Gun Lawyer

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

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. 2d ago

    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

  2. Aug 2

    Episode 301- Freedom Always Finds a Way

    Episode 301-Freedom Always Finds a Way Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 301 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS loopholes, firearm law, NFA trust, switchblade knives, forced reset triggers, machine guns, assault firearm ban, Third Circuit Court, SCOTUS, New Jersey, Second Amendment, gun rights, expungement, surveillance technology, AI. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:19 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. One of the things that I’ve observed through my 40-plus years in the area of firearm law is how important loopholes are to our freedom. You see, loopholes are simply freedom finding a way. Loopholes have proven over and over again to be the penetrator to breaking freedom out of its imprisonment by the oppressive governments like the state of New Jersey that constantly work at oppressing our Second Amendment rights. We’ve seen loopholes have this effect in different areas, and I think we’re going to now see even more interesting approaches as we win on the various case law challenges. It opens the door for further challenges and things that get covered or not covered by way of various loopholes, end up getting the freedoms that we desire. Evan Nappen 01:49 So, let me give you some examples that have previously occurred, just to show you not necessarily New Jersey itself, but how loopholes can get freedom. For example, at one point under the National Firearms Act, there was a requirement that Chief Law Enforcement (CLE) officers had to approve applications. And if the chief law enforcement officer did not sign off on it, you could not then possess whatever you were going for under the National Firearms Act, whether it was a suppressor or machine gun or shortbow rifle. Whatever it was, the forms needed this CLE sign off, and for any reason they could deny it. There was no way to even appeal it, and you were stuck. It got realized that if you formed what was called an NFA Trust, there was no sign-off on trusts. There was no CLE sign-off on trusts. And that became the preferred method of acquiring NFA. Because not only was there no Chief Law Enforcement officer sign off, but also, you maintained privacy even further from doing it by way of a trust. So, 10,000 trusts were later filed with the federal government, and they finally put forward Rule 41P that got rid of the requirement for having a Chief Law Enforcement officer sign off at all. Whereas prior to that, they wouldn’t get rid of it, but the loophole paved the way. So, when it comes to NFA, they’re simply given notice, but there’s no requirement that they approve it. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 04:07 And you see again, for example, prohibitions nationally throughout various states that existed on switchblades. Switchblade knives being a knife in which the blade comes out automatically because of a button or other device in the handle of the knife. The assisted opener was invented, where there’s no button in the handle but merely pushing the blade, and the blade still opens automatically. But with no button or other device in the handle of the knife. So, you could, in fact, open the knife automatically, just not without that button. It got around the federal switchblade laws and State laws. Even now you can have an assisted opener in New Jersey, even though there’s technically a prohibition on switchblades. And what we saw was many states, after these knives have become so prolific out there and commonly owned, that the switchblade laws have been repealed in the overwhelming majority of states. Now, New Jersey has not yet repealed their switchblade law, but it is on death’s door, frankly, as well. We have Second Amendment challenges, and nationally, there’s so many actual automatic knives now out there, due to the understanding of the loopholes to the Federal Switchblade Act as to how they could still be produced, how they could still be sold. Not in states that have specific bans, but they’re prolific. And that challenge is underway as well. Again, loopholes paving the way. Evan Nappen 06:11 I think what we’re looking at now is another battleground of loopholes that are going to come in very much in our fight for legalizing, eventually, machine guns. As you know, we’re all very excited about New Jersey’s assault firearm ban going down in flames as unconstitutional, and magazines going down as well with it. With that fantastic decision out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that we’ve discussed. Of course, that now opens the door for further challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court, SCOTUS, have granted certiorari on the issue of assault firearms under the Viramontes and Grant cases. So, by next June or so, we’ll have federal case law on it. I’m extremely optimistically looking forward to that decision, and I think the stars have really lined up. Even New Jersey’s decision is going to aid the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision. And, in all likelihood, I mean, nothing’s ever certain, but it seems to be extremely in our favor. The antis are crying about it and essentially throwing the towel in for the most part, realizing that their entire gambit of banning semi-autos is going to die, and thank God it will. But of course, that now opens up including when you. Teddy Nappen 07:48 I will say. Evan Nappen 07:52 Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 07:56 Well, what I was going to say is that I think we need to take a page out of the antis and a lot of the progressive movement. We need to push further and further. Like, don’t give up the ground because now we’ve won the battle on the assault firearms. Evan Nappen 08:12 Oh, we’re not giving up. Page – 3 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 08:12 Keep pushing to that extent. Evan Nappen 08:14 Plow forward hard, and we’re going to. One of the ways that we’re going to do this, I also believe, is with incremental important fights and with loopholes on our side. Loopholes. Again it’s that freedom finding a way. One of the most interesting loopholes out there when it comes to machine guns. Now keep in mind. We have a separate fight going on from the Big Beautiful Bill that eliminated the tax on NFA items of suppressors, short barrel rifles, any other weapon, etc. Now, they did not remove the tax yet on machine guns. But in the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, we’re challenging, as we’ve discussed in other shows, the very jurisdiction of the NFA. If there’s no tax, there should be no law. If we’re successful there, then the machine gun ban can die federally by simply in a reconciliation bill removing the tax on machine guns. You don’t have to even repeal machine gun law to simply get rid of the tax. So, that’s what can happen. And that can avoid the filibuster in and of itself because that can just be done in a reconciliation bill because that’s directly on taxation. Evan Nappen 09:33 But in a separate attack that we have, in a separate way of going at this, is the idea of the incrementalism that loopholes create. One of these great loopholes that exists when it comes to machine guns is what is called Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs), and these have really come a long way. Now. FRTs, as they’re known, make it so that the trigger is reset with force, so that you can very quickly fire again your shot, in which a shot is still required to be pressed for each pull of the trigger, but the forcing of the reset makes it so that you can fire extremely fast. So fast that, for all intents and purposes, it duplicates the speed of fully-automatic fire. But speed of fire is not the federal law. It is based upon having to pull the trigger for each shot. Evan Nappen 10:54 And in the Fifth Circuit, FRTs, in the case out of the Fifth Circuit were found not to be machine guns. They do not make semi-automatic firearms machine guns. So, under federal law, you see that FRTs are very popular now in many, many states. They have evolved to where, for example, FRTs on AR-15 platforms are now created in what are called three-position safety FRTs. The three-position safety, for those of you familiar with how an AR-15 works, the safety on ARs will rotate to three positions. You have the “fire”, then you have “safe”, and then you have what’s called the “happy switch”, where on the complete roll around, it will go full auto. Well, they now have FRTs that, in the third position, will put the AR in a forced reset trigger position. You can then fire at that very rapid rate of fire. Essentially making it indistinguishable from fully automatic fire in effect, but mechanically, the trigger is in fact being pulled technically for each shot. These FRTs have developed to where they’re extremely reliable. It’s quite an amazing innovation, so that you can have an AR-15 that essentially functions like a fully automatic AR-15, but it’s not fully automatic. It utilizes the three position that an M16 would in fact use or an M4 that’s fully auto type AR would use. But it doesn’t technically fire fully automatic because each shot is being pulled for every shot being fired. Even though it’s done by way of this forced reset. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 13:26 So, the interesting question is: are forced reset triggers legal in New Jersey? Let’s explore that question right now. When you look at New Jersey’s ban on machine guns, New Jersey prohibits machine guns under N.J.S. 2C:39-5, specifically under subsection a., which says: Any person who knowingly has in his possession a machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so as provided under 58-5, which is the machine gun license, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Now that 58-5 license actually is license to carry a

  3. Jul 26

    Episode 300- Do Not Engage in “Maritime Salvage” Just Yet.

    Episode 300- Do Not Engage in “Maritime Salvage” Just Yet.  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 300 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun ban, Third Circuit Court, Second Amendment, Judge Friedman, assault firearms, large capacity magazines, Supreme Court decision, July 31 date, mandate, stay of implementation, common use, federal gun laws, interstate commerce, carry permit, socialism. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And this is Gun Lawyer. I need to give everyone a warning. Do NOT engage in maritime salvage from boating accidents until given the all clear. Teddy Nappen 00:39 You might find a few bodies in Jersey. Evan Nappen 00:41 Well, the reason for this is, of course, we’re all extremely excited about the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision killing and pronouncing dead the New Jersey 36-year-old ban on so-called “assault firearms” and so-called “large capacity magazines”. (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242415p.pdf) I mean, we’ve known it’s a violation of the Second Amendment ever since the day it passed, but finally getting to this day is wonderful. Just a great day for freedom and liberty and shoving it up New Jersey’s butt. It is great. It is great. Evan Nappen 01:26 However, in practical terms, a lot of the key questions that are out there. Are we good to go? Can we buy these guns? Can we buy these mags? What’s the story? What’s the deal? I’m going to explain to you where we’re at with that, and that’s the important thing that I know a lot of you want to know. At the moment, we’ve got to just let the dust settle here because there’s certain formalities and deadlines and procedures that can happen. Yes, we have the win. We have the win. It’s a fantastic win. It’s a decision which was 10 – 5. It was brilliant. We absolutely crushed it. Page – 2 – of 11 Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:07 The decision was written by Judge Freeman, who, by the way, the judge who wrote this magnificent decision was a Biden appointee, and the first female judge of color. That’s right, a woman of color. The first on the Appellate Court and a Biden appointee – who is giving us this fantastic Second Amendment decision, which is restoring freedom and helping to stop oppression of our Second Amendment rights. So, you know, this is important because it’s how it should be. Those that believe in rights, whatever you might think of the bat might be their politics. It’s everybody’s Second Amendment. It’s everybody’s right. And if you’re going to follow the Constitution and you’re going to be a judge that follows the Constitution and does not goes for politics, then this is the right thing to do. So, I take my hat off to Judge Freeman. It is a great decision. Extraordinarily thorough. Evan Nappen 03:27 I understand her background was that in being a public defender as well, and I’m sure that she saw what these laws do to good people and how unfair and unbelievably stupid they are. We now see the results of all the incredible hard work that’s been done over years that got us to this point. So, we’re all just jumping for joy, and it’s really making clear that the so-called assault weapon, assault firearm bans, even across the country, are on their deathbed or are being killed and dying. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court having taken the Viramonti and Grant cases now. We’re going to get a federal Supreme Court decision that’ll come out in June 2027. This New Jersey Appeals Court decision is, of course, going to I’m sure come into play in their decision making there, and it is a great day for us for sure. Evan Nappen 04:37 However, how does it work now that we have that decision? How will it work in practical terms? This is where some patience is necessary. Some important patience is called for. And that’s because you may have heard, and if not, I’m going to mention to you, that there was an email that was sent out to dealers from the State Police Firearms Unit. It went out and it said that that essentially July 31st, July 30-first, they’re going to the this will become effective, meaning the court case effective. It was kind of weirdly written with this date, and it seemed to indicate that July 30-first, everything was going to be free flowing, and we were going to be good to go. But it wasn’t really. It basically put everyone thinking. Okay, July 31 is some kind of key date, and that’s when we’re going to know. Why would they even pick that? Like, what is going on? So let me explain that date and what’s really happening. As a matter of fact, our good friend, John Petrolino, at Bearing Arms, recently had an article that says “NJ AG Backtracks on Date of Gun and Magazine Ban’s Demise”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/07/23/nj-ag-backtracks-on-date-gun-magazine-ban-demise-n1233262) Evan Nappen 06:10 The backtracking is as follows. This is what’s going on. That July 31 date, which Bearing Arms and Petrolino got the word from Davenport’s office. Davenport is the Attorney General that is saying. “We have until July 31, 2026 to petition the court for rehearing, and then seven days later on August 7, 2026 is when the decision is effective”. So, that’s where they’re coming from. Are they going to petition for a rehearing now? Just because they petition for a rehearing doesn’t mean that a rehearing is going to get granted, and I frankly think it’s unlikely that it’s going to get granted. Page – 4 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 Now, in addition to this mix, is what’s called the mandate. A good friend and colleague, who was the lead counsel and fought hard on this very case, Dan Schmutter, a great Second Amendment attorney, was speaking to John (Petrolino) and also explained that there’s this mandate. Essentially, what he said is, “The mandate is the actual order . . .” That’s the direction to the lower court to implement the ruling, and that mandate is basically an August 10t date. So, August 10 is going to be a critical date in understanding the practical aspects of when and if these firearms and magazines will again be bought, sold, and possessed in New Jersey. And that’s why we’re putting advice out about not doing any maritime salvage for any boating accidents on recovery until we have an understanding of where we’re at here. Evan Nappen 08:32 Now, there may even be a stay granted, a stay of the implementation of the mandate. That would mean we’d be in a holding pattern until that stay gets lifted. This might, in fact, happen, and then that will ride until we get the (U.S.) Supreme Court rendering its decision. New Jersey also might try to go for (U.S.) Supreme Court review, what we call certiorari, and that may end up bringing it into or making it part of or put on hold with the Supreme Court case pending in Viramontes and Grant. This is all out there in the mix. Evan Nappen 09:15 So, the number one takeaway from all this is – Don’t do anything yet. We have all the reason to be extremely happy, to be joyous, to realize that all our hard work is paying off. But at the moment, don’t take any steps yet, so that you don’t end up in a giant GOFU. And doing something now is the GOFU. That’s this week’s GOFU. This week’s GOFU, even though we normally do it at the end of the show, let me just tell you right now, the GOFU is that. Do NOT do anything different right now. Don’t buy or order magazines. Don’t possess any of the firearms that may fall under the current ban. You may be seeing things online where people are claiming that they’re buying and selling and doing. I wouldn’t be doing that right now. Even though I’m confident in our victory, it still isn’t a done deal. The old “wait till the fat lady sings” deal. Well, it applies here. There’s still the risk. And during that time period, right now, before we have the definitive legal standing, so we can say you have the green light. We’re all good. You’re taking a risk that you don’t want to take. So that is the point. Teddy Nappen 10:48 One of the things in reading the case, Dad, just kind of going through, they outline the full breakdown of using Bruen of how they essentially destroy it with the test, the two-part test. The Second Amendment plain text covers the individual’s conduct, and then clicks to the next one. And also says it must demonstrate the regulations consist of nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They show the combination of this with Wolford as well. Wolford goes into the three subsidiaries where applies, what is people, all members of political community, and then goes into arms. Arms is the game because that was the whole crux was the issue of common use. That was the entire thing that the Left have been trying, the dangerous and unusual. It was clearly outlined in the opinion talking about the idea of common use, both with the AR-15s and assault firearms, but with mags as well. They even highlight that where the I almost read like Scalia, where he used to you know. If you ever read his opinions, he always joked and made like little snide remarks. It was very funny. But with the 24 million AR-15s, this Page – 5 – of 11 is right out of the case, 24 million AR-15s and similar sporting rifles, the classification that can be determined are in common use, lawful purposes, typically common standard. With a 20 to 30-round mag, up to 100 million 30-round mags in the United States, magazines are in circulation. That sets the degree of common use. Evan Nappen 12:38 Let me tell you why that’s so important. Because once common use, you have that, and it actua

  4. Jul 19

    Episode 299-AG Attacks Gun Shows

    Episode 299-AG Attacks Gun Shows Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 13 Gun Lawyer — Episode 299 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, Second Amendment, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Ghost Guns, Pennsylvania gun show, Civil Complaint, New Jersey gun laws, Second Amendment Section, DOJ, Gun Control, Red Flag Laws, Gun Owner Faux Pas. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, I think you have a very interesting news bit to tell us about, and I have some very interesting thoughts about it. Go right ahead. Teddy Nappen 00:36 Well, first I want to say, Dad, if you’re just scrolling through, I love the random trailers that just pop up. Apparently, they’re making a Jimmy Stewart biopic. Evan Nappen 00:48 Well, Jimmy Stewart was a great man. Teddy Nappen 00:50 But here’s the deal. They’re focusing on his military career, where he was a combat pilot. Evan Nappen 00:56 He was a hero. He was a bona fide hero, and he served his country tremendously. I have nothing but respect for Jimmy Stewart. Teddy Nappen 01:12 I was pulling it up. He flew 20 missions in Europe, and he reached the rank of Colonel. He was a World War Two pilot commander, combat pilot. Evan Nappen 01:22 And this was in the middle of his movie career. He left. Page – 2 – of 13 Evan Nappen 01:26 He left his movie career to fight for America. Let that sink in. I mean, do you think these selfish movie stars, self-centered, would even think of doing that? Even think of doing that today? Please. At least not the overwhelming majority. Maybe there’d be a few that are out there that actually would consider such a thing. But good grief. Talk about old Hollywood and new Hollywood. Jeez. Teddy Nappen 01:26 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 01:57 I will say. I would have. This is no dig against Jimmy Stewart because it’s one of those I would have wanted if they’re gonna do any of the actors that served. I would love for them to do Lee Marvin. His whole story. Evan Nappen 02:10 Oh, Lee Marvin was great, too. Teddy Nappen 02:13 Where he has the craziest career, too. He was a scout sniper, 21 amphibious assaults, horribly injured and shot up. Evan Nappen 02:23 Yeah, they could just do a series, like a mini series of actors who were the real deal. That played tough guys, but were actually the real deal. You know, Charles Bronson was. You had the guy, Christopher Lee. Holy crap, Christopher! Teddy Nappen 02:44 Oh yeah, Christopher Lee. He was Wiki page. Evan Nappen 02:51 I mean, Christopher Lee was advising on the movie and saying that’s not how a knife sounds when you jam it into somebody. You don’t have the sound right on that. That’s not how it goes. It’s not what the sound the person makes. It’s not the sound the knife makes. I mean, that’s some pretty detailed knowledge right there. Teddy Nappen 03:07 If you’re ever bored, just click on the random page on his bio, and it gets crazier and crazier. Like, witness the last guillotining. Evan Nappen 03:18 I know. The guy’s amazing. Yeah, and of course, there’s always Audie Murphy, of course. Teddy Nappen 03:25 Yeah, of course. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:26 Audie Murphy played himself in “To Hell and Back”. Audie Murphy is amazing, and he would be like one of the last guys if you looked at him to think that he’s one of the most decorated soldiers of the war. But he was also amazing, and you know, he made lots of other movies, too. Even though he’s most famous for “To Hell and Back”, but he did a lot of westerns and other things. Teddy Nappen 03:52 I remember one of the underrated ones. I think it was like “The Duel at Silver Creek”. There’s moments where he’s actually like, he plays an anti-hero type where he’s like. Evan Nappen 04:03 Yeah, a bastard, frankly. A son of a bitch. Teddy Nappen 04:05 He plays like a. Evan Nappen 04:06 Yeah he’s good. Teddy Nappen 04:07 Yeah. Evan Nappen 04:08 Not what you think of Audie Murphy. Teddy Nappen 04:09 Right. He plays like the tough guy. It is very interesting that character but. Evan Nappen 04:14 Yeah, yeah. And then he ended up dying in a plane crash because the pilot shouldn’t have been flying apparently, and you know, it’s a shame that we lost him. But yeah, he was great, and I mean he came from really, really humble beginnings. I mean dirt poor, crazy beginnings there for him. We’ve many of the great Hollywood actors who served their country really admirably. I mean even Scotty (James Montgomery Doohan), you know, from Star Trek. He was also a defender. Teddy Nappen 04:17 What was he in? Evan Nappen 05:03 Oh, he was military. I don’t remember exactly his background, but he was in some tough situations. He was known. Teddy Nappen 05:08 Page – 4 – of 13 Well, he was miracle worker. Evan Nappen 05:10 There’s so many of those guys, and I have a hard time trying to think of any modern actor that can maybe give that credibility to. I don’t know. Can’t think of any at all. Teddy Nappen 05:24 Unfortunately, I’m drawing a heavy blank because. Oh wait, no, no, no. Adam Driver. Adam Driver. I believe he’s the guy that played Kylo Ren. He did. I believe he was in the Marines. But he was a veteran. So, but anyways, one thing I will say as we were reviewing these stories, I love how the Attorney General has their own YouTube and they were just like streaming alerts and announcements. “Attorney General Davenport Files Civil Complaint Against Pennsylvania Gun Show Owner for Endangering Public Safety” (https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-files-civil-complaint-against-pennsylvania-gun-show-owner-for-endangering-public-safety/) So, that was what came up with the ad for Jimmy Stewart, and then there was this. Evan Nappen 06:08 Right. Showing a pretty good contrast. So, Davenport has filed this complaint against the Pennsylvania gun show owner for “endangering public safety”. They filed because they’re abusing the civil lawsuit. You know, this is one of the anti-Second Amendment ploys of trying to litigate the Second Amendment out of existence. And so, what they’ve done here is they’ve gone after Jordan Vinroe of JSD Supply and Eagle Shows. So, if any of you have ever gone to the great Pennsylvania gun shows, you know, they’re really good. Because first of all there aren’t any gun shows of any kind, really, in New Jersey. There’s some militaria shows, but there’s no gun shows. But Pennsylvania is, if you’re in New Jersey and you want to hit a really great normal type gun show, you go to Pennsylvania. And some of the largest, best shows are put on by this promoter. Teddy Nappen 07:24 The one that comes to mind, the Bloomsburg gun show. I think that was one we had gone to. Teddy Nappen 07:29 Yeah, Eastern Gun X. Eastern Gun X. Evan Nappen 07:29 Well, they have a whole series of shows. I believe they actually do some of the largest shows in Eastern Pennsylvania. Evan Nappen 07:30 So, they do some of these 1000 table, 2000 table, these really huge shows. And what happened is they’re going after him, claiming he is intentionally and unlawfully selling to New Jersey residents kits and parts to make ghost guns. Untraceable firearms that are illegal in New Jersey. So, what is this really? This really is a pretext to go after gun shows. This isn’t really about the ghost guns. That’s just their vehicle. This is really about trying to stop gun shows. If you go after gun show promoters, this becomes the idea of civilly litigating out of, essentially out of existence. If they can do it, they’d love to Page – 5 – of 13 do it. Gun shows. So, we really have not just a violation of the Second Amendment, where what’s going on in Pennsylvania is completely lawful in Pennsylvania. Ghost guns are the pejorative term for simply a privately-made firearm. Americans have been making their own guns since before we were even officially a country. So, private firearms are not the boogeyman. But, of course, they give it the boogeyman name of “ghost guns” and then claim they’re untraceable. Evan Nappen 09:14 Well, you know what? You tell me what firearm tracing has actually done to fight crime. Virtually nothing. It’s a lie that is perpetrated to give them a vehicle to make it look like they’re doing something about crime, which isn’t it, but more so to continue the agenda of oppression of Second Amendment rights. And here it is an attack on gun shows. That’s really what’s going on here. It’s not, you know, ghost guns, most gun. It ghost guns. Come on. First of all, anyone can build a gun with or without parts that you buy at a show anywhere. You can build a gun with pipes that you buy at Home Depot. Are we going to go after Home Depot because you can make slam bang shotguns easily, as we taught in the Philippines to do? Americans did that. You can. Evan Nappen 10:20 You know, “American Guerrilla in the Philippines”, a famous book, movie, etc. What do you think they made? Slam bang shotguns. You take two pieces of pipe. One pipe fits in the other. On the end cap of the larger pipe, you have a nail with the point facing down the pipe. The other one slides in it like a trombone. You put a 12 gauge shell in there, and you slam it down. And bang, off it goes. It’s called a slam bang shotgun. Sometimes called four winds shotgun. Teddy Nappen 10:55 Didn’t you? Evan Nappen 10:58 Yeah, I mean this is, and this is even in the Frankfurt Arsenal, the famous “Black Books”. They’re very easy. Evan Nappen 11:06 So, yeah, making a gun. They make guns in jails. They can make a gun. You can make them. So, this w

  5. Jul 12

    Episode 298-NJ Assaulting Our Rights… Again

    Episode 298-NJ Assaulting Our Rights… Again Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 298 SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun laws, assault firearm ban, Supreme Court, Vera Montes, Grant cases, Assembly Bill 442, semi-automatic rifles, detachable magazine, draconian penalties, property rights, gun rights, sensitive places, reparations, We Shoot USA, gun owner mistakes. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 This is Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is at it again. What, Teddy? Go ahead. What we gonna say, buddy? Teddy Nappen 00:31 Well, I was gonna say, you wouldn’t believe the stuff that they’re trying to cycle through on social media. They’re trying to now push the whole, “you’re afraid we’re going to take your guns away, and we’re afraid you’re going to take our children away. Which one is unfounded? Like it’s. Evan Nappen 00:53 Yeah! Which one’s unfounded, yeah. Well, being that the anties never give up, those that want to crush our rights and oppress us. New Jersey, of course, always has to lead the way on doing that. And so now, as we discussed last show, we’re all very excited at the Viramontes and Grant cases that are combined and have been granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. This means they’re finally going to get a decision out of the Supreme Court determining the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapon” ban. But what is New Jersey’s response when these things happen? They’re like the Iranians. When New Jersey makes their gun oppression policy, they act like the Iranians. They double down on threats. They double down on trying to convince us that they are just going to make life miserable for us, and they do it various ways. Evan Nappen 02:13 Their current response is essentially an assault firearm law radical enhancement. That’s right. So, here we realize that the entire concept of banning semi-automatic firearms is, my money is solidly on that is going up in flames. As we talked about before, this is finally, I believe, on the road to destruction. This whole political fight that has harmed so many good people. Ruined law-abiding citizens’ lives. Taken Page – 2 – of 11 their destroyed families’ fortunes, and taken away freedom and rights. This nightmare, I believe, is going to end. But it’s actually even more excitement over when that end might take place, that we’ll talk about in a little bit. In between, leave it to New Jersey to propose even more, even worse, even more draconian laws, particularly on the dreaded, intrinsically evil “assault firearms”. That’s right, New Jersey calls them “assault firearms”. Sometimes they’re called, in other jurisdictions, in federal law, “assault weapons”. Teddy Nappen 03:46 It’s a hoplosexual term. Evan Nappen 03:49 Yeah, you’re right. It’s a term that’s just concocted, so that they can make up lists of guns to ban and to make as far-reaching a ban to turn as many law-abiding citizens into criminals as they possibly can. So, New Jersey filed a new bill. It is Assembly Bill 442 . (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/A0500/442_I1.PDF) This is New Jersey’s incredible doubling down on their assault firearm law, and I wanted to just go through with you. This law, because whether it’ll pass or not, who knows? Even if it does pass, this stuff I believe is going down in flames and will no longer be anything they can pass laws about. Dead. Gone. Done. Evan Nappen 04:50 Sort of like what happens when you enrage a bull elephant. You know, African elephants and Indian elephants are different. African elephants are extremely ornery, mean, tough. Republicans, you know, picked the elephant as their symbol. Sometimes I think about when we get the good elephant, when we get the African version of the elephant, and they actually do what’s needed. I think we’re going to see that here through the judicial system, which now has plenty of great judges, thanks to President Trump appointing conservative judges. The bull elephants of Africa, they do not just kill you. They eliminate you! They crush you and crush you and crush you until there’s nothing left. You can’t even be picked up with a stick and a spoon. That’s how much they disintegrate when they are riled up and attacking. I suspect that we are going to see the African bull elephant happen to this entire agenda of “assault firearm bans”. Evan Nappen 06:10 But until then, let’s look at what they want to do. Because if it doesn’t go that way, if it’s somehow upheld that these things can be prohibited and banned, and our rights can be walked upon in this manner, here’s what New Jersey is doing to the current “assault firearm” definition. Let’s actually look at what they’re saying. So, of course, we have the current law that we’re all familiar with. It has a list of 67 guns, and then they say “substantially identical” and that had never been effectively defined. We had case law that said “substantially identical” means the 1994 Crime Bill definition, which was amazing, since that was four years after New Jersey passed their law. How our legislators knew that an unconstitutional law would be saved by a federal law that was passed four years later, I don’t know. Somehow the court put that forward. We’ve lived under that for now. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 But what they’re doing is they are now going to incorporate and define the specificity in the statute, the term substantially identical. By claiming that any of these above guns and platforms, you know, the 67 intrinsically evil semi-automatic firearms on that list, will now include under the term of “substantially identical” a semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine. That’s step one. Any semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features. So, currently we have a two feature requirement. This is now any one of these features, and your semi-automatic firearm that takes a detachable magazine becomes contraband. Becomes banned. Becomes unlawful for you to possess with no lawful way of possessing it. There’s no grandfathering in this bill. Evan Nappen 08:20 If you’re caught possessing it, the penalty is so draconian it defies belief. It’s up to 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory, mandatory, minimum three and a half years in State Prison, no chance of parole. If you get convicted of possession of an assault firearm, even right now in New Jersey, no less this expanded list that we’re going to look at in a minute, we are talking about the judge having no discretion whatsoever, and having to impose at least three and a half years in State Prison. And folks, if you have an assault firearm and you’re possessing one, if you get caught with it, you’re looking at that penalty right now. Hopefully we’re going to get all this won, and I honestly believe we will. But just in case it doesn’t, or if you get nailed before that happens, you’re looking at insanity in terms of a prison sentence. Evan Nappen 09:16 So how does this new definition with one feature? What are the single features that make a semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine intrinsically evil and must be banned at the second degree, felony level, where you’re looking at 10 years and a minimum mandatory three and a half in prison for just having any one of the following features? Number one, a folding or telescoping stock. Wow, you know how important a folding or telescoping stock is when it comes to fighting crime. I mean, a telescoping stock that moves one or two inches back or forth. I mean, that’s like an entire crime wave into itself, right? If you have that feature on your gun, you’re looking at the offense I just outlined. Teddy Nappen 10:09 Wasn’t there a case, Dad. Wasn’t there a case that you had where if you had a folding stock, it was deemed an assault firearm? Evan Nappen 10:17 Well, that’s exactly what it is. A folding stock or telescoping stock currently is, but wait. Teddy Nappen 10:24 Yeah. Evan Nappen 10:24 One feature, though – just one. Try another, a pistol grip. If you have any rifle semi-auto that takes a mag and it has a pistol grip, it’s contraband. It’s banned. You’re looking at draconian sentencing and Page – 4 – of 11 punishment for your possession. Even though you lawfully bought it from a dealer. Even though you had a firearms ID card and went through all the vetting, went through a NICS check. It doesn’t matter, doesn’t matter one bit. You’re going to State Prison. If it has a thumb hole stock, one feature, a thumb hole stock. That’s all it takes. It’s an assault firearm. A second hand grip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. A second hand grip. Every rifle has a forearm that’s a second hand grip. What are you grabbing it with? Your dick? No, this is outrageous. It’s stupid. It’s a hand grip. Well, if your semi-auto rifle has a hand grip, it’s an assault firearm. Evan Nappen 11:37 A bayonet mount. Oh my gosh, a bayonet mount. That’s because of all the drive-by bayonetings, of course. If you have a flash suppressor or a muzzle brake, if you’re just trying to tame recoil, it doesn’t matter. A muzzle compensator. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate. If you just have the threads on there. A flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, or a muzzle compensator. They want you having lots of recoil on your gun, lots of recoil. Can’t tame that recoil. They don’t want you to have any accuracy in your shooting or ability to shoot without

  6. Jul 5

    Episode 297-SCOTUS Win on “Assault” Firearms

    Episode 297- SCOTUS Win on Assault Firearms Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 297 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court, assault weapons, Second Amendment, gun rights, New Jersey, NRA, firearm laws, Heller decision, McDonald, Bruen, reparations, gun control, concealed carry, Thomas Jefferson, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 1 Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, I have to tell you, this is just one of the greatest moments in what I would have to say in our fight to destroy gun rights suppression. It is just a banner time right now. Absolutely, a crescendo at a moment here that I’m just so excited about. Truly, truly excited, no joke. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, meaning accepted the case, so that it means there will be an opinion, a decision, a rule made by the Court finally on so-called “assault weapons”. (https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/) Evan Nappen 01:27 Yes, we’ve done it. We have finally gotten to where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at the impact of the Second Amendment on this issue. I can tell you that I’ve personally been battling and fighting in the state of New Jersey since it was first enacted in May of 1990. Looking back to those days, I remember just thinking, man, hopefully we’ll one day get the United States Supreme Court to deal with this issue. But back then there was no Heller decision. There was no Supreme Court decision that even said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. We didn’t even have that back then. And when the anti-gun rights crowd embarked on this brand new approach, which it was at the time. Evan Nappen 02:38 To understand the history and where we are right now, why it just is so meaningful, you need to understand that the gun rights attack, the effort by our adversaries, to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, basically, in modern times, started after World War One. It was essentially imported here Page – 2 – of 15 from the U.K., from Great Britain. It had gotten its roots there, and it came across the pond like a cancer. It percolated to the point where by 1934 we ended up with the first National Firearms Act. Prior to ’34 but after World War One, you saw states passing state laws of what we commonly call gun control laws. And the gun control laws of those days first initiated through the ’20s, and we still have remnants of those laws still on the books, by the way, in New Jersey and other places. They were put forward by state legislatures and enacted, and those gun laws were mirrored and influenced and encouraged by what was taking place originally in Great Britain. Evan Nappen 04:22 These laws in America at that time period, and you may find this surprising, and it’s not meant to be bashing in any way of NRA. But they were even supported and promoted by the NRA at that time. The NRA had even put forward what were called the “model firearm laws”. They put model laws together that they wanted states to pass. The NRA saw its mission then in a naive, unfortunately, you know, very naive, as certain gun laws and such, that they would support. Now, since then, that’s not their position, and they’ve learned from this naive mistake. But it led to the 1934 Act, and we’ve suffered under that this entire time. It became the first national gun rights oppression law. Even at the time in the “American Rifleman”, you could read it, and they even praised it. They said, “Ah, and this is how they viewed it. You’ve got to understand, put yourself in the time. They said, “Ah, we’ve solved the gun problem in America.” We’ve passed this great national law, and now we’ve resolved it. We’ve solved it. We’ve addressed it. It’s done. And, of course, it was far from done. But for approximately 30 plus years, that was about it for our national laws on guns being passed. Evan Nappen 06:00 Then along comes the ’68 Gun Control Act, which built upon, to a certain degree, of course, built upon the NFA. We already had that national law and then the ’68 law. Then ’72 and then ’80s and ’90s, and etc. So that foundation got laid. And in between all this, what you mainly saw the fight as being, though, where the modern day focus, the modern day focus was handguns. I remember through the ’80s, before the invention, and that’s what it was, the invention of the “assault weapon” issue. It hadn’t been invented yet. Everything was, we only want to ban handguns. Handguns were the symbol of crime. Every news show on the major controlled networks, there weren’t any cables, you know. You just had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you had their nightly news. And anytime they talked about crime, whether there was a gun involved or not, they always showed a handgun on the news screen anytime they talked about crime. So the propaganda was put there. Everything was about banning handguns, and the main gun rights oppression group of the day was known as Handgun Control. Handgun Control was a big group. You had players at the time like Pete Shields and others, and this is where the push was. Then along comes Josh Sugarman, who puts out his manifesto. Teddy Nappen 07:50 Closet hoplosexual. Evan Nappen 07:52 Right. His manifesto of the assault weapons and their accessories. And even in his manifesto, he writes that the American public will be fooled by this, because they don’t know the difference between machine guns and semi-autos. This lays the groundwork for this. And lo and behold, we have California Page – 3 – of 15 with Patrick Purdy and the massacre that occurred in that incident, and that’s all the blood they needed to dance in. Then the assault weapon laws became the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, and everything weirdly shifted, weirdly shifted, so that handguns, with the growth of concealed carry, which has been an amazing success for gun rights support. Handguns are not the big issue for banning, except for, of course, a modern day focus on Glocks, because they’re easily convertible, right? Except for that. You don’t see the push like you used to ban handguns. Evan Nappen 09:00 Of course, Heller took care of that as well. Saying you can’t. It’s unconstitutional to ban handguns, too. But the push on semi-automatic rifles under the contrived created term of “assault weapon”. They took the German of Sturmgewehr, which was the true original assault weapon, a medium power round in a long arm that’s designed for urban settings. It is select fire, both full auto and semi-auto. And causing this, creating this, and putting it with that scary “assault weapon” moniker to scare the public and sell it. And it was to their credit, to a certain degree successful. It was successful in a number of states that passed state laws, including New Jersey. They passed one of the one worst, most destructive, horrible gun laws that have ruined good people. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit. Evan Nappen 10:06 And even a federal law at one point through the 1994 bill that was a crime, which they call the Crime Bill, but I call the bill that was a crime. We had the first national assault weapon ban. That law sunset and went away in 10 years, which was 2004, and they’ve not been able to reenact another federal ban since. But that ban did end up living on, by the way, in the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey adopted the language of that to save New Jersey’s assault firearm ban from being declared unconstitutionally vague. Now that was started by a case that I did, State v. Merrill, where I had the law declared unconstitutional for vagueness because of the term “substantially identical”, which was undefined. What does “substantially identical” even mean? How can something be substantially and identical at the same time? It’s like saying almost exact. Nothing is almost exact. It’s either exact or it isn’t. And because of the vagueness of that term, it was found unconstitutional by Judge Michael Farron, Monmouth County. We knocked out the case. Evan Nappen 11:21 That case was then brought into federal court by the gun rights groups, and that’s where the Attorney General, in order to save it, adopted the 1994 federal crime bill standard that was feature specific. We still live by that today in New Jersey, as to what makes a compliant gun or not, as to the definition of “substantially identical”. The court said, well, now that you know the definition, it’s no longer vague, and therefore it’s constitutional, which is, of course, a judicial lie, a fallacy, a falsehood. Because what that means is that somehow in 1990 our legislators passed an unconstitutionally vague law that did not have definition and somehow knew that in 1994 the federal government would pass a law that defines the undefined law in New Jersey. That’s just ridiculousness squared. But nonetheless it is law, at least as it stands in New Jersey now. We saw other states and other counties constantly push on the so-called “assault weapon” ban, a focus being on the big bad AR-15. We’ve had fight after fight. Page – 4 – of 15 Page – 5 – of 15 Evan Nappen 12:35 And as our battle for Second Amendment rights continued through the courts, we got the trifecta. We got the Heller finding of what we all knew in our hearts was true, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We got McDonald, which said this doesn’t just apply to the federal government, it applies to all states and localities. And then we got Bruen that laid out the test of constitutional

  7. Jun 28

    Episode 296-Trump Pushes National Constitutional Carry

    Episode 296-Trump Pushes National Constitutional Carry Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 296 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, pistol brace, bump stock, Glock ban, iron pipeline, national constitutional carry, gun rights, anti-gun laws, gun safety, Hollywood depiction, firearm training, gun laws, civil rights, gun ownership, gun violence. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:21 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what have you brought to the table today? Teddy Nappen 00:33 Well, I’m always amazed by every single time they always try to say Trump’s not doing enough. Like you hear the horseshoe, right? It’s amazing the idea of just, oh, he hasn’t done enough, or they do the goal post move. Where they move it. They say he hasn’t done anything, or they move in and say he hasn’t done enough. I keep hearing this all the time about people with regards to the Second Amendment. They always try to highlight that stupid thing regarding the, what was it? The pistol brace at the time, because the writing on the wall that they try. Evan Nappen 01:16 Well, remember, keep in mind that with the pistol brace originally, NRA was not real keen on them either. You may remember, you know. So, Trump was trying to also go along with what the organizations themselves were doing, remember, because the brace thing was. But what you eventually saw, and what you’re seeing now, just on that is the elimination of the brace being an SBR, and that whole Merrick Garland insanity of having to register pistol braces. They put the reg forward on their, which should be official shortly, getting rid of that completely. We’re going to, on another shows talk about anybody if you happened to register a braced pistol as an SBR, what you need to do. Because that’s all history, and Trump has ensured that it’s now history, and let’s give credit there for that. Page – 2 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 02:35 And they always highlight the bump stock thing. By the way, the writing was on the wall of why Obama wanted to let that through was because they were going to equate ARs to machine guns, and that led to where. Evan Nappen 02:50 That’s right. So, remember the anti-rights, the oppressionists, they always have a game plan. So, their game plan was, look, if we have the bump stock thing going, then we can claim that semi-automatics are like machine guns. Then we can go after them and get a ban on semi-automatics as machine guns. And what Trump was doing politically in that sense was thwarting their political move. Now, if you say, ‘Oh, well, that isn’t.. how do you know that’s their plan? Or that was.. well, I’ll tell you what. If you want to see that as their plan, you could see it in action right now as they ban Glocks. California just banned Glock pistols, and what is your basis for banning Glocks? Oh, well, they’re easily convertible with Glock switches, you see. So, this is always the gambit of the Second Amendment oppressionists. Now we ban handguns that are perfectly legal, the most popular handgun in America, and we ban it, how? Oh, because you can put an unlawful Glock switch, which turns it into select fire. These switches are in and of themselves, just possession of a switch, is the same as possessing a machine gun. The switches are banned! But they use it as the pretext to expand it, and then ban the handguns themselves. Evan Nappen 04:35 You also saw them attempt this with the so-called iron pipeline. Teddy Nappen 04:40 Operation Fast and Furious. Evan Nappen 04:40 They were laying the groundwork for the iron pipeline. They wanted to say, oh, American guns, semi-autos, are going to Mexico to the narco terrorists, and all. And what did they do? They changed the 4473 to ask, are you Hispanic or not? Like, why are they asking that? And then they had multiple rifle reporting on border states. Why are they doing that? And then, of course, they do Operation Fast and Furious, so they could paint the picture to then push a gun ban based on the iron pipeline down south. But lo and behold, they step on their own toes here. We’ll use that word instead. And Operation Fast and Furious blows up in their face because they’re selling the guns themselves to the narco terrorists, and end up killing a federal agent, no less. So, that plan went all to hell. Evan Nappen 05:35 But you see, this is what they do. They lay the groundwork with these things, and that’s really what was going on there, on that. But with this Administration, we’ve never had an administration this pro-Second Amendment rights that it’s ever been president, ever. They’re now saying to California, get rid of that Glock ban or the Justice Department of the federal government is going after California. In other words, we finally have the federal government not pursuing oppression of the Second Amendment, but of enforcing our rights and preserving and fighting for our rights. They did it, and they’re doing it in all different facets. They’re doing it by administrative reg changes, 34 great changes. They’re doing it by Page – 3 – of 12 the litigation. They’re doing it by getting a focus of civil rights and putting the Second Amendment into that category. Evan Nappen 06:40 And now President Trump, just recently at a rally in Pennsylvania, said he wants to see and is pushing for National Constitutional Carry. Now, keep in mind this is beyond national reciprocity. National Constitutional Carry is the ability to lawfully carry your handgun anywhere in the United States with no permission slip. Ending the requirements, in effect, for permits. Or at least having it so that there’s national reciprocity that respects the majority of states that don’t require any permit. So that with National Constitutional Carry, a person who is a resident of a Constitutional carry state can carry, for example, in New York or New Jersey and all these oppression states with no permit, because it will be national. If you think about what the Second Amendment means, the right to keep and bear arms bearing is carrying, and the Second Amendment means that very thing. And that’s why it’s constitutional. Teddy Nappen 08:17 You also have to remember, Dad, like think back to Shaneen Allen. If this law comes into play, that would have avoided that entire BS that she went through. Her only crime was crossing the Franklin Bridge. Evan Nappen 08:40 Without the piece of paper that New Jersey recognizes. That’s right! Think of how many completely law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals, have their life destroyed, forced into a criminal judicial system for exercising a Constitutional right. They weren’t committing any crimes. They weren’t robbing, stealing, raping. No, no, no, nothing. Just, oh, you have a gun, and we’re not recognizing your right in this jurisdiction. That’s why this has to go. That’s why it’s a civil right, and it’s really great to see President Trump pushing it again. Teddy Nappen 09:21 If they were robbing, stealing, or raping, they would just be let off, no bail, no nothing. Evan Nappen 09:26 Well, if they’re an illegal alien, of course. Teddy Nappen 09:30 Yes, of course. Evan Nappen 09:31 And not only that, they would not even cooperate with ICE to have them deported, but that’s separate. Teddy Nappen 09:38 Yeah. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 09:38 We’re talking here about law-abiding Americans with rights that are getting oppressed. What’s really interesting is that President Trump is pushing it now, making it an issue. Not just leaving it in the shadows, but making it a specific issue out there. And at the same time, he’s pushing for the Save Act, so we have integrity in our voting system. He’s pushing like never before to get rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is what is stopping the Republican-controlled Congress from being able to pass the agenda that we voted for. It’s because of the filibuster. As it stands now, you need 60 votes, and that lets the oppressors still have power to stop these laws from going through. And you know, if the Democrats ever gained power again, the first thing they’re going to do is get rid of the filibuster. So, cut it out. I didn’t see the filibuster in our Constitution. It talks about majority for passing legislation in each house. Okay, that’s what it is. So, this filibuster thing is a contrivance, and it needs to go. It is time, because we can get these laws through, and we can get the changes that we need on so many fronts, including the Second Amendment rights. It’s very important, critical. Teddy Nappen 11:30 Yeah, and this also comes from this. It’s right an article from MSN. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-administration-is-working-on-nationwide-right-to-carry-legislation/ar-AA26oxMC) When he was unveiling the new aircraft at Andrews Air Force base, one of the attendees asked about it, and he said, “Yep, we’re working on it. That sends it right there, because that puts it in. Not only you just said not to the national spot, but it also had all the gun rights oppressionists jumping up, screaming, no, no, no. Like going, like just immediately. It’s so funny. Evan Nappen 12:07 It’s (Senator) Mike Lee’s bill. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4013/text) (Senator) Mike Lee has the bill, and they are working on it. This is a major, major law. It’s probably the single most important pro-Second Amendment rights law that we could pass in modern times. First of all, it will have a wonderful effect on reducing crime. We’re facing these criminals that were let loose into our country through four yea

  8. Jun 21

    Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both

    Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available On Searchable 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 Amendmen

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