Judiciary to improve the Chancery/Surrogate process. Ms. Cassanova holds a Bachelor of Science in Labor Relations, a Master of Science in Education, and was a licensed provisional New York State Teacher.  She received her Jurist Doctorate from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she taught and served as Director of the Legal Education Opportunity Program and as a member of the admissions Diversity Council.   In addition to her judicial duties, Surrogate Judge Cassanova is actively involved in community outreach, mentorship programs, and continuing legal education efforts. She is committed to fostering public trust in the Surrogate's Court and ensuring that every individual who comes before the Surrogate's court is treated with dignity and respect.  Surrogate Judge Cassanova's work reflects her belief that the Surrogate's Court is not just a place for legal resolution, but a cornerstone of compassion, service, and justice for families in times of transition. Surrogate Judge Cassanova believes in the importance of mentoring and giving back to the community.  She seizes every opportunity to demystify Surrogate Court, through community outreach and information.  She welcomes the opportunity to visit the community and provide information about probate, guardianships, and adoptions.   Surrogate Judge Cassanova has been recognized by various groups for her professional and academic achievements, as well as her community work.  Among her recent recognitions includes 2024 National Top 100 Influencers in Local Government, Surrogate of the Year – New Jersey Peruvian, Inc.; Exemplary Mother of the Year – Desfile Dominicano, NJ, Ecuadorian American Chamber of Commerce of NJ – International Woman Day's Honoree; Fairleigh Dickerson University – Hispanic Heritage Month Honoree; International Women's Day Purple Festival Honoree; and Passaic County Board of County Commissioners Hispanic Heritage Month Honoree.  Her academic achievements include being a Seton Hall Centennial Scholar and a New Jersey Hispanic Bar Association Scholarship recipient, as well as being an inductee of the Academic Honor Societies: Delta Kappa Phi and Kappa Delta Pi. 

Four courts. Four refusals. And Josh Duggar filed every single one of them expecting a different answer.His first appeal came in 2022 — denied. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction in August 2023. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear his case in June 2024. And on June 1 of this year, Judge Timothy Brooks denied Josh's final motion to vacate — a Section 2255 filing that represented his last procedural avenue. Every legal door is now closed.The ruling was devastating. Josh had eight arguments prepared. His attorney Beau Brindley — who previously represented R. Kelly — came ready to challenge the conviction on constitutional grounds. None of it mattered, because Josh couldn't prove he mailed his motion by the deadline. The prison's own mail log showed no outgoing correspondence from Josh on June 24, 2025 — the date he swore he dropped it in the mailbox. One copy arrived thirty-five days late. The other, fifty-five. The postage amount was off. The printing looked like it came from an outside service, not prison staff. He offered no witnesses. Judge Brooks called the explanation a “magic bullet theory” and ruled his account “simply not credible.”Josh has also been transferred from minimum security at FCI Seagoville to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth after accumulating three conduct violations and three sentence extensions — pushing his release from August 2032 to February 2033. His prison record reads like a man who has never been told no in a way that stuck. And that's exactly the point. The IBLP system that raised Josh Duggar was built to absorb consequences, not teach them. Confession equaled forgiveness. Authority figures caught you before you hit the ground. Tony Brueski traces the line from blanket training to the federal courtroom — and explains why this outcome was always the predictable one.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JoshDuggar #DuggarAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #HiddenKillers #DuggarFamily #IBLP #FederalCourt #DuggarConviction #JusticeSystem #TrueCrime

A federal judge just found Josh Duggar's sworn testimony not credible — for the second time. The first time, it was Jim Bob on the stand. Same judge. Same courtroom. Same word: not credible.Josh Duggar's motion to vacate his conviction was denied on June 1 after Judge Timothy Brooks ruled that Josh's account of how he mailed his appeal was “something akin to a magic bullet theory.” But the mailing failure is just the latest in a pattern that stretches back decades. Contraband phone in prison. Three sentence extensions. Kicked out of honors housing. Multiple rounds of solitary confinement. And four separate courts — including the United States Supreme Court — telling him his conviction stands.The pattern isn't random. It's architectural. Josh grew up inside the IBLP, where children were subjected to blanket training from infancy — a technique designed to break a child's will through physical compliance. The system taught obedience to authority, not personal responsibility. It taught confession as a closed loop: tell your father, tell your pastor, tell God, and the cycle resets. No outside authority needed. No therapist. No court. When Josh confessed to harming his sisters as a teenager, Jim Bob's response was church elders, a conversation with a state trooper friend, and an IBLP facility — not licensed treatment, not law enforcement, not accountability.Josh has now been transferred from minimum security to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth. His release date sits at February 2033. He is thirty-eight years old and still operating on the system his parents installed: confess, cry, wait for someone to make it go away. Federal judges don't reset when you say you're sorry. And the Bureau of Prisons doesn't care who your father is.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JoshDuggar #JimBobDuggar #MichelleDuggar #IBLP #DuggarFamily #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BlanketTraining #DuggarFamilySecrets #BillGothard

The pardon power that the President has is, as Constitutional prerogatives go, about as absolute as it can be.  Coupled with the friendly majority Donald Trump has on the United States Supreme Court, which gave him immunity from prosecution for many crimes charged in connection with his pardons, and you have what some call a pardon-palooza going on in his second term.  Most egregious to some, like this observer, was the blanket pardon of all those involved in the January 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol (not to mention the ‘stupid on stilts’ weaponization fund.) Remember when his former Attorney General, Pam Bondi, in her confirmation hearing, said that such pardons would be handled on a case -by- case basis.  President Trump has been doling out pardons for political loyalty, pay-to-play corruption, and even state prosecutions, over which he has no say.  It boggles the mind how far we’ve come from the framers’ intent which was to give the President the ability to show mercy and heal national wounds.  This President isn’t the first to expand its use to miscreants, but as tens of thousands of requests for clemency go unanswered the friends and family plan grows and metastasizes.  Now he’s telling staff not to worry about whatever questionable actions he requests because they will be pardoned on his way out of the Oval Office.  To discuss this trend is Professor Mark Osler of the University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota, an expert on the topic.

“B” is for Briggs v. Eliott (1954). Briggs v. Elliot was one of five cases, collectively entitled Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County Kansas, et al., argued before the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on Louisiana v. Callais in early May, and it's impossible to understand this 6-3 ruling without having some background knowledge of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and how courts between then and now have interpreted it. Don't get lost in the political rhetoric surrounding this […]

The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on Louisiana v. Callais in early May, and it's impossible to understand this 6-3 ruling without having some background knowledge of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and how courts between then and now have interpreted it. Don't get lost in the political rhetoric surrounding this case; learn the background for yourself and make up your own mind.Host: Jeff SikkengaExecutive Producer: Jeremy GyptonSubscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanideaHomepage: https://ashbrook.org/the-american-idea-podcast/

In recent days, the very notion of a free, fair, representative democracy has taken some body blows. First, the United States Supreme Court undercutting minorities having any fair shot at representation in Congress, and then second, the Virginia Supreme Court undercutting the express will of the Virginia voters on the redistricting front. So Glenn has decided - between now and the midterms, he's going to interview and highlight as many congressional candidates as he can: candidates who are willing to be democracy warriors, to take the gloves off and to fight for free, fair elections.Kicking this off - Glenn sat down with a great young candidate running for Congress to represent the people of California's 3rd congressional district, Chris Bennett.Find Chris at: https://www.bennettforca.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of On The Issues, we confront American democracy on fire.  How did we get here and who lit the match? In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the United States Supreme Court gutted a fundamental provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), landmark legislation enacted by Congress at the height of the civil rights movement to eradicate entrenched patterns of voter suppression and promote equality at the ballot box.  With key mandates in the VRA now eviscerated under the hand six justices on the Supreme Court—led by Chief Justice John Roberts--what's next?  The Supreme Court has the lowest approval ratings since confidence in the court has been measured.  Many Americans now wonder whether the Supreme Court can be trusted?  For example, the Supreme Court has emphasized that if women want reproductive freedom and don't like abortion bans, go vote.  What happens when the Court plays a strategic role in diluting voting power and making voting more difficult by stripping away protections? Joining our host Dr. Michele Goodwin in unpacking these issues and more are two very special guests.Stephen I. Vladeck is the Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts and is author of the New York Times-bestselling book, “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic,” which has won numerous awards.   Moira Donegan is writer in residence for the Clayman Institute, and a columnist at The Guardian. Her first book, Gone Too Far: MeToo, Backlash, and the Future of Feminist Politics, is forthcoming from Scribner. Support the show

On this episode of CrossPolitic, Gabe welcomes Dr. Richard Eggleston and attorney Todd Richardson from Clarkston, Washington into the studio to talk about the ongoing legal battle over a doctor's First Amendment right to speak freely on COVID-19. They discuss why the Washington Medical Commission's attempt to silence a retired physician for writing opinion columns in a local newspaper has now landed at the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court with NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton as a co-plaintiff and the fundamental right of every American to hear the truth from their doctor hanging in the balance. ABOUT CROSSPOLITIC CrossPolitic exists to put Jesus over Politics and reclaim the public square through bold, joyful, biblically grounded media. We confront the chaos discipling America and build the next generation of Christian media infrastructure. Our mission is simple: all of Christ for all of media for all of America. Mainstream media is collapsing. Eighty-seven percent of journalists identify as progressive, and even many conservative outlets prioritize profit over principle. Meanwhile, billions of hours of digital content are discipling the world every day. CrossPolitic stands in that gap, producing courageous, entertaining, truth-filled media for households, churches, and leaders across the nation. Become a CrossPolitic Club MemberSupport the mission and unlock exclusive content, behind-the-scenes shows, and theology series. https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/menu/checkout Subscribe & Share!Every like, comment, and share helps push Christian media back into the algorithm where it belongs. Join Us at Our Next National ConferenceSign up for Fight Laugh Feast 2026: Holy Wars and lock in Early Bird pricing.https://tickets.flfnetwork.com/holy-wars-conference Follow CrossPolitic YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CROSSPOLITIC X: https://x.com/CrossPolitic Facebook: https://facebook.com/crosspolitic Instagram: https://instagram.com/crosspolitic Join our Email List: https://crosspolitic.com/ Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NRBTV, DirecTV, Dish, and everywhere podcasts are found.

The award winning Legal AF pod, helmed by Ben and Popok, breaks down the breaking legal and political news coming out of DC, Delaware, California, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and the United States Supreme Court. Support our Sponsors: Qualia: Go to QualiaLife.com/legalaf for up to 50% OFF! HoneyLove : Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to https://honeylove.com/LEGALAF! #honeylovepod Cheers: Get 20% OFF your order by using code: LEGALAF at https://CheersHealth.com Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping! Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/subscribe?coupon=c0fc8f5c Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Could Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg buy the Seahawks? Trump says he’s not pleased with Iran’s latest proposal. Guest: Attorney Jennifer Kennedy is representing eight Snohomish County fire fighters who are taking their fight over their refusal to get the COVID vaccine to the United States Supreme Court. // Big Local: The Northgate and Shoreline light rail stations are going to start requiring paid parking permits. Spokane leaders could see pay raises even as the city’s debt deepens. // Fridays with Jake Skorheim on the absurd spending on youth sports. 

Experts explain why the price of gas is on the rise. Plus, the recent United States Supreme Court decision is already upending elections. Louisiana is now putting House races on hold one day after the Supreme Court invalidated the state's congressional maps.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court just released their ruling on this case today, Wednesday April 29th. It's deeply upsetting, but unfortunately, not that surprising. Red Wine & Blue will be getting together for a virtual event soon to be together and talk about next steps. Stay tuned!When we wanted to talk about the latest Supreme Court case that could completely gut voting rights, we went straight to the expert. This week, we're sharing the audio of our recent event with Janai Nelson, the hard-hitting NAACP lawyer who argued Louisiana vs Callais at the Supreme Court. Janai and Katie's conversation covered all of the basics of what's happening (simplified so we can all understand it!), what it was like to present a case to the full-on United States Supreme Court, and what gives her hope.For a transcript of this episode, please email comms@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSAFacebook: @RedWineBlueUSAYouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA

In 1945, a reverend, a realtor, a science teacher, and a white woman in a low-cut dress conspired to help a St. Louis couple buy a house. The couple had steady jobs, a down payment, and six children who needed a safe home. What they didn't have was permission — at least not according to a clause buried in the property's deed. Their attempt to move in triggered outrage from neighbors, a lawsuit, and a legal battle that climbed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, resulting in the landmark 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer.Crimes of the Centuries is a podcast from Grab Bag Collab exploring forgotten crimes from times past that made a mark and helped change history. You can get early and ad-free episodes and more over at www.grabbagcollab.comOrder the Crimes of the Centuries book at your favorite bookstore or at www.centuriespod.com/book!Follow us on Instagram and other social media: @centuriespod