Podcasts about Wolford

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2026 4:02 Transcription Available

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court like it's the Super Bowl, but here we are in late January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just this week, on January 21, the justices heard arguments in Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case straight out of the Oval Office power playbook. According to the Supreme Court's own monthly argument calendar, it was one of the key sessions testing how far Trump can push executive authority. Picture this: Trump's team arguing he can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, no full hearing required. News4JAX reports the Court seemed skeptical during those arguments, with justices across the spectrum questioning whether the president can boot independent agency leaders on a whim like that.Rewind a bit to the shadow docket frenzy of 2025—that's the Supreme Court's fast-track emergency rulings without full debates or explanations. Scotusblog details how Trump's administration leaned on it heavily, winning over 80% of the time from the conservative majority. They greenlit canceling foreign aid and health funding, firing independent agency heads, even immigration questioning based on appearance or language, and requiring passports to match biological sex. But the Court drew a line at Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, blocking it in a December 23 decision, and handled Trump v. Illinois on September 8 over immigration detentions in Los Angeles. These shadow moves shaped policy quietly, but now, with Trump's approval dipping to 42% by late 2025 per News4JAX polls, the big full hearings are here.Coming down the pike: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment—can Trump end automatic U.S. citizenship for anyone born here? Sweeping global tariffs without Congress's okay, testing presidential trade power. And that Fed firing case, potentially gutting the Federal Reserve's independence. Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped 2025 with a year-end report hammering home judicial independence, calling courts a counter-majoritarian check against popular whims. He sidestepped politics, focusing on history, but experts like Constitutional Law Professor Rod Sullivan on News4JAX's Politics & Power say the Court's timing is no accident—Trump's weaker politically, so justices might finally clip his wings.Meanwhile, down in Congress, the House Judiciary Committee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 23 about Trump's alleged criminal actions, from conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to mishandling classified documents. Representative Steve Cohen's newsletter recounts Smith facing questions on Trump's witness intimidation tactics, with Cohen praising him as a great American standing firm. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14 of a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, mooted out. And don't sleep on criminal law sidelines: Scotusblog's mid-term update flags nine new cases, like Wolford v. Lopez argued January 20 on Second Amendment rights, or geofence warrants in United States v. Chatrie testing Fourth Amendment limits.As California's Republicans begged the Court on January 22 to block a new 2026 midterm election map, per Scotusblog, it feels like every corner of the judiciary is tangled in Trump's orbit. These rulings could redefine presidential power, from citizenship in cities like New York to trade hitting ports in Miami. Chief Justice Roberts' quiet defense of court independence is about to face its ultimate stress test—will the justices stand firm, or bend to the political gale?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Gun-Rights Lawyer Details His SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Hawaii Vampire Rule Case

american guns hawaii supreme court lawyers vampires lopez beck scotus second amendment gun rights oral arguments wolford justice amy coney barrett blackcode stephen gutowski

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 26, 2026 48:13

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez. To do that, we have one of the people who was directly involved: Wolford's lawyer, Alan Beck. He joined the show to give us a preview of the case before oral arguments. Now, he's back to give us a rundown of how everything went from his perspective. Beck said being in the room was an entirely different experience from listening to arguments online or reading a transcript. He said the justices were more expressive than many of the other federal judges he's argued in front of before, and it gave him extra insight into how arguments were going. He noted that at different points some of them even became visibly exasperated with some of what his opponent was saying, especially during the portion where they discussed a Black Code as evidence for Hawaii's modern gun-carry restriction. Beck said he believes a majority of the justices favored his position. He said Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of his view about Second Amendment rights on private property, but he believes she came to understand his position after a long back-and-forth. Meanwhile, he said he thought his argument about the incompatibility of Hawaii's restrictions with American history won over a lot of the justices, perhaps even Justice Elana Kagan.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Episode 274-State Police RPO Cover-Up

Gun Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2026 34:10

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";

america new york donald trump freedom bible state office joe biden speaker reach left new jersey dad hawaii republicans ice democrats puerto rico sec constitution bang real talk national association membership correct bits wild west attorney generals first amendment blacks hunter biden paddy cover up esq second amendment consult jim crow kkk grounds bong pistol atf lakewood wor gun rights neil gorsuch marxists airborne divisions improper information act court tv daily caller rpo james carville parkway state police florio judge jackson constitutionality nfa bruen nics wolford dox gun talk rpos firearms instructor black codes central jersey blood in the streets sergeant first class blackcode southern democrats bearing arms rbo ammoland strictly confidential special operations group tom gresham john petrolino new jersey national guard

SCOTUS Casts Doubt on Hawaii 'Vampire Rule'; ATF Proposes New Drug User Definition

guns hawaii supreme court doubt definition lopez user scotus second amendment contributing casts proposes atf new drugs wolford stephen gutowski

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 23, 2026 62:08

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down last week's oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, which saw a majority of the Supreme Court justices express skepticism toward the legality of Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" gun carry law. We also talk about the ATF's new proposal to redefine who counts as an "unlawful drug user" for the purposes of federal gun law.

2A Advocate Makes Shocking Prediction About SCOTUS and 'Vampire Rule'

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 21, 2026 41:56

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.

predictions advocates shocking lopez scotus wolford mark walters armed american radio

Showdown at the Supreme Court: Trump v. Cook Challenges the Limits of Presidential Power

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 21, 2026 4:08 Transcription Available

# Trump v. Cook: A Quiet Please Deep DiveWelcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases unfolding right now. Just hours ago, the justices began hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case that will fundamentally reshape how much power any sitting president can wield over independent agencies.Let me set the scene. It's Wednesday morning at the Supreme Court building in Washington. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell walked through those marble halls to witness history. The case at hand involves President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Lisa Cook from her position as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Now, this might sound like an arcane administrative matter, but it cuts to the heart of American democracy. The question before the nine justices is brutally simple: Can a president fire the heads of independent agencies without cause, or does Congress have the authority to limit that power?This isn't Trump's first rodeo at the Supreme Court this term. Just days earlier, on Monday, January 20th, the Court was also set to hear arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a case examining a Hawaii law that prevents gun owners from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public without explicit permission from the property owner. That same day, justices heard arguments in M&K Employee Solutions versus Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund, a technical but financially massive dispute over how much money a business owes when withdrawing from a multi-employer pension plan.But Trump v. Cook demands our attention in a different way. The stakes couldn't be higher. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can unilaterally fire Lisa Cook, it strips away decades of congressional protections designed to insulate the Federal Reserve from political pressure. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates and monetary policy affecting every American's wallet. If a president can simply remove a dissenting board member with a phone call, the independence that economists credit with keeping inflation under control could evaporate.The case arrives amid a broader power struggle between Trump and the courts over executive authority. According to documents from the Supreme Court's January 2026 calendar, this oral argument session represents just one piece of a constellation of cases that will define Trump's second term. The Court is simultaneously grappling with his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, his use of emergency powers to impose tariffs without congressional approval, and his efforts to deploy the National Guard to cities like Chicago.What makes Trump v. Cook particularly significant is that it operates under the shadow of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent concurrence in Trump v. Illinois. That December ruling blocked Trump from deploying the National Guard to Chicago without meeting strict statutory requirements. In a footnote that legal scholars are still parsing, Kavanaugh suggested that his opinion doesn't address presidential authority under the Insurrection Act itself, potentially leaving the door open for more expansive executive power.The Federal Reserve case will be decided within months. If the justices side with Trump, they hand him a powerful tool to reshape executive agencies across government. If they side with Cook and the congressional framework protecting her office, they reaffirm that some checks on presidential power remain intact.The oral arguments concluded this morning at the Supreme Court. Now the waiting begins as the justices deliberate what American presidential power should look like in the twenty-first century.Thanks so much for tuning in to Quiet Please. Come back next week for more on how this case unfolds and what it means for your rights and freedoms. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Wolford v. Lopez

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026 111:06

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.

hawaii court lopez second amendment wolford

Wolford v. Lopez

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026 111:06

hawaii court lopez second amendment wolford

Hawaii's Vampire Rule Seems Like It's About to be Staked

hawaii supreme court vampires lopez wolford staked

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026 33:46

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Wolford v. Lopez, Case No. 24-1046

Audio Arguendo

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026

Second Amendment: May Hawaii prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property without the property owner's permission? - Argued: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:2:50 EDT

lopez us supreme court edt wolford case no

Wolford v. Lopez

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

Proposed Regs Target Virginia Gun Stores

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 19, 2026 30:41

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.

guns target supreme court lopez stores proposed regs wolford ffls

Headline: Tracking Trump's Legal Battles: A High-Stakes Supreme Court Showdown in 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 18, 2026 4:19 Transcription Available

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

"Supreme Court's High-Stakes Rulings Loom Large for Trump's Agenda"

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 3:31 Transcription Available

# Trump's Legal Battles Heat Up at the Supreme CourtWelcome back to Quiet Please. We're diving straight into what's shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Donald Trump's presidency, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on cases that could define his entire second term.Let's start with the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda. The Supreme Court is preparing to decide the legality of Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign products, a case Trump himself has called the most important case ever. According to reporting from SCOTUSblog and Yahoo Finance, Trump warned the court in a recent social media post that if they rule against his tariffs, "we're screwed." The court heard arguments back in November, and a ruling could come as soon as this week. What makes this case critical is the stakes involved. If the justices side with Trump's challengers, the government could be forced to refund over 100 billion dollars in tariffs already collected from American businesses and consumers. That's real money that could reshape the economy depending on which way the court goes.But the tariff case is just one piece of a much larger legal puzzle Trump is navigating. According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court is also preparing to hear arguments on January 21st regarding Trump's push to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. This ties into a broader constitutional question about whether Trump has the power to unilaterally fire the heads of independent agencies, which would overturn 90 years of legal precedent if the court rules in his favor. Cook is just one person Trump wants removed. He's also targeted Federal Trade Commission officials, making this a test of executive power that could reshape how the president interacts with the federal bureaucracy.There's another major case looming as well. The Supreme Court will decide the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits people from carrying firearms onto private property without explicit consent from the owner. This case, Wolford versus Lopez, will test the limits of Second Amendment rights against property rights in a way the court hasn't fully addressed before.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also set to address a case challenging prohibitions on conversion therapy for minors, the discredited practice aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. According to Axios, Republicans argue these restrictions violate the First Amendment, framing this as a free speech issue rather than a health and safety matter.Throughout all of this legal maneuvering, Trump has repeatedly used the Supreme Court's emergency procedures known as the shadow docket to suspend lower court decisions while cases are ongoing. According to USA Today, this gave Trump victories on everything from keeping tariffs in place to withholding foreign aid and conducting immigration raids. Now those emergency wins face scrutiny in the full court proceedings.These Supreme Court cases will ripple across Trump's entire presidency, affecting economic policy, executive power, and civil rights all at once.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

A Seat at the Sitting - January 2026

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2026 61:13 Transcription Available

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.Featuring:Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupStephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLPJacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceRyan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

united states donald trump state new jersey hawaii court supreme court llc sitting west virginia powers seat separation amendment trustees counsel appeals circuit governors second amendment walters founding partners title ix state government education policy federalism federal reserve board fourteenth amendment erisa galette deputy attorney general wolford administrative law legal strategy freudenberg education amendments sovereign immunity benbrook plaquemines parish senior litigation counsel administrative law & regulatio federalism & separation of pow

Headline: Courtrooms Become Battlegrounds: Trump's Legal Wars Grip America's Future

Firearms Radio Network (All Shows)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 7, 2026 4:23 Transcription Available

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in early January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal wars are heating up like never before. Just days ago, on Tuesday, January 6, SCOTUSblog reminded us of that historic New York Times Company v. Sullivan case from 1964, where the Supreme Court protected the press from libel suits—timely now as tensions simmer between Trump and media outlets. But that's history; the real fireworks are exploding right now.Picture this: the Supreme Court is gearing up for its January 12 argument session in Washington, D.C., with seven massive cases, several straight from Trump's playbook. Axios reports that top of the list is Trump v. Barbara, where the justices could rule any moment on his executive order slashing birthright citizenship. Trump wants to deny U.S. citizenship to kids of undocumented immigrants born here, challenging over a century of 14th Amendment precedent. Businesses like Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, and Ray-Ban makers are suing over another bombshell—Trump's tariffs. In Learning v. Trump, they're fighting his national emergency declaration that slapped billions in duties on imports without Congress's okay. Trump boasted on Truth Social it's the "most case ever," but a loss could mean refunding over $100 billion. Then there's Trump v. Slaughter, pitting Trump against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and FTC's Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, whom he fired for clashing with his policies. The court will decide if he can boot independent agency heads, smashing 90-year-old protections.Just Security's litigation tracker paints an even wilder picture of chaos in lower courts. In D.C.'s federal district court, Taylor v. Trump challenges Executive Order 14164, where Attorney General Pam Bondi shuffled death row inmates to ADX Florence supermax under Trump's public safety push—plaintiffs scream due process violations. The National Association of the Deaf sued Trump, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for axing ASL interpreters at White House briefings, claiming First and Fifth Amendment breaches. Law firms aren't safe either: Susman Godfrey out of Texas hit back at an executive order yanking their security clearances for opposing Trump; Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale face similar retaliation suits in D.D.C., alleging viewpoint discrimination. The American Bar Association sued over yanked grants from the Office on Violence Against Women, calling it payback for their stances. Even Rep. Eric Swalwell's in the mix with Swalwell v. Pute, targeting Trump's criminal arrest pushes.Politico says grand juries are Trump's new nightmare—refusing indictments left and right on his aggressive policies, from protester crackdowns to immigrant roundups. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blasted prosecutors for "rushed" cases with weak evidence. And in a wild international twist, CBS News covered ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and wife Cilia Flores arraigned Monday in Manhattan's federal courthouse before Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Whisked by helicopter from Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center under heavy security, Maduro pled not guilty to narco-terrorism, cocaine smuggling, and weapons charges—facing life in prison—while insisting he's still Venezuela's president.The Supreme Court's emergency docket, like in 25A312, keeps deferring stays till January arguments, per their own filings. Lawfare's tracker logs non-stop national security suits against Trump's moves. It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with the high court poised to reshape everything from guns in Wolford v. Lopez against Hawaii's private property ban, to conversion therapy fights in Miles v. Salazar.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

We Like Shooting 643 – The Thing About My Thing

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 30, 2025

We Like Shooting Episode 643 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Gideon Optics, Primary Arms, Medical Gear Outfitters, Mitchell Defense, and Bowers Group, Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 643! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 -Please stop sending me malortnog! Gear Chat Nick - Chillin' with Heighth Chassis Heighth Chassis Nick - Laser Holsters 101 Holster laser Shawn - TTI's $8K Viper: The Ultimate Blend of Performance and Concealment Taran Tactical Innovations has launched a new compact version of its Sand & Pit Viper pistol, featuring a 4.5" island barrel designed for improved performance in a carry-friendly format. This model includes several engineering upgrades for enhanced ergonomics, control, and accuracy, and is equipped with three 20-round magazines and a pre-installed optic. Priced at $7,999.99, it targets serious shooters looking for a high-end option without compromising on performance. Shawn - Pew Locker Bullet Points Shawn - Review of the Range Bag Battery Case by Hammy3DPrints Hammy3DPrints has launched the Range Bag Battery Case, designed specifically for the shooting and tactical community, providing an organized solution for managing various battery types used in firearms and accessories. This compact, durable case aims to enhance efficiency and reliability for users by preventing battery damage and ensuring quick access. The introduction of this product represents a significant advancement for firearm accessory organization. Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle Pew Report Refresh! Pew Report Relaunch Resolutions Agency Brief "James Madison calculated that 500,000 armed rednecks could crush a federal army of 30,000. It's 2025, and the ATF is still trying to fudge those numbers. Spoiler alert: They can't." THE SETUP: The Panic of 1788 The Constitution is on the ropes. New York and Virginia are threatening to vote "No." The Fear: Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry, George Mason) scream that a new "Standing Army" will crush the states and enslave the people. The Stakes: If Madison can't convince them the people are safe, the United States ends before it starts. THE ARGUMENT: Madison's Math of Tyranny Madison drops Federalist No. 46 on January 29, 1788. The Calculation: He estimates a federal army can max out at 25,000–30,000 men. The Counter-Force: He pits them against 500,000 "citizens with arms in their hands." The Reality: He argues a federal coup would be suicide. Not because the government is nice, but because the people will shoot them. The Distinction: He explicitly separates the "Federal Government" from "The People." We are the check; we are not the asset. THE "DEAL": Ratification via Firepower The Constitution passes only because of these assurances. Original Intent: This proves the Second Amendment (ratified 1791) was designed to preserve that 16-to-1 power ratio. European Comparison: Madison mocks acts of European kingdoms who "are afraid to trust the people with arms." He frames universal ownership as the definition of American liberty. THE BETRAYAL: Regulatory Creep & The Big Lie The Lie: "The Militia is the National Guard." The Dick Act of 1903 and modern commies try to tell you the Guard replaced the people. The Fact: Madison's math requires the people to be armed. If the "militia" is federally funded and deployed (National Guard), it's part of the standing army Madison warned us about. The Creep: NFA (1934), GCA (1968), and ATF braces/frame rules are all attempts to break Madison's ratio by disarming the 500,000. THE COMEBACK: How We Use This Today Bruen & History: Courts now look to "Text, History, and Tradition." Fed 46 is the gold standard of history. Weapons of War: Gun grabbers say you don't need "weapons of war." Federalist 46 says you must have them, or you cannot serve as the check on the standing army. The Bottom Line: Your AR-15 isn't a loophole. It's the lithmus test for whether Madison's promise is still alive. Going Ballistic Conspiracies and Gun Control Nonsense The fusion conspiracy Restoration of Rights? DOJ Plays Hide and Seek with the Truth Analysis: The DOJ denied a FOIA request seeking the specific criteria used for rights restoration (relief from disabilities), claiming they are not obligated to create or define such records for the public. This refusal persists despite recent pardons raising questions about the process. When: FOIA denial reported late Dec 2025. Executive Overreach: Minnesota Governor Ignores the People on Gun Rights Analysis: After failing to pass "assault weapon" bans through a divided legislature, Governor Tim Walz signed two executive orders to create a safety council and track gun violence costs. Critics argue this bypasses the legislative process and the will of the people. When: Executive orders signed Dec 2025. Hawaii's Wishful Thinking Meets Reality: A Supreme Court Showdown on the Second Amendment Analysis: Hawaii defends its "sensitive places" law in Wolford v. Lopez, citing the "Aloha Spirit" and historical laws to justify bans on carry on private property. The case is set for a Supreme Court showdown, challenging the state's restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment. When: SCOTUS hearing scheduled for January 20, 2026. Court Strikes Down New Mexico Gun Waiting Period Analysis: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a rehearing request, upholding a ruling that New Mexico's 7-day waiting period is unconstitutional. The court found that such delays burden Second Amendment rights without sufficient historical support. When: Ruling finalized Dec 2025. California's Latest Gun Grab: Background Checks on Gun Barrels, Really? Analysis: A new California law mandates that all gun barrel sales must be processed through licensed dealers with background checks and fees. The legislation also targets "digital firearm manufacturing code" and opens the door for civil suits against unlawful manufacture. When: Law takes effect Jan 1, 2026. DC's AR-15 Control Chaos: The Feds Strike Back Analysis: The Trump DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Washington, D.C., arguing that its ban on AR-15s and registration requirements are unconstitutional under Heller and Bruen. The suit asserts these bans target "common use" firearms based on cosmetic features. When: Lawsuit filed Dec 2025. GOP Lawmakers Blast DOJ For Betraying Gun Owners on NFA Analysis: GOP lawmakers, led by Daines and Clyde, sent a letter to AG Bondi demanding the DOJ stop defending National Firearms Act (NFA) registration mandates. They argue that the removal of the underlying tax (via the "One Big Beautiful Bill") renders the registration requirement void and contrary to congressional intent. When: Letter sent Dec 2025. When 'Red Flags' Signal Trouble: Colorado's Case Against Gun Control Analysis: A tragic case study of a suicide in Colorado highlights the failure of "Red Flag" laws. Critics argue that these laws focus on gun confiscation rather than providing necessary mental health treatment, leaving individuals in crisis without the help they truly need. When: Analysis published Dec 29, 2025. Montana's Happy Little Accident: A Win for Gun Rights in Schools (no summary available) Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from DrCensoredGuy - If you want a handgun like a siggity sig. Or a shiny new rifle for piggity pig. This is a podcast you will diggity dig. The cast has one guy who's biggity big. So listen up and try not to fip your wiggity wig. When live on the show he shouts "no notes." ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Anonymous Coward from Colorado - If Jeremy doesn't read this, he's gay? The only reason you haven't killed savage is that you are a communist sympathizer, and you want to lay back and have savage make sweet sweet breadhole love to you. You want to prostate carry savage, don't you? You don't even want savage to give you a reach around, just lay you down and give you that bald thumb raw? And what about Aaron? Do you want Arron to feed you his sweet and spicy Kishka? At the same time as savage? You dirty little man. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from 5 heptahectacontakaihenagons If ever there was a podcast that could be used as an example that you don't have to be an expert to be successful, this is it. Never before has such a ragtag group of miscreants been assembled and been viewed by such a large number of people as experts with less knowledge on their subject matter. Bernie Madoff would be proud of the scam you've been able to pull off. The only one who truly seems to have any knowledge is the host of the show. He should definitely talk more. Keep up the good work. Sean Herron - Before we let you go - Join Gun Owners of America Tell your friends about the show and get backstage access by joining the Gun Cult at theguncult.com. No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember - Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time! Nick - @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy - @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron - @machinegun_moses Savage - @savage1r

united states american new york california history washington spoilers colorado european performance dc hawaii seek supreme court schools rights math weapons montana restoration tradition shooting new mexico red flags guard sand constitution savage fed critics lopez doj national guard appeals federal government second amendment tim walz heller james madison bernie madoff atf priced militia circuit court federalist foia gun rights george mason arron holsters bruen ratification wls wolford daines gca aloha spirit pit viper federalist no primary arms nick lynch remember always we like shooting shawn herrin jeremy pozderac

The Round Table w @JStreble82 & @Lamb76 -Hour 2-12-23-2025

The Take with Andy Sweeney

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 23, 2025 53:54

Some clarity of the JMI-UK stuff We listen to the Pope presser! Kiffin making the mistake of hiring Wolford??? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

roundtable pope kiffin wolford

Polyphenols Sports Talk

Sports Daily

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2025 41:49

Hour 1 - Today is the final Thursday Big Show of 2025 and Jacob & Tejay fully bathed in blue are here to divide any thorns from the roses of sports. In this segment they talk the Shockers victory over Wolford and discuss NFL headlines & THE TNF Rams/Seahawks match up.

nfl sports sports talk shockers polyphenols wolford

12.15: Don't Mess with Walmart, Silent Alarms, Impulse Buying, and Former NFL Lineman Will Wolford

Tony & Dwight

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2025 32:22 Transcription Available

walmart mess silent impulse former nfl alarms lineman wolford

Petitioner's Brief Drives Stake Through Heart of Hawaii's 'Vampire Rule'

hawaii supreme court drives lopez stake wolford petitioners

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2025 26:55

The Supreme Court's oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez won't take place for another couple of months, but the plaintiffs challenging Hawaii's "vampire rule" have filed a brief that thoroughly dismantles the law banning concealed carry on all private property unless expressly granted permission by the property owner.

Guns, Weed, and the Supreme Court (Ft. Reason's Jacob Sullum)

thinkfuture with kalaboukis

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2025 46:02

This week, we're taking a closer look at US v. Hemani. Last week, we had Second Amendment scholar David Kopel on to discuss the big picture of the upcoming Supreme Court term. The week before that, we had gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show to discuss his Supreme Court case, Wolford v. Lopez. Now, we're looking at the other Second Amendment case with a man who has followed the issue at its center: Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum. That issue? Marijuana users possessing firearms. Sullum explained that the federal ban on drug users owning guns potentially impacts millions of Americans. He noted it is rarely actually enforced, but he said the possibility hangs over people in nearly 40 states. He argued that's why Hemani's case could have huge implications nationwide. However, he noted Hemani's case is more complicated than a straightforward weed and guns prosecution. Even though the charge is only related to Hemani's marijuana use, Sullum said the government has accused him of much worse--including terror-related crimes. He said the crossover between drugs and guns could scramble the usual dynamics of the Court, but that's no guarantee. Special Guest: Jacob Sullum.

americans guns court supreme court weed marijuana lopez second amendment reason magazine wolford stephen gutowski jacob sullum david kopel

1118 AI in Writing: Greg Wolford on Creativity, Storytelling, and the Future of Fiction

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2025 36:08

See more: https://thinkfuture.substack.comConnect with Greg: https://gregwolford.substack.com---Can AI make you a better writer—or does it risk flattening creativity?In this episode of thinkfuture, host Chris Kalaboukis sits down with Greg Wolford, a writer who uses AI tools like ChatGPT to supercharge his creative process—without losing his human voice. Greg shares how he uses AI to generate plot ideas, refine language, and get feedback while keeping the soul of storytelling intact.Together, they explore why dystopian fiction often outshines utopian storytelling, and how AI might reshape the future of books, film, and entertainment. Could AI-generated art democratize creativity—or just flood the world with formulaic content?We cover:- How writers can use AI tools for brainstorming, editing, and worldbuilding- Why human emotion and personal voice are still irreplaceable- The storytelling tension between utopia and dystopia- How AI might transform filmmaking, acting, and creative industries- The importance of the humanities in an AI-driven future- Why emotion, perspective, and imperfection are the true markers of human artGreg's take is both practical and philosophical—AI can be a powerful creative ally, but only if we remember what makes art human.If you're interested in AI and creativity, writing, or the future of storytelling, this episode is a must-listen.

ai writing creativity storytelling chatgpt fiction wolford

Scholar Who Helped Shape SCOTUS View on Guns Dissects Its Latest 2A Cases

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 3, 2025 50:43

This week, we're taking a big-picture view of the Supreme Court's upcoming slate of Second Amendment cases. That's because this slate will be the biggest yet. Now, sure, that still only means they have two Second Amendment claims to consider. But that's more than ever before, and it comes just a few months after many gun-rights activists thought the Court was wavering on the deciding key cases. So, to discuss what we should make of this Supreme Court term, we've got Independence Institute research director David Kopel back on the show. He is one of the leading scholars in the gun-rights movement, and his work helped develop and legitimize the individual right theory of the Second Amendment. He has been cited in numerous Supreme Court gun opinions and is an odd-on favorite to be quoted again this year. Kopel argued it is notable that the Supreme Court is taking up more Second Amendment cases than ever before. He said there are outcomes that could dramatically alter the legal landscape for gun-carry or people who smoke marijuana and own guns. However, he also noted that narrow rulings could still alter the course of Second Amendment caselaw, given the Court's infrequent involvement in the issue to date. Kopel said every word a Supreme Court justice utters or writes in the course of deciding these two cases will be pored over by the lower courts for years to come. Special Guest: David Kopel.

guns court supreme court shape helped scotus scholar second amendment wolford kopel independence institute stephen gutowski david kopel

FDE+ | From Prompting to Programming: Elevating Recruiting in the Age of AI with Mike Wolford, CEO of Lex Duo

The Full Desk Experience

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2025 63:46

On this episode of FDE+, Kortney Harmon and Mike Wolford, CEO of LexDuo, explore how AI is redefining what it means to be a recruiter—and why the future belongs to those who build with it, not just use it.They discuss how recruiters are moving beyond basic prompting into programming and workflow design—creating custom GPTs, connecting APIs, and automating tasks that once drained hours from their day. Mike also explains how imagination has become a recruiter's new competitive advantage and outlines the ethical and legal considerations that come with building AI-driven systems.Key Takeaways • The three levels of AI adoption and how each elevates recruiter performance • Why creativity, not coding, defines success in the AI-driven era • How API connections can integrate your ATS, CRM, and communication tools • The coming divide between corporate TA and staffing—and where opportunity grows • How to “automate and elevate” recruiting by combining AI precision with human judgmentDiscover how forward-thinking recruiters are using AI to amplify—not replace—the human side of hiring.___________Follow Mike Wolford on LinkedIn: LinkedIn | Mike Check out his website: lexduo.net Follow Crelate on LinkedIn: Crelate Want to learn more about Crelate? Book a demo here Subscribe to our newsletter: The Full Desk Experience

ceo ai chatgpt recruiting programming crm elevating apis sourcing data analytics ats software engineering prompting gpts synesthesia prompt engineering wolford heygen talent intelligence api integration fde

Judicial Candidates Maria Battista & Matt Wolford Join the Show

Rich Zeoli

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2025 44:59

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Maria Battista—Republican Candidate for Pennsylvania Superior Court—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her campaign. Battista “has more than 15 years of legal experience in civil, criminal, and administrative law and is a former Assistant District Attorney.” Plus, she discusses earning Scott Presler's endorsement! To learn more about her campaign, visit: https://www.battistaforjudge.com. 4:30pm- Matt Wolford— Republican Candidate for Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his campaign. Wolford has “more than 35 years of legal experience” and “has served Pennsylvanians in both public service and private practice. Early in his career he served as a Deputy Attorney General in the Philadelphia office of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG), where he represented Commonwealth agencies in civil litigation. He later became attorney-in-charge of the Environmental Crimes Section field office in Meadville and served as a Special Prosecutor for both the OAG and the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.” To learn more about his campaign, visit: https://mattwolfordforjudge.com.

news philadelphia pennsylvania attorney candidates commonwealth judicial pennsylvanians battista western district assistant district attorney special prosecutor deputy attorney general wolford meadville pennsylvania office commonwealth court rich zeoli show

NBC10 Confronts Mikie Sherrill Over Lies + AOC Says Socialists Aren't Crazy

Rich Zeoli

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2025 180:42

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (10/27/2025): 3:05pm- While aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump was asked if he would consider running for Vice President—with his running mate ultimately stepping aside, allowing him to serve a third term. Trump rejected the idea. The reporter's question was a misread of the 12th Amendment which states: “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” 3:15pm- While speaking at a rally for Zohran Mamdani, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said “I hear you” as the crowd chanted “tax the rich.” But following the rally, Hochul claimed she heard the crowd screaming “let's go Bills.” What!? New York City doesn't even root for the Bills! 3:40pm- New York City Mayoral Andrew Cuomo told a reporter that Zohran Mamdani is not a Democrat—he's a socialist! 3:50pm- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez told a crowd of Zohran Mamdani supporters and socialists that “we are not the crazy ones…we are sane!” Sure! Whatever you say… 3:55pm- NBC10 reporter Lauren Mayk confronted Mikie Sherrill over her outlandish claim that Jack Ciattarelli is responsible for the deaths of “tens of thousands of people” for being tangentially involved in marketing for pharmaceutical companies. Ciarrarelli's campaign has threatened to sue Sherrill over the baseless allegations. 4:05pm- Maria Battista—Republican Candidate for Pennsylvania Superior Court—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her campaign. Battista “has more than 15 years of legal experience in civil, criminal, and administrative law and is a former Assistant District Attorney.” Plus, she discusses earning Scott Presler's endorsement! To learn more about her campaign, visit: https://www.battistaforjudge.com. 4:30pm- Matt Wolford— Republican Candidate for Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his campaign. Wolford has “more than 35 years of legal experience” and “has served Pennsylvanians in both public service and private practice. Early in his career he served as a Deputy Attorney General in the Philadelphia office of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG), where he represented Commonwealth agencies in civil litigation. He later became attorney-in-charge of the Environmental Crimes Section field office in Meadville and served as a Special Prosecutor for both the OAG and the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.” To learn more about his campaign, visit: https://mattwolfordforjudge.com. 5:05pm- Judge Pat Dugan—Republican Candidate for District Attorney of Philadelphia—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his campaign as well as his pledge to review the Ellen Greenberg case. He explains, “the only way we are going to make our city safer is if we say goodbye to Larry Krasner. Send him back to San Francisco.” To learn more about his campaign, visit: https://www.judgeduganforda.com. 5:20pm- Democrats and media members are apoplectic over the Trump administration's decision to construct a grand ballroom at the White House—expanding the residence's East Wing. President Trump has insisted construction will be privately funded, at no expense to the taxpayer. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) implored future presidents to rename the ballroom after Barack Obama. Meanwhile, a former Congressman said that the next Democrat to hold the presidency should demolish the renovation! 5:30pm- While speaking with a BBC reporter, Kamala Harris said she won't rule out running for president again. Hilariously, the reporter notes that oddsmakers currently think actor/wrestler Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has a better chance of being president than she does! 5:40pm- While appearing on an NBA podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) complained about his tough childhood—eating nothing by white bread and Kraft macaroni and cheese. But his father was a wealthy attorney for Getty Oil! Is this proof Newsom will say literally anything? 5:50pm- Chicago Mayor Brandon J ...

The Lawyer Arguing New SCOTUS Gun-Carry Case Explains His Strategy

america strategy guns hawaii court supreme court lawyers lopez beck scotus arguing second amendment wolford stephen gutowski

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2025 47:33

The Supreme Court has taken a record number of Second Amendment cases this term. Sure, that number is only two. But that's still a major development for a Court that's taken fewer than ten Second Amendment cases in its entire history. One of those chosen few cases is now Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii requiring licensed gun carriers to get explicit permission before entering publicly accessible private property--including stores or restaurants. Alan Beck is the gun-rights lawyer behind that suit. He'll be arguing it at the Supreme Court. And he's the guest on this week's show. Beck explains how Hawaii's law swaps the default presumption from one where gun carriers are generally allowed to carry into one where they aren't. He claimed the change has made it nearly impossible to legally carry in public. He then outlined his plan for convincing the justices that the law is out of line with the historical tradition of gun regulation in America, as the Court's current Second Amendment test requires. Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Supreme Court Takes on the ‘Vampire Rule': San Diego Attorney Leads Landmark 2A Case

Gun Sports Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2025 101:21

The U.S. Supreme Court just agreed to hear the Wolford v. Hawaii case — and at the center of it is San Diego attorney Alan Beck. This pivotal lawsuit challenges Hawaii's so-called “Vampire Rule,” a law requiring businesses to post “guns allowed” signs before concealed carriers can enter — effectively banning carry in nearly all private establishments. Also in this episode Gun Truth of the Week: A new study shows most defensive gun uses never involve pulling the trigger — just the presence of a firearm stops the threat. Prop 50 Alert: California's latest ballot power-grab would scrap the state's independent redistricting commission and stack Congress with more Democrats. Why gun owners need to mobilize and vote NO. Violence from the Left: A Virginia Attorney General candidate caught sending violent, hateful texts — and the media silence around it. Deployment: Celebrate 10 years of SDCGO, volunteer at tabletops, join shooting socials, and see the future of firearms at the birthday party featuring Tyler Chesus' 3D-printed rifle prototype. Stump My Nephew: Sam nails another piece of gun trivia — identifying the revolver that came before the Colt Peacemaker. Bonehead of the Week: Congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar steps in it again — accusing Israel of “war crimes” on the anniversary of the Oct 7 Hamas attack. CCW Corner: Learn how to get your California CCW permit and why quality instruction matters more than ever. #GunOwnersRadio #2A #SupremeCourt #VampireRule #AlanBeck #SecondAmendment #GunRights #SCOTUS #Hawaii #ConstitutionalCarry #SanDiego #GunLaw #WolfordCase

israel san diego hawaii congress 3d leads supreme court violence vampires democrats attorney prop hamas landmark 2a bonehead wolford ammar campa najjar

Behind the Scenes with America's Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Star Claire Wolford

Blonde Highlights with Kris and Kyle

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2025 45:59

In this episode of the Blonde Highlights podcast, host Kris Yeo & Kyle Hennessy welcome Claire Wolford, a former Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader and host of the Sweet as Honey podcast. They discuss Claire's journey through the audition process, the sisterhood formed among cheerleaders, and her experiences dancing with icons like Dolly Parton. Claire shares insights on the impact of reality TV on team dynamics, navigating conflicts, and the challenges of body image in the cheerleading world. She reflects on her transition after retiring from cheerleading, the importance of understanding in long-distance relationships, and the personal growth she experienced through her time on the team. Claire also offers advice for aspiring cheerleaders and shares fun behind-the-scenes facts about cheerleading life. Finally, she discusses her plans for the Sweet as Honey podcast and the importance of empowering women.Follow Claire on IG @clairewolford @sweetashoneypodcast & TikTok @clairewolford_ @sweetashoneypodcast Youtube ⁨@thesweetashoneypodcast⁩ TakeawaysClaire made the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders on her first audition.The cheerleading experience fosters a strong sisterhood among members.Dancing with Dolly Parton was a highlight of Claire's career.Reality TV has changed the dynamics of cheerleading teams.Conflict resolution is essential in a team of 36 women.Body image issues are common among cheerleaders.Retiring from cheerleading was a challenging transition for Claire.Long-distance relationships require understanding and patience.Personal growth is a significant outcome of cheerleading.Aspiring cheerleaders should be confident in their unique strengths.

america tv tiktok body personal behind the scenes dancing dallas cowboys reality tv dolly parton retiring cheerleaders aspiring sweetheart wolford

Alan Beck, Vampire (Rule) Hunter