Podcasts about Wolford

Architect Damian Pascuzzo and superintendent Kurtis Wolford were key parts of a team involved with renovating one of America's most welcoming courses. They share the methodology and collaboration it took to reimagine Campus Commons Golf Course in Sacramento, California.

A gun shop in Fallbrook got an email offering them money to give away lockboxes to active duty military. Their first reaction was the same one you are having right now: this smells like a Moms Demand Action front. So Jason Martin and his crew did the sensible thing. They dug into it before saying yes. What they found is a suicide prevention program called Pause to Protect, run through the University of Colorado and funded by the Department of War. A Marine walks in, shows an active duty ID, and walks out with a lockbox. No application, no paperwork, no personal information collected, nothing that looks like a registry. Jason sat on a panel of shop owners from around the country who all came in skeptical and came out of it the same way he did. Michael takes the whole thing apart on air, piece by piece, and lands where a lot of you will land: a free safe for a Marine is just a good deal. The part almost nobody talks about is in there too. Service members living in the barracks still have nowhere legal to keep a firearm, because no base in Navy Region Southwest has actually built a plan around the order allowing troops to carry on base. The rest of the show is stacked. Hawaii answered the Wolford decision by handing out free "no guns" signs to businesses, so the crew walks through what one of those signs actually does and does not do to you legally, in Hawaii and in California. AR-15s are back on Virginia shelves after the injunction. Michael has the update on Renna, the roster case he is a named plaintiff in, including the newly added AB 1127 Glock claim and the motion for summary judgment, plus why the Miller case still matters even after the Supreme Court takes up two assault weapons bans. Sam gets stumped (sort of) by a machine gun that only fires one round per trigger pull. Michael makes the case that protests do not work and lays out what does: elections, lawsuits, and culture. And Alisha closes with the story out of Cerritos, where a concealed carry holder stopped a man with a knife in the middle of a Sunday lunch rush in Los Angeles County. Chapters: 0:00 - Welcome, and who is at the desk this week 1:58 - What is on: Alisha's gun cleaning class (July 29) and Tactical Comms with John Baldwin (Aug 15, Oceanside) 5:10 - Corrections: the slung shot is a real weapon, and a fair point about what a CCW actually costs 14:06 - Dinner with Alan Beck after the Wolford win 17:00 - Hawaii's answer to Wolford: free "no guns" signs, and what that sign actually means legally 28:06 - Jason Martin of Fallbrook Guns and Ammo joins the show 44:40 - Pause to Protect: free safes for active duty, and who is really funding it 55:57 - Virginia: AR-15s are back on the shelves after the injunction 1:00:05 - Stump My Nephew: Old Dominion, the Supreme Court feathers, and a machine gun that fires one round per trigger pull 1:16:53 - Legal update: Renna, the AB 1127 Glock ban, summary judgment, and why Miller still matters 1:37:38 - Protests do not work. Elections, lawsuits, and culture do. 1:57:26 - The Curtin Call: a CCW holder stops a knife attacker at a Cerritos restaurant (Chapters are approximate and shift once the intro or cold-open is added in post.)

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

People keep saying the same thing about the Charlie Kirk shooting: there is no way a 30-06 rifle round leaves no exit wound, so something does not add up. Michael and Dakota take that claim apart with something most of the internet skipped over, the actual ammunition. It was a common Remington soft-point hunting round, designed to expand and stop inside the target instead of punching straight through. And there is a piece of history almost nobody remembers: Martin Luther King Jr. was killed the same way, a single 30-06, no exit wound. This is the calm, informed breakdown you can send to the person in your feed who is sure they have it figured out. From there the show opens up. A federal appeals court struck down key parts of New Jersey's assault weapons ban and magazine limit while the crew was recording, so they covered it live. Jon Fleischman, a four-decade veteran of California politics, joins to explain how the gun vote actually moves a politician and what makes an advocate valuable instead of taken for granted. Then a big win for young adults in Florida, and a full Q&A on the Wolford decision, SB2 sensitive places, the two assault-weapon cases the Supreme Court just agreed to hear, and how to get your concealed carry permit without falling for the "50-state CCW" scam. If you care about the Second Amendment, honest ballistics, California gun laws, and self-defense without the fear and outrage, this one is for you. Chapters: 0:00 - Welcome, and a co-host intro from Dakota 1:20 - What is on: Alisha's gun-cleaning class (July 29) and John Baldwin's Tactical Comms class (Aug 15, Oceanside) 5:09 - The Charlie Kirk myth: why "no exit wound" is not proof of a conspiracy, and the Martin Luther King parallel 13:53 - A 10-time felon gets 10 years: why gun laws trip up the law-abiding, not criminals 18:41 - Red flag laws and due process: where Dakota draws the line 26:02 - Breaking: the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey's assault weapons and magazine ban 39:28 - Jon Fleischman: the gun vote, the litmus test, and how to actually move a politician 1:14:30 - Florida win: 18-to-20-year-olds get the right to carry (State v. Eubanks) 1:26:35 - Q&A: Wolford and the "vampire rule," SB2 sensitive places, the two Supreme Court assault-weapon cases, and how to get your CCW 2:03:21 - Dakota's closing story: a grandmother stops her own carjacking Chapters are approximate and shift once the intro or cold-open is added in post.)

Did you know Eleanor Roosevelt carried her own revolver, and once faced down Klan death threats without Secret Service protection, telling them she would drive her own car and carry her own gun? Massad Ayoob joins Gun Owners Radio in San Diego with a history most people never learned: nearly every American president, and more than a few first ladies, was a gun owner. From Lincoln shooting Spencer rifles on the White House grounds to Eisenhower carrying a .38 in New York City, the stories keep coming. He is also optimistic about the fight ahead. After Wolford, he does not see how the courts can keep justifying assault weapons and magazine bans much longer. Then Mike and Dakota read California's new 140-page anti-gun roadmap so you do not have to, Michael breaks down the Maine Senate race and what it tells you about party loyalty, Dwight Settle shares the Beyond the Teams charity paddle and the Seal One dealer program, the crew answers a viewer question on FSC cards, and Dakota digs into the book Emily Gets Her Gun. Sam closes it out with Stump My Nephew. Chapters: 0:00 — Welcome + announcements: remembering Laura Smith (memorial July 18, Skyline Church) and the July 29 gun-cleaning class 8:33 — Maine Senate: the candidate the machine backed anyway, and why you stay loyal to principles, not a party 14:46 — Massad Ayoob: the presidents and first ladies who carried, plus Wolford and why the assault weapons ban is on borrowed time 42:06 — California's 140-page anti-gun roadmap: what Sacramento is planning for the next five years 1:10:11 — Dwight Settle: the Beyond the Teams charity paddle and the Seal One dealer pilot program 1:48:21 — Viewer question: California FSC cards, the proposed 4-hour class, and whether to renew now 2:00:40 — Emily Gets Her Gun: a reporter's fight to legally buy a gun, and the vets punished for transporting theirs 2:14:10 — Stump My Nephew: the Browning Automatic Rifle Timestamps are from the raw recording. Shift them by however much intro or cold-open is added in post. If you care about the Second Amendment, California gun laws, self-defense, training, and honest conversations without the fear and outrage, this one is for you.

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomJohn Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

SCOTUS has sent down some seriously important decisions. Today we discuss Trump v Barbara, the Birthright Citizenship case, including its errors and how it can be handled.Next we tackle Trump v Slaughter, the case that will allow Trump to actually Drain the Swamp by firing resisters. Paired with that is Trump v Cook, where the Court demonstrates cognitive dissonance with the Fed.Finally, our remaining time covers three gun cases, Hemani, Wolford, and Viramontes. The first was a surprising total victory for the Second Amendment. Wolford told Hawaii that the spirit of aloha wasn't a legal principle, with another solid 2A victory. And the in the third, the Court decided to hear a gun ban case, which should yield us a big win next year.

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

It's 2A Tuesday, and Armed American Radio host Mark Walters joins Marc fired up over the Supreme Court's decision to take up two major AR-15 ban cases out of Illinois and Connecticut, predicting a resounding win for gun owners and breaking down why Amy Coney Barrett's surprise concurrence in the Wolford case signals a rock-solid outcome ahead. Walters and Marc then team up to demolish Gavin Newsom's claim that California crime is at historic lows, exposing how blue cities skew red state crime numbers and how St. Louis's push for a city-county merger is really just an attempt to hide its own crime stats inside a bigger population. From constitutional wins to calling out liberal spin, this is the passionate, common-sense defense of freedom you count on every week from The Marc Cox Morning Show. Coming up next: Kim on a Whim asks whether Supreme Court justices are being treated like celebrities. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #TheMarcCoxMorningShow #2ATuesday #MarkWalters #SecondAmendment #SupremeCourt #ARBan #GunRights #GavinNewsom #CrimeStats #STLNews #ArmedAmericanRadio #ConservativeValues

This week on Gun For Hire radio… Dan Schmutter Joins us to discuss in full detail how the Wolford and Hemani rulings help our plight in New Jersey and what we can or cannot expect from the 3rd circuit and our “overlords” response in Trenton. Please Listen, Learn, Like, Follow, Share, Donate, & Volunteer! The post The Gun For Hire Radio Broadcast: Episode 789 appeared first on Best Gun Range NYC and NJ Area | Gun Range Near Me.

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";

OA1275 - As June ends and another Supreme Court Season wraps, it is time to look back and survey the damage: significant blows to voting and trans rights, harder times for immigrants throughout the system, and a vast expansion of executive powers. But we also go beyond the headlines to see what has been going on with some of the Court's more routine business. What can we learn from their more mundane 9-0 decisions--and can we actually find some good news here among the wreckage? Matt does his best. Finally, in today's seasonal footnote: why the world believed for exactly five minutes that Samuel Alito had closed Supreme Court Season by announcing his retirement on Tuesday, and what we can learn from this weird mistake about how mainstream media covers the Supreme Court. Executive Power / Immigration Trump v. Barbara — 25-365 (June 30, 2026)(birthright citizenship) Learning Resources v. Trump — 24-1287  (Feb. 20, 2026) (IEEPA tariffs) Trump v. Cook — 25A312 (June 29, 2026) (Fed removal) Trump v. Slaughter — 25-332 (June 29, 2026) (FTC removal) Mullin v. Doe — 25-1083 (June 25, 2026) (TPS) Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — 25-5 (June 25, 2026) (asylum at the border) Blanche v. Lau — 25-429 (June 23, 2026)(LPRs at the border) Urias-Orellana v. Bondi — 24-777 (Mar. 4, 2026) (asylum standard of review) Criminal Law Barrett v. United States — 24-5774 (Jan. 14, 2026) (§924(c)/(j) stacking) Bowe v. United States — 24-5438 (Jan. 9, 2026) (successive §2255 petitions) Ellingburg v. United States — 24-482 (Jan. 20, 2026) (restitution / Ex Post Facto) Chatrie v. United States — 25-112 (June 29, 2026) (geofence / 4A) United States v. Hemani — 24-1234 (June 18, 2026) (cannabis & 2A rights) Hunter v. United States — 24-1063 (June 18, 2026) (appeal waivers) Pitchford v. Cain — 24-7351 (May 28, 2026) (Batson / AEDPA challenge) Olivier v. City of Brandon — 24-993 (Mar. 20, 2026) — (§1983 rights with prior conviction) Case v. Montana — 24-624 (Jan. 14, 2026) (emergency-aid / 4A) Villarreal v. Texas — 24-557 (Feb. 25, 2026) (counsel during recess) Clark v. Sweeney — 25-52 (Nov. 14, 2025) (habeas / new-trial reversal) Civil/Voting Rights Landor v. Louisiana DOC — 23-1197 (June 23, 2026) (RLUIPA damages)  Louisiana v. Callais — 24-109 (Apr. 29, 2026) (Voting Rights Act §2) West Virginia v. B.P.J. — 24-43 (June 30, 2026) (trans student athletes) Wolford v. Lopez — 24-1046 (June 25, 2026) (2A concealed carry) Chiles v. Salazar — 24-539 (Mar. 31, 2026) (conversion therapy) NRSC v. FEC — 24-621 (June 30, 2026) (1A / campaign finance) Procedural Issues Enbridge Energy v. Nessel — 24-783 (Apr. 22, 2026) (removal deadline)  Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton — 24-808 (Jan. 20, 2026) (Rule 60(b)(4) finality) Other SCOTUSblog Stat Pack (2025-2026)[PDF] “NPR retracts story about Alito retirement,” Kelly McBride, NPR (June 30, 2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Nia and Aughie discuss the decisions in Wolford v Lopez, U.S. v Hemani, and Abouammo v United States. The first case related to state gun bans, the second to the right of habitual drug users to own a gun, and the third applied to cases being filed outside the jurisdiction in which they occurred.

Just in time for Independence Day!  SCOTUS has released decisions in two major 2A cases, In US v. Hemani, and Wolford v. Lopex, and agreed to take up an AWB!  All that and much more in this episode.

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, senior research scholar in law and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution  and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019), offers legal analysis of the last cases argued this term. Photo: WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25: Reporter interns run from the U.S Supreme Court as opinions are issued on June 25, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe, clearing the way for the Trump Administration to remove protection status and set up deportation for Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The high court also issues opinions in Wolford v. Lopez, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, and Monsanto Company v. Durnell. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

If you prefer to watch the video you can find it at the bottom of this webpage. Episode Sponsors: Happy 250th Birthday America Sale – https://www.concealedcarry.com – Stay tuned to and watch our site for upcoming details on our massive Independence Day Sale! Guardian Nation – https://www.guardiannation.com – To save the BIGGEST during our Independence Day Sale, you’re going to want to be a member of Guardian Nation. Our members always save the most with an across the board 10% discount, even on top of already discounted products during the sale! About This Episode: In this episode we give a roundup of current Second Amendment court cases and gun-law developments. We discuss the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in the Hemani case, the Court declining to hear two New York cases for now, and the 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez striking down Hawaii's private-property carry rule. We also cover new lawsuits in California and Michigan challenging carry and permit restrictions, as well as Virginia's new law banning certain assault firearms and magazines over 15 rounds. We note that several related cases are still pending in the courts. As always, any questions or suggestions for future episodes can be submitted to podcast@concealedcarry.com! News Stories Marijuana and Gun Rights: What the Hemani Ruling Means SCOTUS Declines Two Second Amendment Challenges Against New York, Relists 25 Other Gun Cases Contra Costa County Banned Optics, Lights, and 1911s for Permit Holders. SAF Is Suing. NRA Sues Michigan Over Permit-to-Purchase Denials Virginia Judge Calls Off Hearing on Looming Gun and Magazine Ban Thanks for Listening! Thanks so much for joining us this week. Have some feedback you'd like to share? Leave a note in the comment section below. If you enjoyed the podcast the biggest compliment you could give us would be to subscribe to future episodes via a podcast app on your phone or via iTunes. You can find past podcast episodes by clicking here. Video Recording: Press PLAY on the video below to watch the video recording! {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","@id":"https://www.concealedcarry.com#/schema/video/4252098","name":"S13E25: Legislative Updates – Nine to Zero and Counting","description":"Concealed Carry Podcast brought to you by HK - "S13E25: Legislative Updates - Nine to Zero and Counting" Episode Sponsors: -Happy 250th Birthday America","thumbnailUrl":"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KfmCSY7g5Z0/maxresdefault_live.jpg","uploadDate":"2026-06-25T18:37:11-06:00","embedUrl":"https://www.concealedcarry.com/player-embed/id/4252098/?autoplay=0","duration":"PT54M06S","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"http://schema.org/WatchAction"},"userInteractionCount":3}}

Gun Owners of America's Luis Valdez joins Marc and Kim for 2A Tuesday with a stunning Second Amendment win straight from the Supreme Court — the Wolford case just struck down attempts like Hawaii's to strip private property owners of the right to allow lawful gun owners onto their premises. Valdez breaks down how the left keeps rebranding America's most popular rifle as an "assault weapon" to manipulate public opinion, and exposes the legal battlefield raging in Illinois and Virginia, where gun grabbers like JB Pritzker are using one-party control to trample Second Amendment rights right across the river from St. Louis listeners. Valdez also delivers an explosive update on the ATF's illegal gun registry fight, revealing the feds have built a searchable database of gun owners just waiting for a switch to be flipped. This is the unapologetic, on-the-ground report from the front lines of the gun rights battle — and a reminder that local elections matter just as much as the big ones. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #2ATuesday #LuisValdez #GunOwnersOfAmerica #SecondAmendment #ProtectTheConstitution #ARFifteen #JBPritzker #ATFRegistry #ConservativeValues #STLNews #DefendOurRights #FamilyFaithFreedom

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

Melissa, Leah, and Kate briefly recap the Court's two major immigration decisions last week (for a deeper dive, check out last week's emergency episode), before digging into the Second Amendment case, Wolford v. Lopez, which featured a cage match between private property rights and the right to bear arms, as well as Sam Alito's funhouse-mirror version of history. Also covered: opinions involving green card holders, tax foreclosures, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, corporate liability for human rights abuses, and pesticides. They wrap up the show with some of the latest voting rights news.Favorite things: Leah:Kate on Hasan Minhaj's podcast; JD Vance's Richard Nixon revival; SDNY on trans minors Kate:Judge Patrick J. Schiltz's opinion quashing the subpoenas to state and local Minnesota officials Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email transcripts@crooked.com.

AAF's Amy Swearer joins Cam to discuss how the Supreme Court's decision in Wolford v. Lopez could impact 2A cases going forward, including bans on commonly owned arms.

The Supreme Court just struck down the "vampire rule," and we sat down with the attorney who beat it. Alan Beck argued Wolford and won, and in a rare appearance on the show he walks us through exactly what it changes for concealed carriers. This is the conversation you will not get anywhere else: the lawyer who took this case to the Supreme Court, in his own words. Mike and Alan break down what Wolford means for California's SB2, why it makes the fight over sensitive places and signage much easier from here, and the one thing you still have to honor at the door. Then Matt Hauff of West Coast Kinetic Solutions explains why most firearms training is backwards, Alicia digs into a Missouri defensive-gun-use story, and we get into a viral change of heart worth talking about. Chapters: 0:00 Welcome and what's on: Young Washington movie night, Massad Ayoob Deadly Force for Instructors, Know Your Gun cleaning class 6:06 EXCLUSIVE: Alan Beck, the attorney who won Wolford, on the "vampire rule" ruling, SB2, sensitive places, and business signage 32:30 That NBC straw-purchase PSA: who is it really for? The "29%" stat and the California roster angle 43:59 Matt Hauff (West Coast Kinetic Solutions): why most training is backwards, and the 4 types you actually need 1:15:20 Forrest Gump, "Shabuki Sunshine," and a viral change of heart on political violence 1:34:43 Curtain Call: armed citizens stop a Missouri grocery-store shooter If you care about the Second Amendment, California gun laws, concealed carry, and honest conversation without the fear and outrage, this one's for you.

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

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

In the wake of our recent discussion on private vs state action, a recent incident in New York regarding US Representative Dan Goldman's banishment from a coffee shop because of his political stance brings these issues home, with additional questions related to public accommodations and more.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Court faced some of these similar issues in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, decided the day we record this, as well as a host of 14th amendment questions that are at once familiar and yet fresh for listeners to this podcast. CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the Supreme Court's new ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, where the Court held that Hawaii may not legally ban licensed gun carry on publicly accessible private property by default. We also discuss the new injunction issued by a Virginia judge against the state's AR-15 ban just days before it was set to take effect. Stories: -https://thereload.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-hawaii-vampire-rule/ -https://thereload.com/state-judge-blocks-virginia-assault-firearm-sales-ban/ -https://thereload.com/doj-sets-sights-on-california-glock-ban-handgun-roster/ -https://thereload.com/federal-judge-allows-nra-to-continue-trademark-suit-against-its-foundation/

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

Cam does a deep dive into today's SCOTUS decision in Wolford v. Lopez striking down Hawaii's "vampire rule", and talks with attorney Dan Russell about the real-world implications of last week's decision in Hemani.

Following four decisions handed down by the Supreme Court today, Scott talks with 2nd Amendment Attorney Sean Maloney specifically about Wolford vs Lopez, which gave gun owners a huge legal win.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Following four decisions handed down by the Supreme Court today, Scott talks with 2nd Amendment Attorney Sean Maloney specifically about Wolford vs Lopez, which gave gun owners a huge legal win.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Arizona delivers a major Second Amendment victory as Gov. Katie Hobbs signs landmark gun range protection legislation. Mark Walters, Quang Nguyen, AZCDL and Lee Williams break down SCOTUS, Wolford, Tate Adamiak and what's next for gun rights.

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

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

Episode 4138 │ June 2026 Gun rights are expanding. Free speech is contracting. Both are moving at the same time — and that's not a coincidence. This episode maps an 18-year legal through-line in Second Amendment jurisprudence — from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) through the pending Wolford v. Lopez decision — showing how gun rights have been methodically restored case by case. Scott then juxtaposes that restoration against the simultaneous erosion of First Amendment protections: government-by-proxy censorship exposed in Murthy v. Missouri, antisemitism laws that courts are already finding unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination, and AI surveillance infrastructure being built faster than judicial doctrine can address it. Drawing on unconventional warfare doctrine, Scott introduces the Managed Polarization Operation — a strategy in which the conflict itself is the mechanism of control, not the outcome — and walks three historical precedents: Weimar Germany, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and COINTELPRO. The episode maps the current moment onto four operational phases and names the mechanism that makes it work: asymmetric enforcement. It closes with the most important strategic question of this moment — what does principled, effective resistance look like that avoids both the radicalization trap and the paralysis trap? What is the legal through-line from Heller to Wolford and why does it matter now? Why are gun rights expanding while free speech rights are being restricted at the same time? What is a Managed Polarization Operation and has it been used before? How does asymmetric enforcement channel armed populations toward conflict? What does principled resistance look like that doesn't walk into either trap? BardsFM is a daily independent podcast covering faith, liberty, history, and information warfare. Hosted by Scott Kesterson — combat veteran, documentary filmmaker, and rancher. Over 4,100 episodes and 50 million lifetime downloads. New episodes every weekday. bards.fm #BardsFM #ConstitutionalRights #ManagedPolarization Bards Nation Health Store: www.bardsnationhealth.com MYPillow promo code: BARDS >> Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS26: TreadliteBroadforks.com EnviroKlenz Air Purification, promo code BARDS to save 10%: www.enviroklenz.com Morning Intro Music Provided by Brian Kahanek: www.briankahanek.com Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> TheFoundersBible.com Windblown Media 20% Discount with promo code BARDS: windblownmedia.com White Oak Pastures Grassfed Meats, Get $20 off any order $150 or more. Promo Code BARDS: www.whiteoakpastures.com/BARDS Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here If you wish to support this podcast directly you can donate here... DONATE: Click here Mailing Address: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479

Fire Chief Trisha L. Wolford of the Anne Arundel County Fire Department in Maryland leads one of the largest combination fire departments in the country, serving more than 600,000 residents—but her path to Fire Chief is anything but traditional. She began as a firefighter/paramedic and built a diverse career through the Fire Marshal's Office, sworn law enforcement, fire and explosives investigations, and service as a Tactical Medic on a SWAT team. She is a graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy and the IAFC's Fire Service Executive Development Institute (FSEDI), and currently serves as President and Board Chair of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vice President of the IAFC's Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association Executive Board, and an Executive Board member for the FirstNet Authority. Grounded in perspective and gratitude, her story is a reminder that leadership has no rank—and that an untraditional path, driven by grit and purpose, can take you wherever you're willing to go.

This unique wildcat comes at us from listener Chasen Wolfford with a detailed letter, dimensional drawing, and a whole lot of “cool factor.” Listen as we cover the why behind his creation and what we think it's capable of. As always, we want to hear your feedback! Let us know if there are any topics you'd like covered on the Vortex Nation™ podcast by asking us on Instagram @vortexnationpodcast

Journey w/ Jesus: When Jesus Steps In | Charles Wolford

Strategic planning doesn't have to be expensive, exhausting, or end up on a shelf. In this episode, Glennda Testone talks with Sophia Shaw and Adam Wolford of PlanPerfect about a smarter, more accessible approach to nonprofit strategic planning – especially for small to mid-sized organizations.

Plantations have been the privileged tool of colonial rule and extraction in Mozambique for more than one hundred years despite never having delivered sustained economic or social benefits. Drawing on extensive archival and qualitative contemporary research, The Plantation Ideal: Landscapes of Extraction in Mozambique (U California Press, 2025) by Dr. Wendy Wolford offers new insights into plantation economies, histories, and landscapes. Dr. Wolford tells the story of how the largely failed pursuit of plantation production has shaped agricultural science, government rule, life on the land, and community development in Mozambique from the harshest years of Portuguese colonization to the present. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Plantations have been the privileged tool of colonial rule and extraction in Mozambique for more than one hundred years despite never having delivered sustained economic or social benefits. Drawing on extensive archival and qualitative contemporary research, The Plantation Ideal: Landscapes of Extraction in Mozambique (U California Press, 2025) by Dr. Wendy Wolford offers new insights into plantation economies, histories, and landscapes. Dr. Wolford tells the story of how the largely failed pursuit of plantation production has shaped agricultural science, government rule, life on the land, and community development in Mozambique from the harshest years of Portuguese colonization to the present. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users.

The look back over our five years of drama, humor, reason, and illogic continues, as perhaps the most notorious opinion of the five year period - the Trump immunity case - reappears in a clip, along with a revisit with Justice Breyer.  Meanwhile, the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez did, in fact, prompt the Professors Amar to write in SCOTUSblog.com, and we go even further here, with clips from that oral argument and answers to the justices that didn't find their way into the record, but now, hopefully, enter the public discourse.  CLE credit is available as usual for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Episode 274- State Police RPO Cover-Up  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 274 SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, our good friend, John Petrolino, who writes about many, many important topics, particularly as well concerning New Jersey, has an article that was in Bearing Arms. And I want to talk about what he’s raised here. The article’s title is “New Jersey State Police Tight Lipped Over Retired Police Permits”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/01/21/new-jersey-statepolice-tight-lipped-over-retired-police-permits-n1231288) So, what John has done is he’s used the New Jersey form of OPRA (Open Public Records Act), the Freedom of Information Act, asking the authorities in New Jersey for the number of permits issued to retired police officers. Evan Nappen 01:15 You may recall the then Attorney General Platkin did put up that dashboard and released the data of public statistics regarding carry permits, the number of permits issued. There’s been over 92,000 approved applications for carry permits in New Jersey, and of those approvals, 64,000 are non-expired permits. Now it’s interesting that the State puts out that data, but they don’t put out the data as to the RPO permits. The Retired Police Officer permits, and we want to find out how many folks carry that are not law enforcement, right? That are civilian. And let’s face it, Retired Police Officers are still civilians, even though they were formerly law enforcement. Originally carry was outside of being law enforcement and outside of New Jersey’s insane carry permit system back then, where you had to show “justifiable need”, which, as you may recall, meant showing of urgent necessity. This meant showing that a gun was necessary for you to defend yourself from death or serious bodily injury and that carrying a handgun was the only means that could do it. I mean, it was a standard that was so extreme that basically, if you’ve been shot and killed, you then qualified for a New Jersey carry permit. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now that went away thanks to the Bruen decision, and New Jersey jumped from less than 600 carry permits to now 64,000 valid permits and 92,000 valid, approved permits. But it does not include the RPOs. Now, RPOs had the ability to carry before Bruen, and during that time period when regular old civilians who weren’t retired law enforcement could not defend themselves with a firearm and carry in that manner, right? They were deemed to have to be victims instead of defenders. But now, for some reason, the State Police and such will not release the number of RPO permits. We’re not asking for names. John went forward here, and he didn’t ask for names. He didn’t ask for anything. He just wants to know how many? How many of the RPO permits are out there as well. This should be looked at in the aggregate with all the other carry permits that are out there, and yet that doesn’t happen. Page of 1 8 Evan Nappen 04:25 In December of 2025, John sent a request for the number of RPO permits, and it was denied. And the request was denied weirdly and strangely for reasons that just don’t make any sense. And I’m going to tell you. It makes you wonder, why is there a cover up? The reason they denied it, the reason the State Police have put in writing for the denial. Well, get a load of this. “Improper and Overbroad” was the main reason. Can you believe that the information is supposedly improper and overbroad? Why would wanting to know a statistical fact such as the number of RBO permits be considered overbroad? And why would it be considered in any way improper? It is strictly information. It is based on a record. It absolutely should be released. Evan Nappen 05:52 How come they are releasing the numbers for civilian carry permits, right? The 92,000. How come that’s not “improper and overbroad”? No, the Attorney General does it. Go ahead. Why? Tell me. Why do you think? Teddy Nappen 06:10 So, going back to because John also, if I recall, broke the story about denials where, what was it? Blacks were five times more likely to be denied to their carry. Evan Nappen 06:22 Yes, institutionalized racism. That exists in New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 06:31 So, add into the fact that you have the, well, here’s the trick. The Left have always been anti-police. That is a fact. They were the ones that wanted to defund the police. They were the ones for that. So, now we have the first factor of showing the absolute racism of the gun laws. But also the fact that they were supporting the only carry which, by the way, how much you want to bet they were all for the RPOs under all the Democrat Governors who allowed those carries to come into play. How much of that look, if it shows that there’s this massive amount of RPOs being issued. And because the Left are Marxists who absolutely hate police and hate law and order, this would make them look like absolute elitists and hypocrites. Evan Nappen 07:19 So, the fear is that, arguably, in the defund the police mentality, that if retired police are being armed, they don’t want any police armed, even if they’re retired, because of the perceived threat that they put out there that law enforcement creates toward minorities. In their view, not in my view. Not in my view. It’s the opposite. I mean, the fact is, they’re out there as protectors, defenders of the good people of our State. Every retired officer is somebody who’s not only armed, but also is experienced in armed defense, having served as a law enforcement officer. They’re a resource. They’re a positive benefit to our society. Yet, they’re probably scared of the politics. I mean, why else? What? There’s nothing about it that makes it “improper”. And it sure isn’t “overbroad”. It would be overbroad, maybe, if you want to know the name and address and Dox every carry RPO that’s out there. That’s not being requested. We just want the damn number. How many RPO carry permits? Teddy Nappen 08:41 Page of 2 8 It honestly reminds me, Dad, of that poster you had hung up. It was the joke where it shows if the Left could rewrite the Second Amendment. And I think, and I remember, you remember that. They crossed out, remember, they crossed out militia. And it says, like, military and police, employed police only. We’re kind of that logic where like, well, they’re not in the service, so why should they be armed? Not because there’s massive doxing websites, and that’s why ICE has to have their mask on for that exact reason. But. Evan Nappen 09:17 Exactly. Well, the fight is still ongoing and the question is raised. Why not just give us the number so we all know? And I would like to see a huge number of RPOs. I hope there’s lots of them out there. The more trained law-abiding folks that have firearms, the safer we are. And retired police are perfect in that regard. That’s exactly what we want to see. So, whatever their basis is, it just creates more of a conspiracy, and it just politicizes it so unnecessarily. It’s ridiculous. Release the number. Let us know. Let’s join in showing how many armed folks are out there. Maybe that’s another reason. They’re afraid that if that number, you know is even more, now, more and more people are carrying and suddenly the BITS argument they love to make right? Blood In The Streets. BITS. There’ll be blood in the streets with civilian carry, you know. No, it didn’t happen. And it’ll be the Wild West. It’s not the Wild West. And look at how many folks have carries when you combine the numbers. Maybe they’re afraid of that political aspect. But, you know, we have a right to know these numbers. It’s not a secret. It’s not improper. It’s not overbroad. Just let us know, and we deal with the facts. Evan Nappen 10:47 I also want to bring a couple very interesting things out that I’ve recently learned about. An important one here is the old “Bang or Bong – You can’t have both”. Well, shortly, at least a greater degree, you may be able to have both because President Trump, through his administration, folks, keep that in mind. Through the Trump administration, they have proposed, through ATF, revision of their regulation concerning the interpretation of what a “user of drugs” as a disqualifier, what it means. You know, for almost 30 years, ATF has said they treat even a single incident, a single past admission of marijuana use, or a failed drug test, or one misdemeanor marijuana conviction as evidence of a person being an unlawful user. They have now put forward an administrative reg that when it becomes finalized, which should be happening within the next few months, it will make it so that those things no longer will be deeming a person “an unlawful user”. And this should be of great help. Evan Nappen 12:25 From an article in AmmoLand, written by Dean Weingarten, which is entitled “ATF Finally Admits: One-time Drug Use Isn’t Grounds to Strip Gun Rights.” (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/atf-finally-admitsone-time-drug-use-isnt-grounds-to-strip-gun-rights/) It makes it really interesting here regarding that. In 2025, NICS denied 9,163 firearm transfers under the “unlawful user” category, okay? So, in other words, denials, denials of over 9,000 transfers, more than half of those denials, more than half, were single-incident drug inferences. Well, under this rule, those will no longer be denials. That’s over what? Four thousand people that will not be denied their gun rights, just in that one year, no less. Of people being denied over this nonsense. And furthermore, in this article, ATF admitted that 8,893 cases, it declined to investigate, prosecute, or retrieve firearms because of a single-drug incident. So, they’re denying individuals and not prosecuting. Yet, they’re using it as a base for denial. So, finally, we’re getting a reg of common sense that clears it up. Evan Nappen 14:05 Page of 3 8 And it even, to me, appears to go further. Now this may take a little bit more analysis, but in my reading of the reg, and I’m going to have to see how it pans out, it also talks about those that use drugs that are lawfully prescribed. That becomes an exemption. I’m going to be looking further into whether this reg also directly impacts individuals with a medical marijuana card. Because if it’s prescribed and it’s legal in the state and it’s by a lawful prescription, then maybe that, too, gets covered by this new regulation. It remains to be seen, but it sure seems like it. So, this is good. It progress in the right direction of helping protect our gun rights. And, of course, it’s happening under the Trump administration. It didn’t, this didn’t happen under, you know, the senile sock puppets for years. This is Trump, and yet it’s in the area of marijuana. I mean, oddly, it’s going to essentially remove what got Hunter Biden in trouble, you know. Now, of course, I don’t think he had a single individual use, but still. It’s that disqualifier that’s being addressed by the Trump administration. Evan Nappen 15:40 I also want to point out something that caught my attention, and I think it is just great when something illustrates the absurdity of the gun laws. As you know, we’re fighting over with the big, beautiful lawsuit with NFA over suppressors. Of course, there’s no more $200 tax, which is nice, and they have made it much more efficient online to be able to get federally registered through the National Firearm Act, when acquiring suppressors. And I appreciate the progress, but we all know that there shouldn’t be any NFA at all. It shouldn’t exist. There should be no registration of suppressors or silencers. And it’s so stupid the way silencers are regulated. And I just love this. Apparently, this fellow here, regarding the National Association for Gun Rights, registered a potato as a suppressor. That’s right, a potato. (https:// www.facebook.com/share/v/1Aadb9chUS/) It’s the classic potato silencer that they used to be, mythologically, I guess, accredited to the IRA even. A potato on the end of a gun will act as a suppressor, and to a certain degree, it does. So, he registered a potato, an actual potato, as a suppressor, and then proceeded to utilize it. The only problem with the potato silencer is it’s good for about one shot, and then you end up with a lot of mashed potatoes after you use it. But there you go. They did, in fact, register the potato as a silencer. Teddy Nappen 17:31 There’s a slang term for it, too it’s called a Paddy can. Evan Nappen 17:35 There you go. A Paddy can. Well, he registered a Paddy can. And you know, ATF, also, in the past, registered a shoelace as a machine gun, because you could wrap it around the trigger and the bolt. Then you could do a quasi bump fire deal with it. So, there is a bona fide, if you go on the internet, see a bona fide ATF registered shoelace as a machine gun. We have potatoes as silencers, and I think it illustrates just how stupid the NFA is. Evan Nappen 18:07 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot, as you know, is a range where Teddy and I both shoot, and they have been lately featuring some biographies of their instructors. You see, WeShoot has fantastic instructors, and one of their instructors that they’ve taken a focus on is Todd Friedman. Now, their instructors are fantastic and Lieutenant Todd (Retired) is an elite tactical instructor at WeShoot. He has over 25 years experience with the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. And he didn’t just serve there. He commanded. He was Special Operations Group, Range Master, PTC Certified Range Instructor. His training and background is really something. He’s completed all the advanced coursework and tactical shot sub gun, tactical rifle, tactical narcotics operations. He is an amazing guy, Page of 4 8 and this is just one of the many fantastic instructors at WeShoot. WeShoot is the place to go. Todd, by the way, also served as a Sergeant First Class in the New Jersey National Guard and supporting the prestigious 82nd Airborne Division. So, this is the kind of guy you want training you, you know, and we shoot has these fantastic trainers. You can take advantage of this by belonging to WeShoot. You can take these courses and really, really learn and hone your skills. You need to check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. It’s a beautiful range right there in Lakewood, conveniently located easy to get to, right off the Parkway, right there in Central Jersey. You have this fantastic resource of a range. So, make sure you check out WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:24 And of course, our friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs have been very busy. They’ve been battling in the courts. We should see some more progress there, and I’ll be reporting on that. They’ve been keeping an eye on what’s going on in Trenton and letting us know about these fights we’re fighting. We’ve made an impact. We’ve made an impact. But man, it is a tough slog. And without the Association, we would be even worse. So, make sure that you join the ANJRPC.org, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol clubs. anjrpc.org. They are the premier gun rights group in New Jersey. You need to be a member. You’ll get the email alerts, and you’ll stay on top of what is going on in the crazy state of New Jersey, where the fun just never ends when it comes to oppression of our rights and the fight for our liberties. Evan Nappen 21:22 And by the way, this is where I shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. You’ve got to get a copy. Go to EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the book used by everybody, and the only book that describes and explains the complex matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com. When you get it, scan the front cover. Make sure you get on my private subscriber base, where you can immediately access the archives for any updates. A new update will be coming out very shortly, the 2026 Comprehensive Update of these new laws that Murphy gave us as his farewell present. I’ll be talking about those and explaining those soon. Get your copy today and join in with the subscriber base, which is free, which is free, by the way. So, that your book stays current, and you’ll know what’s going on and be able to keep yourself from becoming a GOFU. Evan Nappen 22:35 Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 22:38 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And I want to remind everyone that the Democrats and the Left are, in fact, the real racists. No matter. They do not care what bounds they have to do. They don’t care about what lines they have to cross. They hate you, and they want to take away your rights. You know. Evan Nappen 23:06 Well, Teddy, historically, historically the KKK were Southern Democrats. That was a KKK. The Democrats. Teddy Nappen 23:15 Yep, and apparently. Page of 5 8 Evan Nappen 23:16 Well, it hasn’t changed, apparently. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 23:19 Well, even better, they’re getting back to their roots. We had previously discussed how the they tried to do that whole argument against Bruen and even citing to like, you know, all the racist laws that would deny blacks their rights to carry and ability to possess firearms. Well, sure enough, from The Daily Caller by Harold Hutchinson. Justice Jackson defends Jim Crow laws during Second Amendment case hearing. (https://dailycaller.com/2026/01/20/ketanji-brown-jackson-jim-crow-law-during-2a-case-argument/) If you have that on your bingo card today, you win. So. Evan Nappen 23:59 Your bingo card is Judge Jackson defends Jim Crow racist Black Codes. Teddy Nappen 24:05 Black Code. Specifically Black Codes. Yes, yes. So, this is about the Hawaii challenge. Remember, they’re trying to attack Bruen. And this is our opportunity to really strengthen and end that insanity. Evan Nappen 24:20 Your talking about the Wolford case. Teddy Nappen 24:20 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:22 About sensitive places. Which is very important. That can have great impact on New Jersey, too. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Oh, we’re all very too familiar about the various sensitive places in New Jersey. But this was the part that caught me. During the forum, where the justices are allowed to ask questions and probe the issues of the facts of the case of the law. So, Justice Jackson then turned and decided to go on and say. I just laugh every time I read it. So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes. I mean, I thought the Black Code, this is Jackson, were being offered under the Bruen test to determine the Constitutionality of this regulation, and that, because we have a test, and that asks us to look at the history and tradition, the fact that the Black Codes were at some point determined themselves unconstitutional, it doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us for anyway. So, can you say more about that? So to. Evan Nappen 25:35 Do you believe this person is a justice? Teddy Nappen 25:40 Well, I can, I can believe it, because Biden said it himself. He was going to appoint a black woman and regardless of that. So, just take a step back though. Let’s unpack that line right there. It’s not relevant to the fact the laws were found unconstitutional, not relevant to the fact of the constitutionality of the Second Amendment and the and the fact that you are citing, and this is the war on Bruen they are Page of 6 8 making, where they try to say history, text and tradition. Where does history begin? Well, to the Left, apparently, the history begins in the 1860s where you have the various Black Codes and racist gun laws, but you know, to us with the, you know, traditionalists and go and have a little bit further knowledge of history, go back to the very foundation of our country and when the Second Amendment was born. And not only that, this shows you the degree that they hate us and hate guns and are willing to pursue a second amendment oppression agenda, even to the degree that they will utilize unconstitutional purely racist laws of the past to justify prohibitions now that are themselves we can show utilizing institutionalized racism in their enforcement, no less. I mean, they don’t care, as long as they can get the guns and take away the rights. So what if they have to be on the side of racism? That’s fine with them there. Teddy Nappen 27:28 Well, and here’s the reason why I pulled from The Trace where, you know, they absolutely loathe Bruen. This is why they hate it, and this is why they don’t care where length they have to go they cite in. This is from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/projects/bruen-tracker-supreme-court-gun-laws/) 1100 plus. The number of people with felony convictions have used Bruen to challenge the ban on the possession of guns. So, in other words, people that were lawful possession and have unconstitutional laws currently putting them in jail? Oh, now there’s a hammer that is Bruen that can actually help them defend themselves and not be prosecuted. Amazing. Well. And it goes back to race, because blacks are six to one felons to whites, and what is the left pushing? Oh, the disqualifier of a felon, you are sure, because it gets a racial discrimination. It’s six to one again, always pushing the one side of their mouth, claiming to fight for civil rights. Teddy Nappen 28:37 And yet, when it really comes down to the truest of civil rights, they immediately sell it out to pursue a second amendment oppression agenda, yeah, and also the fact they highlight, they highlight this rate of 48% of Republican appointed judges have struck down various gun laws under Bruen, as opposed to the 13 Democrat appointees. So there is political bias for that, you where they’re actually applying the law versus them ignoring the Constitution. But you know, that’s a separate but this is something I want to highlight to everyone. The fact is, if the Left ever take power back, and James Carville has said this, they will pack the court. He said, we’re going to pack the court. We’re going to make a gonna make Puerto Rico a state like everything they can to maintain power. Teddy Nappen 29:30 What are they going to do when they pack the court? Go ahead and read the dissenting of Bruen. I pulled the line right here from buyers, which all of them agree with buyers on this. They refuse, when considering the SEC refuse to consider government interests and just and the challenge to gun regulations regarding the compelling interest to be, in our view, when the court interprets the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper and in often necessary. Necessary to consider the serious danger and consequences of gun violence that lead states to regulate when you when they consider gun laws, they have to factor in the gun violence. You know, the propaganda they promote, race manufacturers on a daily basis, by the way, right? That’s what they have to consider when exercising. So whenever you want to exercise the First Amendment, always consider the hate speech. This is why Reagan said, you know, freedom is only what one generation away from being lost. You know, paraphrasing, but that’s what it means. If they get power, they get total power. We’re in for it, so be vigilant, folks. Make sure you vote. Make sure you do your part in our republic, in defending our rights. Page of 7 8 Evan Nappen 30:55 Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We always like to talk about GOFUs, because these are expensive lessons, real cases, real individuals have learned. And I don’t want you, my listeners, to have to repeat these mistakes. And this one is, this comes up at any number of cases, even just this week. And here’s the bottom line on this GOFU, folks. Know what you have. Let me tell you what I mean by that. I get cases all the time where people end up with their property seized and their house gets searched. Now you may say, well, no one has searched my house. Yeah, except it’s so easy in New Jersey to have that happen. All it takes is just some allegation by any party. You don’t even get a chance to say anything till afterwards. After they do the search that red flags you, or puts an unjustified restraining order on you, or just your house has a fire, and the firemen come in there. We’ve seen this happen so many times, so many ways, and something gets discovered that you didn’t even remember that you had. Evan Nappen 32:17 Because remember, New Jersey has turned things into crimes where there was no grandfathering. If you had old magazines that held over 10 rounds, in other words, you could even if you complied with Florio way back in the day and made sure your mags only held 15. Well, if you’ve got 15 round Florio mags, you’ve got felony charges on your hands. Even though they were made compliant way back. Because now it’s 10. That’s just one example. If you have firearm that became non-compliant under New Jersey law and didn’t realize it, there’s just a multitude of things that New Jersey can screw you over with. Please make sure you know what you have and not have anything that you shouldn’t. Because it’s so easy to have boxes of accessories, boxes and you know, lo and behold, what’s in it? An old bump stock or an old large capacity magazine or a trigger crank, or any of the things that were legal, but then New Jersey unilaterally decided it is intrinsically evil and must be turned into felonies for possession. So, folks, know what you have. Evan Nappen 33:37 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. Speaker 2 33:48 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page of 8 8 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E274_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";

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, and makes a surprising prediction about the outcome of the case.

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, and makes a surprising prediction about the outcome of the case.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.

Cam provides his take on today's Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, and predicts that Hawaii's "vampire rule" prohibiting concealed carry on private property without the express consent of the owner will be struck down.

Cam provides his take on today's Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, and predicts that Hawaii's "vampire rule" prohibiting concealed carry on private property without the express consent of the owner will be struck down.

Cam takes a look at a Virginia bill imposing new security mandates on all FFLs, as well as a preview of tomorrow's Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez.

Cam takes a look at a Virginia bill imposing new security mandates on all FFLs, as well as a preview of tomorrow's Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez.