Podcasts about Wolford

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}}

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.

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.

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.

How far can a state go to regulate the right to bear arms? Can a state override a person's property rights? Can Hawaii proactively prohibit lawful gun owners from carrying on private property without owners prior consent? That is the question in the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez.

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

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/environmental-studies

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/anthropology

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/geography

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/public-policy

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.

recent podcast episode, Michael Wolford, author of AI Recruiter 2.0, discussed how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the recruiting industry by automating administrative tasks and empowering recruiters to focus on what they do best: building relationships and adding real value. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" is finally argued at the Supreme Court.  Also, MA's sudden "listening tour" for hunting regs, discussion on carrying during a protest, and looking back at the 1873 Springfield Trapdoor Rifle

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.

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

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  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";

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.

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.

# 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

# 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

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

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...