Gun Lawyer

Evan Nappen, Esq
  • 4.9 (180)
  • Politics
  • Updated Weekly

Storytelling, insight, and compelling perspective on Gun Law, Gun Rights, Gun Culture, and Gun Politics in America. Join America’s Gun Lawyer, Renown 2nd Amendment Attorney and Best Selling Author, Evan Nappen, as he pulls back the curtain and takes you behind the scenes for a rare, private inside look at the American Justice and Political System and the trials, tribulations, perils and pitfalls of the changing Gun and Knife Rights in America today. Evan’s passion, quick wit, candid opinions, and engaging personality have made this one of the most popular Gun and Knife Rights Legal podcasts in America.

  1. 1d ago

    Episode 310-SCOTUS… its cup runneth over

    Episode 310-SCOTUS… its cup runneth over Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 310 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, SCOTUS, gun laws, case law, firearm cases, felon possession, machine guns, sensitive places, age restrictions, licensing reciprocity, domestic violence, short barrels, free speech, due process, gun deserts SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 Yes, you are. And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, this is very exciting because I’ve been involved, basically dedicated my entire life and career to Second Amendment, and proud of it. I’ve loved and still do love fighting for our rights and helping good people. And when I see the following, it is very, very exciting because the turnaround is just amazing. SCOTUS, which is our anacronym for the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, currently has, as we speak right now, 57 firearm-related cases. Now that doesn’t mean they’re going to hear all 57 cases, but it’s very encouraging. Evan Nappen 01:29 They have 57 gun cases that are getting conferenced by the United States Supreme Court, in which they may take who knows how many, if any, but they may take that will again put the Second Amendment to the forefront and create more case law that we get to use in further challenges and seeing the death of various gun laws. Now remember, the Supreme Court has accepted already Viramontes and Grant, and that is the assault fireman. You know, and maybe magazines. It seems like they might also be considering mags, maybe, maybe not, as part of that. That remains to be seen. But it’s definitely the assault, so-called assault weapon, assault firearm ban that the Supreme Court is going to see whether it is in fact a violation of the Second Amendment or not. That’s going to most likely we’ll see that decision itself in June (2027). Evan Nappen 02:40 But what we have right now are 57 cases where the Supreme Court is conferencing them. When the Supreme Court conferences cases, it’s where the judges discuss the cases and decide whether or not to grant certiorari, in other words, whether or not to grant the hearing on their appeal to the Supreme Court. If the vote gets four of the judges to say, “Yeah, we want to consider this case”, that means there will be a formal Supreme Court appeal that takes place on that case, where briefs will be done and a Page – 2 – of 12 written Supreme Court opinion will come from it, and that will create more Supreme Court case law, which will apply to the entire United States. So this is why it’s so exciting because there’s 57 Firearm cases, and I’ve taken this, by the way, from an article from Bearing Arms, which is titled “SCOTUS Has Plate Full With Gun-Related Cases for Conference”, and it’s by Tom Knighton. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/09/28/scotus-has-plate-full-with-gun-related-cases-for-conference-n1233951?fbclid=IwY2xjawUoGBNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mA3NydGMGYXBwX2lkDzQwOTk2MjYyMzA4NTYwOQABHhaeKYFggEs5knGWTHaq7j9dad_ILCqEs6y-KXBm7XBe9xpW7PJed09DlZ6u_aem_FvBLjsHNAHM3unLAGvxz9Q) Evan Nappen 03:54 And listen to what these cases are that they may or may not take. It’s exciting. Thirty-nine of the cases are challenging the felon in possession ban, or the state equivalent of felons possessing guns. Three of the cases regarding the constitutional protection of machine guns. That’s interesting. Three going at the federal law banning possession by unlawful drug users. One of them going at the federal ban on possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States. So, they’re talking about legal, not illegal, aliens in the U.S. and their ability to possess. There’s one that goes at Washington State’s civil protection order statute, which is, I guess, similar to, you know, the domestic violence restraining order type. There’s a challenge to Maryland’s sensitive place restrictions. So, we got a sensitive place restriction case that possibly the Supreme Court will take, which could be very helpful to us in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 05:12 An age restriction case regarding 18 to 20 year olds being denied their constitutional rights. A commerce clause challenge to 922(g)(1). So, they’re claiming how the federal law on the regulation of firearms violates commerce. There’s one to a shall issue licensing regimes. I thought most of these shall issues were dead, particularly after Bruen. But we probably have some rogue state trying something. Here’s a really, really good one. Boy, I’d love for them to take this one, too. Interstate licensing reciprocity. Maybe we can get national reciprocity accomplished judicially if we can get the Supreme Court to take this case and decide that one permit is valid everywhere in the U.S. or something else along those lines, and why. Teddy Nappen 06:15 Would that also, I don’t know, if that goes even further. Where, say, for example, go to a different state and wanting to buy a gun, you don’t have to transfer it to a dealer instead. Evan Nappen 06:24 Well, that’s different. This is about licensing. Evan Nappen 06:27 Why they would explore that. Well, maybe, maybe, maybe. Depending on what they’re, how they’re viewing licensing as permitting. I think they mean by carrying. Page – 3 – of 12 Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 06:35 Like this basic example. New Jersey has their like FPIC. If another state recognizes that, would that be a way? That would I guess that would be kind of a way. Well we have a Evan Nappen 06:43 Well, we have it to a certain degree. You can buy out-of-state, just not handguns. The Fifth Circuit, I believe it was, recently said that’s unconstitutional. So, we should be able to buy guns since it’s a constitutional right anywhere in the U. S. Why are you restricted where you can only buy your handgun in your resident state? There’s no reason for that, so that’s being challenged. It was successfully challenged in the Fifth Circuit. We’re probably going to see that make its way up to SCOTUS. Then there’s another case on banning possession, the ban on possession by anyone who has a domestic violence misdemeanor. Remember, originally misdemeanors were never disqualifiers for guns. But because of the political correctness surrounding domestic violence, they get a special status of being a disqualifier. So, if you’re convicted, for example, of committing simple assault on your spouse, even at a misdemeanor level, then you’re barred from owning firearms anywhere in the United States. But if you go around beating up complete strangers all day long and get conviction after conviction for simple assault, but it’s not domestic violence, you’re not a prohibited person, okay? So that. Teddy Nappen 07:52 And also that’s the equivalent of “he threw pretzels at me”. So, that it can be just yeah. Evan Nappen 08:08 And we’ve had it just so extreme. There’s another one challenging the federal ban on short barrel shotguns. You know all the NFA stuff is making its way up to the court. One on military courts’ ability to impose firearm restrictions as part of court-martial sentencing. And then a challenge to New York’s prohibition on tasers and stun guns. Evan Nappen 08:35 As far as that goes, this is a heck of a pile. It’s really great to see the massive amount of litigation that is now taking place to try to free our Second Amendment rights from the chains that they’ve been bound by for all these years by these oppressive laws. One of the key cases here, yeah, well, one of them that I think might be really important, just so you know, is the short barrel shotgun case, which are considering whether they’re arms under the Second Amendment. That may be very important because remember we had the Big Beautiful Bill, which led to the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, but that’s just going at the jurisdiction of taxation. If we get a case that finally declares them to actually just be flat out protected under the Second Amendment, then that will kill it dead permanently. Teddy Nappen 09:36 I remember, Dad, weren’t you in that whole fight with Stryker? You were there to help fight against that at the time, if I recall. Evan Nappen 09:43 Yeah, the Striker 12. New Jersey made it an assault firearm, and the federal government then made it NFA as a destructive device. We tried to fight and challenge it, and that was when the 1994 Crime Bill, I Page – 5 – of 12 like to. The 1994 bill that was a crime had the assault weapon federal law in it. It included the strikers. So as a preemptive publicity stunt, the ATF declared that so-called Striker 12s and street sweepers-they weren’t shotguns; they are destructive devices, and you had to register them NFA. Now you could do it at no charge, but this was really an abuse. And yet, to this day, the Stryker 12 still falls in this category of DD. Not even short barrel rifle or any of that, a short barrel shotgun, but actually destructive device. So, it may, though, ultimately prove to be the undoing of even the destructive device federal statute. Evan Nappen 10:55 Really, all the Stryker 12 is and a street sweeper is a 12-gauge shotgun that feeds from a drum, and yet even though the drum-fed Stryker 12 street sweeper, which is a fixed magazine, it’s a fixed revolving drum. You don’t remove it. You have to very much similar to a single action army Colt, like the old cowboy revolver. You got to pop out each shell and reload a new shell into that drum, right? Yet you can get a semi-automatic shotgun that is magazine-fed that uses drums that hold more rounds than even the Stryker 12, and it’s a detachable magazine, and they’re just shot

  2. Sep 27

    Episode 309-Legalizing Self Defense in NJ

    Episode 309-Legalizing Self Defense in NJ Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 309 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Lawsuit, Self-defense, Second Amendment, New Jersey, Weapon ban, Case law, Bruen case, Legal litigation, Arms ban, Knife rights, Stun guns, Slingshots, Media censorship, Expungement SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I have some very exciting news. There is an extremely important lawsuit that has just recently been brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and with Knife Rights, joining in to sue New Jersey. (https://www.anjrpc.org/page/LawsuitToOverturnNJsSelfDefenseBan) Of course, when you do that, you name the Attorney General (Jennifer) Davenport, and also we have the Superintendent of State Police (Jeanne) Hengemuhle. I don’t know. I’m probably butchering that name up pretty good, but anyway, it’s the Superintendent of State Police. Evan Nappen 01:16 In this case, this Association case, what is being challenged, and it is something that has been begging to be challenged, is New Jersey’s ban on self-defense. It is a part of, specifically, and I’ll explain why, New Jersey’s ban on everything other than guns. Their garbage can clause of weapons prohibition. The insanity of New Jersey’s weapons ban has, in its foundation, really, what I know you, as our great listeners, will find shocking as to the case law as it currently stands in New Jersey, that we are looking to absolutely put into the garbage can of history, and that’s where it belongs. Evan Nappen 02:25 Let me go through with you the actual complaint. You know, lots of times when you hear about lawsuits and litigation and these things, you usually hear about it in general terms. You hear about, you know, kind of a summary of what it is. We’re going to get a little more into the weeds here, and I think you’re going to find it interesting and why. I’ll expand your horizons to understanding how incredibly significant this litigation is, and how the stars have actually lined up for us, so we’re of course moving under. When I say we, I mean our side. I did help with this litigation. I’m not counsel of record, of course. That’s my good friend and colleague Dan Schmutter. He does the federal litigation for our state Association, and it’s a fantastic job here that has really laid it out well. Page – 2 – of 10 Evan Nappen 03:43 So, we’re coming from, of course, the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment, as noted in the Bruen case specifically, of the trifecta, the Bruen case, that the Second Amendment’s plain text presumptively guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self-defense. e all know that in our hearts, and we know this as case law. We know that that is what the Second Amendment does, and Bruen established that self-defense outside the home is a protected right. So, in the New York State Rifle versus Pistol Association, I mean New York State Rifle and Pistol versus Bruen, the court also there found that courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding. Evan Nappen 04:55 What does this all mean, and how does this apply to New Jersey? Well, it’s very simple. Let’s accept the initial premise, the Second Amendment is not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms, and arms are a lot more than guns. Arms are essentially any tool of self-defense, and we have the right for that. And what New Jersey is now going to have to defend is the insanity of where New Jersey wants to keep us defenseless. Absolutely wants to keep us defenseless, and the case law proves it. So, the key case that we’re going to talk about in just a little bit of the existing case law is a case of State v. Kelly. Evan Nappen 05:58 But before we get to Kelly, let me talk about the specific statute, the specific laws, so you get an understanding of what New Jersey does. New Jersey defines “weapon” as anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. Then it says the term includes, but is not limited to, and they do a laundry list of weapons, and of the weapons that they list, a lot of them are pretty good ideas. But anyway, it’s all part of it. So, you find that definition under N.J.S. 2C:39-1(r). So, in other words, under New Jersey’s definition of “weapon”, anything can be prohibited as a weapon. Aa baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, a box cutter, bear spray, a stick, anything, and if you use it as a weapon, even your shoe, then it’s a weapon. Evan Nappen 07:10 A good example: if you happen to have a baseball bat in your car, but you’re not on the way to a baseball game, you can be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned for weapon possession. Here’s how it works. Because New Jersey’s prohibition-remember, weapon is just what we talked about in definition-but the prohibition, which you find under N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), prohibits the possession of any weapon. In other words, any object can be used as a weapon. And here’s right from the statute quote: Under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have, and here’s the kicker: you might think to yourself, “Okay, as long as you have a manifest appropriate use, right, a lawful use, then you should be okay.” Well, here’s a shocker, folks. In State v. Kelly, the court found that preemptively arming yourself for self-defense, to have a weapon for self-defense, is not a lawful use. Let that sink in. You can be prosecuted because you had the nerve to arm yourself with a weapon for self-defense, which is our constitutionally protected right to be able to do. And where do you hear the facts? Page – 3 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 09:01 Go ahead, Teddy. In the complaint, demonstrating that the biggest. I love how they pepper, and you can when you’re reading it, you see they always hammer this point back. Versus State v. Kelly, the single mother. Evan Nappen 09:15 Well, yeah, I want. Let’s talk. I want to talk about the facts of Kelly. Here’s the facts of Kelly. 1990, Kelly case. A single mother of a young child was convicted of possessing a box cutter after successfully fending off her violent boyfriend, who was in the process of beating her to death. Did you hear that? As far as the charges for her use of the box cutter to save her life and defend herself, child, etc. that was all fine. But she’s convicted of possessing the knife under 39:5(d) because the court makes this decision that essentially finds, back in 1990, and it still, you know, that law is still on the books as case law. It’s been modified slightly, and we’ll get to that in a moment. That having a weapon for self-defense doesn’t fit that “manifest lawful purpose”. It’s crazy. Then from there, a subsequent case, after the decision in Heller and McDonald applying the Second Amendment to back to the state of New Jersey, the courts decided another case called Montalvo. In Montalvo, in that case, a person comes to the door with a machete. Somebody’s banging on the door. He doesn’t know who it is, and it’s law enforcement. Well, he didn’t know that, and he wasn’t threatening them. But when he came to the door with the machete, he’s like, “oh, it’s officers, not a problem. He’s not. Well, there’s like, “Hey, you just preemptively armed yourself with a weapon for self-defense. They charge him in the same manner that Kelly had been charged, but the court here distinguished because they realized they had to under Heller, where you were allowed to have in your home weapons for self-defense. The court there said, well, if you preemptively arm yourself in your home, that’s okay, but not outside your home. So, the current law right now is you can’t preemptively arm yourself with any of these other weapons outside your home. Evan Nappen 11:53 Now, when it comes to a gun, that’s different. If you have a handgun and that’s a carry permit, and that’s where you’re allowed to, but only a handgun with a carry permit, right? Short of that, with the minor exception of less than three quarters of an ounce of pepper spray, you cannot preemptively arm yourself with any of these things. And if you have something like that, and it’s a weapon, you’re subject to prosecution for a felony level offense, and New Jersey is now going to be put to the mat on this law. The full definition under 39- 1(r) of non-firearm weapon means anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, and of course, it includes firearms. But with firearm licensing, you have the exception. Evan Nappen 12:55 Then, gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, other dangerous knives, whatever the hell that means, billies, which are similar to nightsticks and trudgens, and they’re impact weapons, right? Blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sand clubs, slingshots. Oh, slingshots! Cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades embedded in wood. Like I said, has a lot of good ideas here, but all these weapons, cesti leather wrap, that was famous. You know, the Roman gladiators would wrap their hands in leather wrap, etc. Well, that’s just a list of what it includes, but isn’t limited to. And by the way, in the list of weapon is stun guns and other devices which project, release, Page – 4 – of 10 or emit tear gas. So, the exemption for tear gas or other, you know, pepper spray and all that is less than three quarters of an ounce. Evan Nappen 14:07 Well, this

  3. Sep 20

    Episode 308-One Gun A Month… On The Chopping Block

    Episode 308-One Gun A Month… On The Chopping Block Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 308 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Law, Handgun Ban, Second Amendment, Summary Judgment, New Jersey, Constitutional Rights, Firearms Regulation, Licensing, Civil Rights, Derivative Disarmament, Public Safety, Legal Advice, Gun Ownership, Criminal Law, Court Case SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen  00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen  00:22 Yes, you are, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. We have a lot of interesting things to discuss at this time. You’re going to want to know. Very important. New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month law is on the chopping block. I believe, on its deathbed. We have a fascinating situation that has developed here, and that is regarding the challenges. There are multiple challenges to New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month ban. Now, this is also from a great article in AmmoLand, one of our favorite two-way news sources, and this is article by Duncan Johnson, which you can read. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/new-jersey-one-handgun-a-month-ban-challenge/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f650d620f6-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-f650d620f6-21268623) Evan Nappen  01:15 It says, “New Jersey’s One-Handgun-a-Month Ban Faces Summary-Judgment Challenge”. And what we’re talking about here is this. There were, I guess, at least two cases challenging the one-handgun-a-month New Jersey ban, where you can’t buy more than one handgun in 30 days. Now, I’ve always tried to look at New Jersey’s one gun a month law as a requirement that you buy at least one handgun a month, but that, of course, is not the intent of the law. And you have FPC, which is Foreign Policy Coalition, NRA, GOA, you know, Gun Owners America, and other gun rights plaintiffs. They’re in federal court, and they’re looking to have New Jersey’s one handgun a month restriction shot down, so that you can buy as many handguns as you wish without being restricted in a time frame. Evan Nappen  02:16 New Jersey has had this one handgun a month law since 2009. You can find it under N.J.S. 2C:58-3.(i), and what it states there is that only one handgun may be purchased or delivered on each permit, and no more than one handgun shall be purchased within a 30-day period. So, this statute restricts the number of handguns. There’s no restriction, by the way, on long arms. This has been just another outrage of the salami tactics used by the gun rights oppressionists, and we have these two cases that are challenging it. Now, what makes this really fascinating is the power of Bruen and the trifecta that we’ve seen of the empowerment of the Second Amendment. The test of constitutionality has now led to us being the good guys, able to file what is known as a Summary Judgment brief, meaning that there’s no need for a trial, and the court can simply rule on the issue as a matter of law, which does very much expedite the process. The reason that that is now being able to be done, and it’s what is being attempted here in knocking out this infringement on our Second Amendment rights, is as follows. Now, New Jersey, the Second Amendment, the text of the Second Amendment, which now applies to states, you know, began with Heller, then you had McDonald that incorporated it to the states. So, New Jersey regained Second Amendment protection, which did not exist prior to the 1960s, when the court actually found, believe it or not, the New Jersey court at the time that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to New Jersey. Well, too bad it does. Big shock. Evan Nappen  04:28 And now that it does. The Second Amendment and the way you test laws today on that, the question first becomes: Does the Second Amendment cover the proposed conduct that the State is attempting to regulate? In this case, does the Second Amendment apply to the purchase of handguns and possession of handguns, and it plainly does. There’s no question it does. And once that happens, once that’s acknowledged and it’s readily apparent, the burden then shifts. This is critical. The burden of proof then shifts to New Jersey in this case, or to the Government to establish that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulations, what we call text, tradition, history, etc. You have to show a historical analog, in other words, an old gun law from when the Second Amendment was enacted, or maybe at best from the 1860s, that had a law that said you can’t buy more than one gun within a month, or some analogous law to that. Evan Nappen  06:12 And what makes this really great is that New Jersey, the State of, retained two historians, Brennan Rivera and Robert Spitzer, and both of their experts acknowledge the central historical problem that laws like New Jersey’s handgun rationing mandate did not exist in the early days of our country’s history. It didn’t exist. And because they cannot meet this burden, it is a matter for summary judgment that the law is unconstitutional. Because if the State can’t meet the burden, then the law falls as unconstitutional. That is the power of the Bruen constitutionality test. Most interesting, there’s a recent precedent in Bonita, the Bonita case, out of the Ninth Circuit in California, which struck down California’s one firearm per 30-day law, so there’s even precedent where the same problem. And in California, they tried to argue so-called historical analog, including gunpowder regulation. They tried everything: licensing schemes, taxes, dealer records, Native American trade restrictions. I mean, they always fall back to the, you know, racist arguments. The Left always tries to claim they’re the champions for race, and yet they happily rely on racist gun laws of the past, which don’t cut it anymore. And none of them could establish a historical cousin for the law. Evan Nappen  08:10 Therefore, you know, New Jersey now is extremely well positioned, especially considering that we’re dealing with the Third Circuit that recently put forward the fantastic decision in which the semi-automatic ban and the magazine ban were found unconstitutional in the full court en banc decision finding the unconstitutionality of those laws, so the stars have aligned quite nicely here. I am optimistic here that we will finally see the death of New Jersey’s one gun a month as the continuous pounding of the power of the newly, relatively speaking, newly empowered Second Amendment does its job, destroying infringement after infringement. Teddy Nappen  09:18 When they were bringing in that law, the one gun a month. What was the Left’s key argument at the time? What was the thing they always try to push in that? Evan Nappen  09:28 Well, one of the absurdities they tried to push is that individuals would put in for a whole bunch of New Jersey pistol purchase permits. I mean, we’re talking individual paper, right? You know what it takes to buy a handgun in New Jersey. You have to put a full application process. Then the permit registers the gun, and the form of register is to the purchaser who acquired. Then it goes to the local authorities. It’s on file with the dealer, and it goes to the State Police, and it’s entered into a state police database. Okay, that someone’s going to go and get all these permits, buy a whole bunch of handguns so they can sell them on the streets. This is the absurdity. No one does that. Nobody done that, which is itself an offense anyway. That was the best they could do. Best they could do. There is no, there is no even reasonable reason for this, other than to try to create various burdens on those that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s what the oppressors do. This is what they do. So the law is ridiculous. Evan Nappen  10:56 Now there is ability, supposedly, if you want to acquire a collection or something else. You could then file a separate application for permission to acquire more than one gun within 30 days. But it is absolutely nowhere to be found in our historical text history and tradition. The burden is on New Jersey, and their own experts acknowledge that it doesn’t exist. It makes it ripe for summary judgment, and with a summary judgment giving us hopefully a victory on eliminating this. So that yeah, at the moment, you still need to get permits for any handgun you want to get, but you won’t be limited to one in 30 days. Teddy Nappen  11:44 It’s kind of it’s very if you kind of think of the logic behind it, where they’re trying to okay, what is this actually accomplishing in their eyes? Because they’re saying, oh, they’re gonna someone’s gonna sell industry. Okay, that’s already a crime. You’re not curtailing the person’s still buying the gun. They still have to go through the paperwork. Still getting rid. Still meeting all the criteria. So, in what scenario is this curtailing crime? Evan Nappen  12:10 Teddy, you can’t. The problem with your question is that the premise is that you’re somehow giving the benefit of the doubt, for no reason, by the way, to those that want to oppress our rights, as having any real reason based in public safety or any kind of actual logical argument for doing this. The reason they’re doing it is to oppress us. Period. End of story. There is no other logical, rational, statistical nothing that backs their claims. Nothing. It’s just well, the legal term is b******t. That’s all they have, and this is going to go. It’s got to go. There’s no rational reason, even in terms of the old constitutional question of, you know, is there a rational basis? And because that was so broad in the old days, you know, if you said, we

  4. Sep 13

    Episode 307- How Many Guns are in the US?

    Episode 307- How Many Guns are in the US? Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 307 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun ownership, firearm data, Second Amendment, gun rights, common use, New Jersey, legal standing, NSSF, voter turnout, political elections, gun training, self-defense, intersectionality, police interaction, legal advice SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, here’s a number I want you to keep in mind. The number is 461 – 461 Million guns are in private hands in the U.S. That’s roughly 100 million more guns than people in the U.S. Now, where is this number coming from? Is this just speculation? Is it just good guessing? Is it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This number is one of the strongest, most data-based numbers that I’ve seen. Now, this is from an article in AmmoLand by one of my favorite writers, Dean Weingarten. The article is titled “461 Million Guns? Survey’s Firearm Numbers Nearly Matches 125 Years of Federal Data.” (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/461-million-guns-survey-federal-data/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=5d24fd0d04-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-5d24fd0d04-21268623) Evan Nappen 01:41 That’s how strong this figure is. And why is this important to know? It’s important to know the number of guns to illustrate the absolute absurdity and futility of the gun rights oppressors’ dream of banning, confiscating, and removing all guns from the United States. You know ultimately that’s their wet dream, right? o get rid of every gun, you know. Ultimately. In the meanwhile, they come up with every possible way of trying to diminish and extinguish our rights. And what makes this survey and this data combo so fascinating as to its force, strength, and validity is that the survey, William English did a survey of gun owners. It was done in mid 2026, and these ratios of the survey methods,, and numbers of firearm findings. This is mirroring the federal data. So, the survey paper, which was released in August 2026, was is and is considered the best designed and executed survey to date. The 2026 survey has been designed to overcome minor defects in the original survey that was done in 2021. The questions were sharpened and clarified, and ownership has been limited to the individual questioned. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:38 The survey’s respondents were represented in 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the participants were not volunteers for this particular survey. So, the first national representative survey of 51,398 individuals over 18 were chosen, and the screening questions that they used identified over 18,000 individuals as potential gun owners. Then almost 17,000, a little under, of the individuals were validated as gun owners, and in the middle of the survey, a question was used to validate the responses. Only people who read the entire question could answer it correctly, and 98.2% of the respondents passed the internal checks. This roughly 17,000, a little lower, respondents were found to average 5.2 firearms per owner. About 87,000 firearms. And this is a very large sample. The smallest sample was in Vermont with 28 respondents. California had 1,549, and Texas had 1,686. Evan Nappen 05:18 So, based on this, it’s calculated that there were 461 million firearms in the United States. his is very interesting in and of itself. Then they took these survey results and they compared them to the numbers of ATF. ATF. They were placed into a spreadsheet. By the way, that’s provided online by The Trace. (https://datahub.thetrace.org/dataset/firearm-production/) This is by our, you know, key group of Second Amendment oppressors. Using the numbers in the data from the ATF, The Trace found that 513 million in the end of 2024, including 231 million and change handguns, 171 million and change of rifles, and 110 million and change of shotguns. The numbers show that the agreement in both databases is astounding. The ratios are nearly identical, as shown in the graphic. The largest difference is shotguns, in which the difference is only 0.1 percent. That’s how close these two different databases are. And as the article points out, skeptics may say in a large sample of 87,000 firearms selected at random, you’d expect resulting ratios to be extremely close. That is exactly what you would expect of a very large sample selected by random. That is the point. It is validation of the sample methodology, and it’s validation of the accuracy of the reporting by respondents. So, folks, the number to use when discussing, arguing, debating, and slamming those that want to oppress our rights is that you’re talking about 461 million privately held firearms in the United States. Teddy Nappen 08:04 There’s another factor to this that I think was highlighted in the Cheeseman case. The thing that won the day about ending the assault weapon ban and ending various basically the strong arm of the Left’s gun control is common use. 400 million guns all across the nation. I want to make sure. I want that number going up because that’s how we win the argument. Where common use, if they ever try to make any claim on anything from the argument with suppressors, right now we have that up in the air. Over 6 million, yeah. This needs to continue. Evan Nappen 08:42 The numbers are there, and common use, and just even the impossibility of the anti-Second Amendment dream is so clear. We are a country that has essentially 100 million more guns, give or take, more than we have people. So, we are strong in gun ownership, and the Second Amendment is strong. It is something that is absolutely a fixture in our culture, and these folks that want to take away our rights and remove this are in a dreamland. Yet, they’ll still try, and they try various methods. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 09:37 As a matter of fact, New Jersey’s latest one of their gambits is, of course, abusing consumer protection and trying to sue the firearm industry out of existence. We just had a really great case out of the Third Circuit, which is allowing the gun industry to challenge New Jersey’s reasonable controls laws”. (thereload.com/third-circuit-allows-gun-industry-challenge-to-new-jerseys-reasonable-controls-law/) So, New Jersey put this forward to lay a foundation to attempt to litigate and sue out of existence gun makers and guns they don’t like and all that. Originally the federal court did not allow NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, to assert a legal standing to challenge this law, And the federal court said, “Oh no, no! Yes, they do have standing, and the challenge can continue. And that’s really great news. Because while the state tries to enforce their, you know, lawsuit to kill firearms in state courts, which of course lean toward always toward favoring the state and their anti-second amendment oppression agenda, the federal court takes a much fairer view, as we’ve seen. It now allows the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) law, the federal law, which was designed to stop this tort lawfare taking place, to go at the our Second Amendment rights through abusing, you know, the civil system. It allows the PLCAA arguments to be asserted by NSSF and the other plaintiffs in federal court and to have their day. So, this is great news. It is very important because it is going at, for example, New Jersey’s attempt going at Sig and going at Glock and others. The district court has essentially reopened the case. They’ve accepted the complaint, and they now found that NSSF has standing to bring the suit. So, this is good stuff. We’re seeing tremendous wins and victories stacking up in the federal courts. You know, not the least of which was the fantastic so-called assault firearm and large capacity magazine ban being found unconstitutional. Teddy Nappen 12:46 Would there be a way to? I’d be curious. What would be the best method in kind of strengthening PLCAA to stop the amount of litigation? Because they continue to try to carve their way out. Some narrow loophole around PLCAA. Evan Nappen 13:05 Exactly what NSSF is doing by bringing these federal suits is establishing the case law precedent, which is at the moment the best plan. But if we, as Americans now, if we decide that we would rather get $5,000 from having Republicans win the midterms, that not only do we stand to gain a lot of gun money out of that victory, you know, I’m sure we could use five grand to buy some really fine weapons. It will also further strengthen our ability in a Trump administration to improve and add to laws that protect Second Amendment rights, and in getting rid of laws that harm our rights, and continue with the various funding and removal of other NFA taxes. Let’s say that will make other things still out there on NFA good to go, and there’s just tremendous change that I see just in two years of President Trump’s administration and Republican control. It is critical that everyone you know get out and vote. Tell them get out and vote, and get our liberties secured further. Our Second Amendment freedoms, and maybe even pocket an extra 5K of our own money anyway, which I’d rather see go to American citizens than to illegals or funding USAID or all the other Left-wing mega NGOs and all this stuff, where the money circulates back so that the Democrats can continue to use it politically. No, you know what? Instead, let’s just see the money go to us, back to us, and see our freedom increase. How’s that? Page – 4 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 15:27 My only issue with the aspect is you can never beat the Left in terms of just

  5. Sep 6

    Episode 306- Big Brother’s Eye on Guns

    Episode 306- Big Brother’s Eye on Guns Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 306 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, Second Amendment, Ninth Circuit, California law, Surveillance, FFL, Self defense, Firearm storage, Heller decision, New Jersey, Guillotine, Weapon definition, Propaganda, CDC data, Gun training SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Teddy, welcome back, you new father, you. And I’m the new grandfather. Teddy Nappen 00:29 Yes, I know, and don’t worry, all is good. Just sleep is for the weak. Evan Nappen 00:34 Ah, right, exactly, exactly. Oh my! And how is beautiful, Aliyana, doing? That cute little peanut that she is. Teddy Nappen 00:45 Aliyana is doing quite well. She is. Evan Nappen 00:47 And your lovely wife? How is she? Teddy Nappen 00:50 She’s doing also well. It’s definitely one of those moments when you see your wife holding your newborn child. Definitely that kind of spark. Oh yeah, very special, Evan Nappen 01:01 Oh yeah, very special, special. Teddy Nappen 01:02 Yeah, but they’re both doing quite well, and I’m eternally blessed for that. Page – 2 – of 15 Evan Nappen 01:08 That’s right. And we got the baby to the range. She did great on her first shooting experience there. Teddy Nappen 01:15 I know we took out. Evan Nappen 01:17 She got her CCARE. She’s good. She took out a Charter Arms .22. The trick was the range officer allowed us to just put up balloons to make it easier. It worked. Evan Nappen 01:19 She took out a Charter Arms .22. The trick was the range officer allowed us to just put up balloons to make it easier, and it worked. Evan Nappen 01:28 It was good. It was good. We start them young in the Nappen family. You know, you have to give one day of birth, and then you’re at the range. Teddy Nappen 01:40 There’s two things. Evan Nappen 01:41 Training begins. Teddy Nappen 01:42 The two things Aliyana will grow up with having. Number one, I want to teach her to be a critical thinker, and number two, all I can show her for self-defense. Everything I can for her to be a critical thinker. Evan Nappen 01:56 That’s right. And you do that for all kids. It’s a way of not being a victim, not being a victim. Critical thinking and knowing how to defend yourself – two very important things. Well, I’ve got to tell you, the Ninth Circuit in California had a very interesting decision. The reason I want to discuss it is, I believe this decision may give us hints as to what may be coming in New Jersey and other places. As we see the power of the newly, relatively speaking, empowered Second Amendment crushing gun laws that are literally over a century old, the anti-Second Amendment crowd, the Second Amendment oppressors, are, of course, looking for avenues to oppress our rights, and they have to work within this new framework. This decision out of the Ninth Circuit, I find of great concern because of its potential to possibly be utilized as a mechanism and tactic for the anti-Second Amendment Left. And what happened in the Ninth Circuit is an Appellate Decision, after the trial court in the Ninth, and what it did was leave in place California’s 24/7 gun store surveillance law. Page – 3 – of 15 Evan Nappen 03:31 Now you may say, okay, well that’s just gun stores. Yes, but it’s very easy to expand this, and I’m going to show you why this should be of great concern. So, let’s take a look at what happened in the Ninth Circuit with California law, and then I’m going to discuss where I think the gun rights oppressors may see an opening for shenanigans. We’ve got to be prepared and recognize that this could be a potential area of penetration where they will probably strike and try to oppress us. So, California, requires licensed dealers to video record and audio record. By the way, interior video and audio, and retain all the recordings for at least one year. Now I’m getting this, by the way, from a great article in AmmoLand by one of our favorite authors, John Crump, and it’s called “Ninth Circuit Leaves California’s 24/7 Gun Store Surveillance Law in place”. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-leaves-californias-24-7-gun-store-surveillance-law-in-place/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=fb0c8bc3fc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-fb0c8bc3fc-21268623) Evan Nappen 05:02 The article discusses how a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s controversial gun store monitoring law by a two-to-one margin. Now, the case is Richards v. Newsom. No shock that the defendant is Governor Newsom. And what happened in this case was brick and mortar FFLs, two home-based FFLs, gun rights groups, including GOA, GOC, CRPA, and SAF, and individual patrons of the shop, were all plaintiffs in this action. They challenged California’s law, which was enacted in 2024, that requires every California FFL to operate a 24/7 digital video system that also records audio inside the premises. Cameras must cover entries and exits, display areas, points of sale, and clearly identify people, and run at least 15 frames per second. They have to store footage for one year. In addition, dealers must post a conspicuous warning that says, in all bold, THESE PREMISES ARE UNDER VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE. YOUR IMAGE AND CONVERSATIONS MAY BE RECORDED.” Evan Nappen 06:49 At the District Court level, the level below the Appellate level, the law was found constitutional, and the plaintiffs then appealed to the Appeal Court in the ninth, which came out with this decision. It was a three-judge panel, and it was Judge (Lucy H.) Koh, Judge (Ana) de Alba, which were both appointed by Biden, and a Trump appointee, Judge Kenneth Lee. In this case, one of the claims they made was that this violates the Fourth Amendment. That’s the constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure, and the panel rejected the claim, saying that the dealers’ recordings are not themselves a Government search. There is no physical intrusion by the State, citing another case of Jones, and no government acquisition of data, citing two other cases of Carpenter and Chatrie. Dealers are not transformed into state actors by merely being required to keep cameras. Wow, let that sink in. And, of course, the two Biden judges rejected Judge Lee’s inspection theory on three grounds. And that is that the law doesn’t authorize inspections, though there are other penal code provisions that do, and that even if it did, the statute is facially valid under New York versus Burger because it limits who may inspect and what may be inspected. Page – 4 – of 15 Evan Nappen 08:45 The plaintiffs also claim that the law violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause. The Court said no good to that one as well. The majority, again, the two Biden appointees, said it’s not a physical taking. Dealers own and install the equipment, and the Government doesn’t occupy the premises. hey claimed it’s not a regulatory taking. That dealers in this heavily-regulated industry have reduced investment-backed expectations, and the alleged compliance costs, by the way, of $17,000, without a before and after value comparison, do not suffice. And the character of the action is a “public-safety regulation, not a physical invasion”. he Court also rejected the First Amendment claims, where the judge held that overbreadth fails because the statute doesn’t punish or regulate speech. The anonymity claim failed because one, no one must identify themselves, even though cameras must be positioned to identify customers easily. And the Association claim fails because membership is not compulsory, and it shot it all down. hen the majority also declined to adopt the dissent, you know, the good guys’ dissent of the right to receive and exchange information. They rejected that theory, claiming the plaintiffs didn’t raise it, and cited other cases that involved actual prohibitions. So, this is incredible. The one dissenting Judge Lee would have also held that inspection scheme violates the Fourth Amendment as applied to FFLs. There’s no time or place limits. So, agents could theoretically enter home at any hour to check the system, and they left the audio and visual surveillance requirement in place. Evan Nappen 11:08 Now this is California, granted, and this is, of course, on dealers. However, what are the requirements, constitutionally speaking, when it comes to firearm storage, and we’ll argue regulation? You see, we have heard rumors and things have been printed that one of the things that New Jersey is going to pass, particularly in response to the finding of unconstitutionality of both the assault firearm ban and the magazine ban is something having to do with storage. Well, I’m thinking that it probably isn’t simply going to be focused on storage, but may in fact try to utilize a visual and audio surveillance requirement as well, and place that upon anybody that possesses so-called assault firearms magazines, maybe even all guns. Who knows how far they’ll take it? Evan Nappen 12:20 If we take a step back and we look at the Heller decision, in (District of Columbia v.) Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, of course, that requiring lawfully-owned firearms in a home to be kept unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Heller Court found that this storage requirement was unconstitutional because it rendered firearms inoperable and prevented individuals from using them for immediate self-defense in the home. Scalia, when he wrote the majority o

  6. Aug 30

    Episode 305-BACK TO BASICS

    Episode 305-BACK TO BASICS Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 9 Gun Lawyer — Episode 305 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, New Jersey, Machine guns, Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Assault firearms, Legal exemptions, Carry permits, Firearm ID, Second Amendment, Defensive use, CDC data, Gun rights, Application errors SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my cohort in crime, Teddy, will not be joining us on the show today because Teddy is a brand new daddy. That’s right, he’s a father of a beautiful baby girl, which of course makes me a grandfather. Oh my God, I can’t even believe I’m saying that. She is just cute as a button, and I’m not just saying that because it’s my granddaughter. She really is. Her name is Alianna, and we are all so excited and happy about this. I can’t even begin to tell you. But Teddy has got his hands full with his beautiful wife and his beautiful new daughter, so I will be flying solo today with you. Evan Nappen 01:17 at I want to talk about is something important for gun owners in New Jersey to know, and even outside New Jersey. And that is the basics of how New Jersey bans all guns, and then creates a legal system that essentially allows and permits possession by exemption. I think this is why the entire foundation of New Jersey gun laws can eventually be completely wiped out because it takes what is a constitutional right and just reverses how that right is supposed to work. But nonetheless, the law is something you need to understand in New Jersey. And for those who don’t live in New Jersey, you want to understand this so you don’t ever see this happen in your jurisdiction. Evan Nappen 02:18 he place to begin is under New Jersey law, under N.J.S. 2C:39-5 (Unlawful possession of weapons.). Now, the 39-5. gun laws in New Jersey are where you see basically every firearm banned. Then the exemptions get created in two ways that essentially permit limited possession. It’s really insane when you think that a constitutional right is treated in this way, but yet it is. So, let’s take a look, beginning with 39-5., 2C:39-5. Now, subsection a. is a ban on machine guns, and what it says there is that any person who knowingly has in his possession any machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so pursuant to (2C:)58-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. So, the only way to possess a machine gun in New Jersey is if you have a 58-5. machine gun license, and the machine gun license historically has been an impossibility to obtain. Page – 2 – of 9 Evan Nappen 03:51 But interestingly, I think we’re going to see some serious challenges because the way New Jersey structured this law, the machine gun license required you first to get a carry permit. At the time, virtually no one could get a (New Jersey permit to) carry. Now, over 100,000 Jerseyans and non-residents do have carry permits, and the standard that you’re left with the machine gun license is quite bizarre of having to show somehow it’s in the public interest for you to have it. And that’s absolutely contrary to Bruen, but for now, the number one thing to keep in mind is the machine gun prohibition does not have any other exemptions within New Jersey law. Only this license is the exemption. And when I say no other exemption, I’m talking about for an otherwise law-abiding citizen to possess. There are exemptions for certain military, police, etc. There’s exemptions even for dealers, but we’re not focused on that. We’re focused on other normal, law-abiding, average citizens. So, forget about it for machine guns. Evan Nappen 05:02 But let’s move now to the b. section of 39-5. Now that’s one that applies to a hell of a lot of folks in New Jersey. The b. section of 39-5 is handguns. Listen to how New Jersey bans handguns. New Jersey’s law says: Handguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without having first obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in (2C:)58-4., is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Let that sink in, folks. The only way you can lawfully possess a handgun, possess. We’re not even talking about carry. The only way to lawfully possess that handgun on the face of the statute that prohibits the possession of a handgun is if you have a (New Jersey) permit to carry a handgun. Evan Nappen 06:06 Now I know there are a lot of folks out there that don’t have permits to carry that simply acquired a handgun with a permit to purchase a handgun. So, how can this be? How can you lawfully possess that handgun if you don’t have a carry permit when the statute requires you to have a carry permit? And if you don’t have a carry permit, you’re guilty of unlawful possession of a handgun right on the face of the statute, which is an extraordinarily serious offense. Unlawful possession of a handgun in New Jersey is a second-degree crime. New Jersey doesn’t use the term felony. They use the term crime, but it’s the equivalent of a felony. You can think of it in that way. It carries up to 10 years in State Prison, and it has a minimum mandatory three and a half years under what is called the Graves Act. Where if you’re convicted of unlawful possession of a handgun after a trial, a judge has absolutely zero discretion and must impose at least three and a half years as a minimum component of your sentence with no ability to be paroled. You do every day of that three and a half years before you’re even eligible for parole. Evan Nappen 07:31 So, since you have to have a carry to possess it, what about everyone who doesn’t? Well, the answer to that lies in the exemptions, and we’ll get to the exemptions in a moment because we’re going to talk about exemptions. But right now, we’re just talking about the statute itself that mandates a (New Jersey) carry permit in order to legally possess a handgun. Under subsection c., is rifles and shotguns, and there it says: any person who knowingly has in his possession any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a firearm purchaser ID card in accordance with (2C:)58-3, is guilty of a crime of the third degree. So, that makes it a third degree crime, up to five years in State Prison, if you have a shotgun or Page – 3 – of 9 rifle without a firearm ID card. The law goes further to say, unless otherwise permitted by law, any person who knowingly has in his possession any loaded rifle or shotgun is guilty of a crime in third degree. So, what about those that possess rifles or shotguns without a firearms ID card? Well, on the face of this statute, you’re looking at up to five years in State Prison. However, we’re going to discuss the exemptions, and the exemptions are critical in understanding how these possessory laws actually work. Even though the exemptions are technically a defense that you, as a law-abiding citizen, can be put to the proofs where you have to prove the defense. Evan Nappen 09:03 Then there’s subsection d. of 39-5. Subsection d. is “other weapons”, and that says: any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. So, that’s up to a year and a half in State Prison for any “other weapon”, anything that may be construed as a weapon, if it’s possessed under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. Look at that vague, ridiculous language there. So, anything that can be construed to be a weapon, and then the circumstances not manifestly appropriate become subject for a jury trial. So that 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty get to decide whether those circumstances were manifestly appropriate or not. Isn’t that cute? And you need to further know that New Jersey case law, through Kelly and Montalvo, they found that the so-called circumstance is not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. In Kelly, the court specifically found that self-defense was not a manifestly appropriate lawful use. Imagine that! You cannot preemptively arm yourself with a weapon under Kelly. Self-defense doesn’t cut it. But then Kelly got modified with Montalvo. If it’s in your home, if it’s in your home and you have it for self-defense, then the court actually finally came to its senses, at least on that, and said, yeah, self-defense possession in your home is manifestly appropriate circumstances, but not outside the home. So, we still need a case that says outside the home, where you’re lawfully allowed to use self-defense, where you have a right to self-defense. That even outside the home, it’s a manifestly appropriate use for any other weapon. We’ll talk more about that one in the future. Okay, but there you go. Those are the prohibitions. Evan Nappen 11:32 Then, of course, we have the infamous subsection f., and that’s where assault firearms are banned. It says: any person who knowingly has in his possession an assault firearm is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Again, that draconian Graves Act, up to 10 years, minimum mandatory three and a half. Except if the assault firearm is licensed pursuant to (2C:)58-5. And by the way, that’s the same license as a machine gun license, which virtually no one could ever get. Or rendered inoperable, and that render inoperable period went from May of ’90 to May of ’91. And you had to do a rendered inoperable form. If you didn’t do it then, you’re out of the box. You couldn’t do it. Or if it was registered. Again, that registration period expired back in ’90. It may have ’90 to ’91 as w

  7. Aug 16

    Episode 303-NFA “No F’ing Approval”

    Episode 303-NFA “No F’ing Approval” Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 303 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS NFA, Silencers, Lawsuit, Injunction, Taxation, Firearms, Suppressors, AOWs, New Jersey, Gun rights, Second Amendment, Luger, Confiscation, Safety, Litigation SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we are right on the breaking news as we record this show, and that is the spectacular win on the National Firearms Act. It is the outcome of the Big Beautiful Bill removing the taxes on silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and AOWs that translated into the Big Beautiful Lawsuit. There were actually two lawsuits, which essentially put forward that if there is no tax, there can be no law, because the NFA is based on tax law as the jurisdictional basis for the federal government. If there’s no tax, then you can’t have a tax law, and hence the silliness, which is really just kind of funny, is the tax stamp says zero. So, how you get a tax stamp that says zero when there’s no tax? Leave it to the Government to create a tax stamp of zero. But now that’s changed. Evan Nappen 01:37 This is the most exciting change in, what is it? Ninety-six (96) years, to a challenge to the NFA. And it has very exciting ramifications. I’ll talk about how those specifically relate to New Jersey in a moment, but there’s lots of questions and lots of speculation and issues surrounding what this decision means. So, what happened was we had two lawsuits that were brought. One is the Silencer Shop Foundation versus ATF. There were other plaintiffs as well. The parties in the SSF lawsuit included B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the state of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals. Evan Nappen 02:56 Then there is Jensen versus ATF. In Jensen, the parties were the Texas State Rifle Association, which is NRA’s Texas affiliate, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals. The court in these cases applied an injunction to the parties, quote, where applicable, the parties, agencies, political subdivisions, members, and Page – 2 – of 12 customers, both current and future. This means that the protections of the injunction generally flow downstream in that chain of commerce. And by the way, I am gleaning this information from the NRA-ILA in their article, “What Does the Texas NFA Decision Mean for You?”(https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260812/what-does-the-texas-nfa-decision-mean-for-you) They’ve done a good job of essentially the preliminary breakdown here. NRA partnered with the TSRA to provide joint membership for those that are interested. Evan Nappen 04:02 So, what got enjoined? What statutes themselves got enjoined? Well, it was the NFA’s registration and approval requirements. Those were what were enjoined, and they were enjoined as to silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns for covered parties. The injunction also includes AOWs, Any Other Weapons for the SSF parties only. o, as far as AOWs are concerned, only parties, people that are parties to the SSF, which is going to mean members essentially of GOA and such, and the companies that joined in it, and possibly as well, including those states. Certain marking requirements are enjoined with respect to the Jensen case, while the effect of this portion of the injunction is going to take clarification from the Government. So, we’re going to have to wait and see on that. Evan Nappen 05:11 The further impact is that, which is perhaps more important than the statutes that are covered, are those that are not covered. So, under Title 18, it makes it unlawful for licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, licensed collector to sell or deliver to any person any short barrel shotgun, short barrel rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General, consistent with public safety and necessity. Now, in the past, that compliance was considered authorized or was considered authorization when there was an NFA compliance done itself. o, without further action by the Government, compliance with the former NFA procedures will likely still be required before transferring a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. Then it goes on to explain that the analogous requirement for transportation of short-barreled rifles, short-barrel shotguns, was also not enjoined. So, authorization for interstate travel is still required. That’s where you have to get permission from ATF before you move with any of those firearms. Evan Nappen 06:31 However, ATF has proposed streamlining this process by currently pending regulations. Those are the regulations that we’ve discussed in the past that are looking to change by changing it in the CFR, which is the Code of Federal Regulations. The injunction also does not apply to existing SOTs, which is the Special Occupational Tax for dealers in NFA firearms. Now, it’s technically possible for non-SOT dealers to receive firearms from a distributor or manufacturer on an ATF Form Four. ATF will need to clarify if an SOT is required for dealers who engage in the business of dealing in these firearms. So there are still to be considered state laws, and that’s going to be an individual basis of each state’s laws about how they individually view these NFA items. And we’re going to talk about New Jersey specifically in a moment. Evan Nappen 07:33 NRA says moving forward, the Jensen case is one of three supported by NRA in their litigation partners with American Suppressor Association, the FPC, which is Foreign Policy Coalition, and Second Page – 3 – of 12 Amendment Foundation. Those cases, by the way, are Brown versus ATF and Roberts versus ATF. Judge Clark in Missouri heard motion for summary judgment in Brown, and they remain committed to expanding the injunction secured in Jensen. In those other cases, as NRA says, taking action under an injunction is not without risk. An injunction can be dissolved or stayed with very little notice. Please check regularly back for updates. While much remains uncertain with the injunction, the monumental nature of this cannot be overstated. This is the biggest win against the unconstitutional NFA in its 92 sorry math was off 92 year history, and it serves as a great example that the fight for our rights is never over. So, if we want to see some practical applications as to what’s going on when it comes to suppressors, it’s really fascinating. Evan Nappen 08:54 Now, of course, suppressors, silencers, are banned in New Jersey by state law. We are currently looking at challenges to New Jersey’s state suppressor ban, constitutional challenges to that. But for now, unfortunately, New Jersey citizens cannot take advantage of the changes if they are residents of New Jersey because of the state law prohibition that New Jersey still maintains. However, if you live in a free state, if you live in a state that is covered by this injunction, specifically through Silencer Shop, you can look at Silencer Shop’s website, (silencershop.com), which is very good, and it lays out the states that are good to go. Evan Nappen 08:55 If you live in a good to go state that is now covered by this injunction, for example, if you live in New Hampshire or if you live in Alabama, there’s the whole list of states that respect and understand this. If you live in any of those states, you can now order your suppressor and pick it up from the dealer locally, and when you go to the dealer to pick it up, there’s no form four. There’s no federal registration that needs approval anymore. There is no fingerprinting. There’s no notice given to local police of your acquisition. All that’s gone. All that gets done is a 4473. You know the same form you fill out for the federal government to buy a gun, and a NICS check gets done, an instant check. So, what it means is you’ll be able to go to your dealer, do the 4473, just like you’re buying a gun, and the NICS check gets done, the instant check. You get your approval, ad you walk out the door with your suppressor that easily. That is great, and it’s paving the way to finally get a full legal change to suppressors to make that, of course, eventually the nationwide standard. But for now, there is a boom, an explosion of silencer purchases. This will make it even easier, more convenient, more private, less of a hassle than ever before. This is extremely exciting. Teddy Nappen 11:17 There’s something very important to this fact. Going back to the, and I’m kind of extrapolating it to the assault firearm cases. One of the biggest things that is winning, that helped us fight, win that fight was the idea of common use. Where the AR-15 and all forms of their “assault firearms” were so popular that it was so much common use that it fell under the grounds of the Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 11:45 Right. This is going to explode even more common use, even though there’s millions of suppressors already, but it will absolutely aid to that. Now, interestingly, in New Jersey, sawed-off shotguns are a problem. Same with rifles; they’re a problem. However, Any Other Weapon, there are Any Other Page – 4 – of 12 Weapons, what we call AOWs, that are technically New Jersey legal, and this will change the game in New Jersey on AOWs. But we still need

  8. Aug 9

    Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning

    Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 302 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey assault firearm law, Third Circuit Court, Supreme Court, stay granted, unconstitutional laws, Second Amendment, sensitive places, National Firearm Act, suppressors, Jordan Salinas, good guy with a gun, training, legal advice, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen,. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, the wins keep coming. These are great times. You know, we have suffered from the oppressors on our gun rights for decades upon decades, and now we are seeing the collapse of all their machinations over the years. It is great and getting greater. And so, just within this short period of time, we’ve had the spectacular win in New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the full en banc panel, all the judges, of course, finding that New Jersey’s 36-year-old assault firearm law and magazine law is unconstitutional. It’s a fantastic decision, as we’ve discussed, written by a Biden-appointee judge who happened to be the first woman of color appointed to the Appellate bench. That is fantastic and has multi-dimensional impact, of course, having that great decision. Evan Nappen 01:52 Now, with that having been said, yes, a stay has been granted in terms of the implementation of the finding of unconstitutionality. So, that stay is granted essentially because traditionally these kind of stays do get granted, especially when the Supreme Court itself of the United States has taken this issue and has granted certiorari over the assault weapon, what New Jersey calls assault firearm law under Viramontes and Grant. They’ll be deciding that. Essentially we’ll have a decision by next June on that issue affecting the nation. Now, New Jersey has got their stay because they’re requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari over New Jersey’s case, and the stay has been granted pending the final resolution, essentially, of these issues, or at least in good part, these issues by the United States Supreme Court. So, in the meantime, Teddy Nappen 03:12 I don’t know if you caught what the AG Davenport wrote in their press release, Dad. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:20 Well, they can continue to irreparably harm law-abiding, honest gun owners over these unconstitutional laws until that finally happens. But what exactly did Davenport say as they try to turn an utter defeat into some sort of short-term victory? Teddy Nappen 03:45 We are thrilled that the Third Circuit this morning stayed its ruling on our assault weapon / large capacity magazine case while our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds. That ensures this 36-year law will remain in place. (https://www.njoag.gov/statement-from-attorney-general-jennifer-davenport-on-third-circuits-grant-of-a-stay-in-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazines-case/) 36 years of going after people, putting them in jail, taking away their rights, providing ruining their lives. Evan Nappen 04:07 Hey, wait, Teddy, are you reading from their news release? Teddy Nappen 04:11 Oh, you know, I read their news release and then added the little context that they forgot. Evan Nappen 04:16 Did they actually use the word “assault weapon”? Teddy Nappen 04:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 04:20 Or did they say “assault firearm”? What did they say? Teddy Nappen 04:21 Assault weapon. Evan Nappen 04:22 Davenport called it “assault weapon” law? Teddy Nappen 04:26 Yes, assault weapons. Evan Nappen 04:27 Okay, just so you know, this is the top law enforcement attorney for New Jersey who is calling their law something it is not. We do not have an “assault weapon” law. We have an “assault firearm” law. Now, granted, it’s a similar issue, and you know it’s the same idea of going after New Jersey’s version of semi-automatics. But you would think if you’re a lawyer, and you’re a lawyer for the State that has this case that you might want to refer to it as the actual name that your State utilizes, because that term “assault firearm” is the term embedded in New Jersey’s law. It is a defined term under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. Page – 3 – of 12 They are called “assault firearms” in New Jersey by law, by law. But you know, why would she bother actually using the correct legal term when discussing laws? That would be amazing, wouldn’t it? Teddy Nappen 05:46 Well, Dad, I mean, just the abuse alone, just to give you the one-to-one. You’ve had many times where people have been charged with having a “assault firearm”, and it’s not. But they love to abuse it and just use whatever term they want. I mean that goes right back to Josh Sugarmann, and his whole idea of making that term “assault firearm” to confuse the public so they could pass their laws. I mean. Evan Nappen 06:10 Yep, it’s exactly that. Well, Sugarmann wrote the manifesto “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. That’s what laid the groundwork for this issue. It finally has one foot in the grave, is bedridden, on its deathbed, and the Supreme Court will hopefully administer the coup de gras in June 2027. I believe the odds heavily, heavily favor us, virtually to the point of I would be shocked if we lose. I just don’t see that happening, and the antis know it as well. Those oppressors get it that they’re going to lose on this issue. Teddy Nappen 06:54 It’s Viramontes and Grant. Evan Nappen 06:58 Yeah. Those are the two cases that Supreme Court has granted certiorari on. Just so you know, one is a local law out of Cook County, Illinois, that bans assault weapons, and has incorporated into the definition, magazines into their definition of assault weapon. So, the Supreme Court might actually address the magazine issue because it’s actually part of Viramontes’ law itself. e may see that. The Grant case deals with Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, state law, and when they challenged in Connecticut, they didn’t challenge the magazine portion. They only challenged the so-called assault weapon portion. New Jersey’s case, in the Cheeseman v. Platkin case, that court addressed both assault firearms, aka assault weapons, and magazines. And now, with New Jersey requesting certiorari, meaning requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, it also opens up the magazine issue. So, the Supreme Court that can do anything it wants might choose to address the magazine issue in the Viramontes and Grant decision. They might even, arguably, they could even take up New Jersey’s case and make it part of that. They might, and what most likely they’re going to just have it in a holding pattern. Evan Nappen 08:47 And we have the Duncan case that deals with magazines as well out of California, the Duncan v. Bonta case (25-198(. So, what it means is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with magazines by next June, but just the guns, then they may very well take New Jersey’s case and Duncan with the split in the circuits there, and then deal with magazines. Like I said, they might do it all together. They might not. But New Jersey proceeding with this actually weirdly in the long run may present and give us a great opportunity because it presents magazines as a complete win by the court from our circuit. So, this may be one of those situations where you know the word to New Jersey is be careful what you wish for. This Page – 4 – of 12 is very interesting to follow. But I believe that all these laws are going to go to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time. Evan Nappen 09:59 But as I have advised listeners, even when this decision came out, not to do anything because of the ability to get a stay. To wait and see. Well, that’s proven correct. I’s been proven out to be the wise thing to do, and have our listeners not end up being GOFUs by obtaining the firearms and magazines that are not yet technically lawful. So, for these continuing months, New Jersey is still free to enforce the magazine and assault firearm laws. Of course, if you have such a case or such a charge, your attorney, if they’re anywhere competent, will raise these very important issues and hopefully get your matter, your criminal matter, stayed pending the outcome and preserve the constitutional issues on your behalf in fighting it. So, be careful. Don’t end up with a GOFU where you’re facing these charges and your current counsel isn’t doing anything about it. I’ve had a number of those cases coming to me from other attorneys, where the client is like, my attorney never raised the constitutionality on these issues. Well, that is a huge mistake because you need to raise these issues, preserve these issues, because ultimately your odds of success are so great here, and it is essentially, arguably, malpractice to not, especially now, raise the constitutional issues if someone is facing in New Jersey or in the Circuit that has decided that these laws are unconstitutional. So, it’s very important that you be aware of that. Teddy Nappen 12:05 Would it be better if the Supreme Court does the other two cases and then take this one up as a mag separately, or is it better to do it all in one go? Evan Nappen 12:13 The best for everyone would be complete victory as soon as possible. However, if they’re not going to do that, if they’re just going to address guns now and then we have these cases to address mags, fine. We’ll fight the fight, and there you go. But the important thing, honestly, is that they’re taking the cases. Remember, for years they did not take these cases, and instead, lucki

See All (300)

4.9
out of 5
180 Ratings

About

Storytelling, insight, and compelling perspective on Gun Law, Gun Rights, Gun Culture, and Gun Politics in America. Join America’s Gun Lawyer, Renown 2nd Amendment Attorney and Best Selling Author, Evan Nappen, as he pulls back the curtain and takes you behind the scenes for a rare, private inside look at the American Justice and Political System and the trials, tribulations, perils and pitfalls of the changing Gun and Knife Rights in America today. Evan’s passion, quick wit, candid opinions, and engaging personality have made this one of the most popular Gun and Knife Rights Legal podcasts in America.

Information

  • Creator
    Evan Nappen, Esq
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    300
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Copyright MMXX CounterThink Media and SunZu Media All Rights Reserved
  • Show Website
    Gun Lawyer

You Might Also Like