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. 6D AGO

    Episode 289-Remember Bryan Malinowski

    Episode 289-Remember Bryan Malinowski Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 289 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS ATF raid, Brian Malinowski, unlicensed dealer, Arkansas lawmakers, DOJ investigation, no-knock warrant, self-defense, gun laws, Biden administration, Waco incident, Ruby Ridge, gun deserts, consumer protection, defensive property, gun rights. 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. Teddy Nappen 00:24 So. Evan Nappen 00:25 Teddy, what’s up, man? Teddy Nappen 00:28 Well, just flipping through Ammoland from John Crump, by John Crump. I never even heard of this story. Like, I’m going to be very honest. I did not know this happened under the, by the ATF. Arkansas lawmakers are demanding the DOJ investigate the ATF raid on Brian Malinowski. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/05/arkansas-lawmakers-doj-investigation-atf-raid-bryan-malinowski/) Evan Nappen 00:54 Are you talking about Malinowski? Teddy Nappen 00:56 Yeah, Malinowski. When reading the article, I was shocked, because I remember from all the criminal procedures of like, what you would do. And I’m like, this is the, I was getting flashbacks to watching the Waco documentary, from reading, like. Page – 2 – of 14 Evan Nappen 01:14 Teddy, let me explain. Yeah, I’m familiar with the Malinowski case. So, Malinowski was a total law-abiding guy. No priors, no issues, a law -abiding guy. He lived in, I believe, it was Alabama, and he was gun collector. He’d go to gun shows, and he would trade for guns. Sell private sale guns, etc., okay? A collector. And what happened was, as you may recall, the Biden bull garbage that we were dealing with. Trying to turn people into dealers who weren’t dealers. Well, ATF apparently believed that Mr. Malinowski was being an unlicensed gun dealer. Now, here’s the thing. He is a professional, first of all. As I recall, his background was in air traffic, you know, with the airline. Air Traffic Control, I think it was. Teddy Nappen 02:37 He was the, he looked like he was the head of the Clinton National Airport of Little Rock. Evan Nappen 02:43 Yeah. Here is a guy who’s a professional, head of an airport, that has his hobby of firearms, as many of us do. And Alabama is a private sale legal state. Teddy Nappen 02:56 I think it was Arkansas. Evan Nappen 02:59 Arkansas? Oh, yeah, yes, Arkansas, Arkansas. Teddy Nappen 03:02 Or the proper term, ArKansas. Evan Nappen 03:04 Well, it was legal for. Right! It was Arkansas, and it was legal to do. And what happened was just outrageous. They claimed he was in the business of selling firearms without an FFL. So, that’s the charge. You know whether they could prove it or not prove it or whatever, that’s what their claim was. And what happened was, ATF and Little Rock Police got a search warrant, and they came to his home at 6 am to look for evidence of wrongdoing. ATF breached the door with a battering ram. And I think, according to his wife, Malinowsky believed that these were intruders breaking into his home at 6 am, and he fired at the agents, not realizing, of course, what the hell’s going on. He hit one in the foot, and law officers there returned fire. Shooting Malinowski in the head and killing him dead. Evan Nappen 04:27 So, here’s what the lawmakers, they sent a letter to DOJ about this, and the letter reads, listen to this. “Awakened by the sound of the breach, Mr. Malinowski retrieved a handgun and encountered an armed silhouette entering his home. He fired toward the intruder’s feet. An ATF agent immediately returned fire, striking Mr. Malinowski in the forehead and killing him. Mrs. Malinowski was standing only inches behind him.” Now, this is activity by ATF, where they are going after, you know, what is essentially paperwork crime, if it even qualifies as crime. They busted down his door at 6 am. How come this was done as a no knock for this guy? Who knows? Crazy. He ends up getting killed. And yet here, Teddy, you didn’t even hear about it. Yet, we take cases with, and hear about cases with, with ICE, right? Page – 3 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:46 Pretti and Good. (Alex) Pretti and (Renee) Good. Evan Nappen 05:47 Yeah, Pretti and Good. Where, you know, with Renee Good, she was, you know, trying to run down, allegedly, this officer. She went there to protest. She was there knowing there was going to be agitation, knowing there’s going to be trouble going there. Same with Pretti, same with Pretti. Teddy Nappen 06:10 Who actually was fighting with the police. Evan Nappen 06:12 Fighting with them and going there. Evan Nappen 06:14 That’s not what happened here. We have a guy in his home! A law-abiding guy in his home, who at best, has paperwork violations. A licensing violation at best. Not even that that is necessarily legitimate, and he ends up shot in the head over the actions taken by ATF. And you don’t hear a peep about it in the lame stream media. Teddy Nappen 06:42 The other part that really, there’s two pieces that stick out. Three pieces, actually, stick out to me. Number one, the knock and announce. So, I remember, in criminal procedure, we talked about this. It is very important on the knock and announce for the officers. They waited 23 seconds. They knocked, waited 23 seconds, and then break the door down. They also had enough time to tape the camera, the doorbell camera. And no body cams, because apparently, their excuse was low funding. Not enough funding for body cams even though they are supposed to have. Evan Nappen 07:19 They had enough money to buy tape. Teddy Nappen 07:21 Yeah, they had enough money to buy tape. Yeah, they had enough. Evan Nappen 07:24 To cover the doorbell lock camera, cover the door. Look, if they’re there as law enforcement, don’t you want it known to this guy, who has no priors, who’s not a problem? Don’t you want it known that it’s law enforcement there? You want to make it crystal clear! Hey, Government, law enforcement here. Boom! You want to be seen on the Ring that you are law enforcement and not 6 am house hot invaders. Teddy Nappen 08:01 The other factor is there is clear. There have been other encounters with the ATF with this exact same scenario. You know what they did? They knocked on the door and said, Hi, we’re with the ATF. It’s the Page – 4 – of 14 Ring doorbell camera there. That situation. They’ll you say, No, I’m, you know, I’m not talking to you, or we’re here to arrest you. Okay, we’re, that’s it. They had so many other encounters where this could have been. But instead, they decided to go full Waco SWAT team and assassinate this man. Evan Nappen 08:30 It’s insane. It’s insane. And, you know, their history of activities. I mean, we know, you know, Waco was just horrible. They had a guy inside of the facility that could have easily made that encounter completely non- violent. Instead, way back in those days, you know, with Clinton and company, they did it to try to make an example out of this guy’s church, etc. And of course, it was all to “save the children”, to save the children, which all end up dying because of what they did. Teddy Nappen 09:13 And then tried to cover it up. Evan Nappen 09:13 With the fire, and then tried to cover it up. Oh, they bulldozed the scene as quick as they could afterwards. Teddy Nappen 09:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 09:21 You know, because the stuff they used lit the place on fire. Teddy Nappen 09:28 My favorite was, if you do, you remember the hearings? Where you know how the you could clearly see the Dems trying to justify the ATF murdering people? Evan Nappen 09:36 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:37 Republicans fighting, and I love the one. Evan Nappen 09:39 Don’t forget Ruby Ridge as well. Teddy Nappen 09:41 Yep. Evan Nappen 09:42 I mean, over a shotgun barrel, that was where they entrapped the guy, literally entrapped the guy. They ended up paying like $3 million in civil damages for their actions there at Ruby Ridge. Okay? So this kind of rogue insanity, oh, it’s fine, as long as it’s on gun owners, you know. Page – 5 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 10:08 But this is the key. What really bothers me the most, Dad. The biggest question they’re asking from the lawmakers, the political motivation. The question remains, is whether the timing and aggressiveness of the operation were influenced by the impending rollout, by the ATF’s final ruling of the “engaged in the business of selling firearms”. So, imagine if, right now, and I always have to tell this to all those out there who are trying to say, you know, Republicans and Democrats are the exact same thing. Or should have just voted for Kamala Harris. Imagine Kamala Harris now with their current ATF, and they enforce that law, where you and I are going to be assassinated in the night by armed guards bursting in accusing people of being unlicensed. It’s disgusting! Evan Nappen 10:58 The armed agent nonsense of doing this. Luckily, you know, President Trump and his administration are taking steps now to remove, in the 39 rule proposals, remove that absurd “doing business” expansion that Biden did. So, basically, if you sell a gun, you’re considered a dealer under the old Biden. Ending the so-called, where even going after dealers themselves by saying, one error, one error, and you can lose your FFL completely. I mean, these activities are just outrageous. What takes place there barely gets any attention. But if you’re out there causing problems regarding other wrongdoers, that being illegal aliens, that are themselves having broken the law, and here they’re trying to protect other lawbreakers. And

    44 min

  2. MAY 3

    Episode 288-Elections Have Consequences-Sometimes Good Ones

    Episode 288-Elections Have Consequences-Sometimes Good Ones  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 18 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 288 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, ATF, DOJ, President Trump, Second Amendment, interstate firearm transport, FOPA, administrative code, private sales, bump stocks, youth handgun safety, NFA items, Miranda rights, Fish and Game, hunting violations. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Louis Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And also with us today is Louis Nappen. So, we have a very special show, and it’s going to be very interesting in terms of things that you need to know to protect yourself. And some very, very exciting news here out of the ATF, the DOJ, and of course, this is due to President Trump. President Trump, as you may recall, ordered a full review of gun laws. Things that could be done to improve and change the laws, and this includes what are known as final rules and proposed rules. The rules are the Administrative Code. Evan Nappen 01:10 Under federal law, you have statutes that are passed by Congress and signed into law, and then you have what is the federal code. The code is done by administration. Those are the various agencies that propose rules that can and do, in fact, have the force of law, and they are used to interpret the law. These agency rules are very important in how courts and prosecutors will be guided, and the rules are extremely, can be extremely, helpful for individuals that face legal issues in being able to defend themselves. Now, of course, the Biden administration abused these, this rulemaking authority to create anti-Second Amendment gun rights oppression. Rules that he couldn’t get passed legislatively. Well, President Trump, through the DOJ and ATF, has put an amazing package together of 34 new and proposed rules, and I want to talk about a number of them and highlight ones that are particularly important. Evan Nappen 02:43 So, President Trump, remember, signed that Executive Order. It was EO 14206, protecting Second Amendment rights. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights) Now, this review went on for a year, and now we see the fruits of this very Page – 2 – of 18 intensive review. One of the key things that is going to be of major effect to just uncountable numbers of gun owners is the easing of interstate firearm transport. There will be no more “gun free zone” nightmares. That is something he set out to do. I’ve looked at many, many sources, and many different articles, primary sources, and I just want to say that I found a great, great article here called “DOJ and ATF Release Landmark 34-Rule Package Bolstering 2A Rights” by GunStuff TV Reporter. (https://gunstuff.tv/doj-and-atf-release-landmark-34-rule-package-bolstering-2a-rights-easier-interstate-transport-ffl-sales-and-nfa-processes/) Evan Nappen 03:48 I found that this article did an excellent job. I just want to point out that, as this article states, the actual rule itself hasn’t been published, but information has gotten out. Get a load of what the new FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), the new firearm interstate transport protections that are going to come. It’s going to absolutely make it explicit that FOPA, meaning the Firearm Owners Protection Act, protections for unloaded, locked firearms in vehicles, even with states with draconian assault weapon bans. Hint, hint. Like New Jersey, the DPRNJ, Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey and other states. A new safe passage presumption for hunters, sport shooters, and travelers with valid permits from their home state. So, this is now laying groundwork here for administrative recognition of carry permits. A continuing step forward, honestly, for gaining full national reciprocity. This is a great step in that direction. Evan Nappen 05:10 Also, streamlining documentation requirements. No more notary-stamped affidavits just to prove you’re not a criminal. Again, with recognition of these documents laying more groundwork for national reciprocity. Enforcing, expanding and clarifying the FOPA for interstate transport. Let me tell you, folks. It’s something that we deal with all the time in the practice. We have folks coming through New Jersey who are getting arrested, getting charged, and we have to fight and assert Title 18-926a. With these Administrative Code changes, just on that alone, it’ll be of tremendous help. There are many other things in this bill. Let me give you some highlights. Not bill, in this Administrative Code. Here are some great highlights. They were going to remove the pistol stabilizing brace, full rescission of that so-called factoring criteria rule, where they turned millions of brace pistols into unregistered SBRs. Even though courts have already put injunctions on it, this rule will make it crystal clear as a Federal Code regulation. Teddy Nappen 06:28 Now the ATF won’t be trying to break down your door for them. Evan Nappen 06:31 Right! And then the “engaged in business” definition, this was a really evil thing that Biden and company did, where they expanded what “engaged in business” meant. So that if you just happen to sell a gun in a lawful private sale, they would claim that you are a dealer. They were trying to just destroy any private sales. Now, of course, in New Jersey, private sales are prohibited by state law, but in real America, they are not. This federal attempt to turn every private seller into a dealer is being removed and taken away so that the statutory standard returns to the standard from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act deal. There’s also going to be, in machine guns, removal of bump stock Page – 3 – of 18 language to comply with Cargill, the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. They’re going to remove that language, get rid of it. So that it’s crystal clear about bump stocks, but New Jersey has their state ban. But still again, it’s great news. Evan Nappen 07:49 Federally, they’re ending the ridiculous Youth Handgun Safety Act notices. You don’t have to, you won’t have to have those signs everywhere and giving out pamphlets. That’s always the first thing everybody throws away, right? Just think of how many trees are going to saved by getting rid of that. So, that’s part of it. They’re modernizing paperwork, folks. It’s really amazing. They’re going to do a comprehensive overhaul of the 4473. That’s the paper that you sign federally. And they’re going to make it so that when you have a NICS check, it’s valid for even a longer period of time. They’re going to incorporate electronic forms in the way you can do NFA now electronically, and that’ll be way faster auto population. You’ll be able to go online, auto populate, have it filed, even before you go to a dealer. Evan Nappen 08:49 And even more interesting is that this is going to lay the groundwork for mail-order guns. That’s right, folks. Mail-order guns. How can that be? Well, I’ll tell you. Right now, you can, if you didn’t live in the DPRNJ, of course, you can buy a silencer, and it can be shipped directly to your door. Even when you buy, for example, from Silencer Central (https://www.silencercentral.com/), they have it all set. They have a network of dealers through the states where suppressors are legal. The paperwork is processed electronically, and the silencer gets delivered direct to your door through this network. With the changes happening here, you’ll be able to go online, find a gun that you like from who knows, one of the major distributors or companies that will be out there, online order what you want, and do your 4473 through an auto-fill interface. Making it even easier. The same way they do it now for suppressors. And that firearm will then be shipped to your door. You don’t even have to leave your home. So, that’s where this is going. Evan Nappen 10:08 It’ll expand it and make it so it takes another good slice out of interstate handgun prohibition. You’ll be able to purchase on a countrywide basis, even though there’s a local dealer network that gets incorporated. It will follow, I’m sure, the silencer model that you see operating right now. Allowing for electronic record keeping, getting rid of the infinite record retention. Remember now, they tried to make it so that every 4473, all the records, the A and D have to be kept forever. Nope. That’s going to be limited either to 20 or 30 years instead, and then they get destroyed. Setting up Easy Check, even better for FFLs, and easing same state sales so that you can get over this non over the counter sales issue that requires, again, physical presence, going to the store. All that. This system is going to revolutionize and modernize our ability on purchase of firearms. Evan Nappen 11:25 Of course, the interstate transport is major. Then, if you’re doing anything with NFA, because maybe you have dual residency or you live in a free state, as opposed to, let’s say New Jersey, and you have NFA items, well, some very interesting things here on the NFA side for the National Firearms Act. Right now, the way the law was, if you want to transport, let’s say, your full auto interstate from one gun legal state to another, you have to get permission in advance. They’re getting rid of that. As long as you’re Page – 4 – of 18 not going for more than a year, you won’t have to get advance approval for moving your NFA items. When you register to buy items through NFA, they’re going to allow joint spousal registration. So, you can just jointly own, let’s say a suppressor or full auto, or whatever you’re doing without the need to ha

    49 min

  3. APR 26

    Episode 287- It’s Time to Red Flag, Red Flag

    Episode 287- It’s Time to Red Flag, Red Flag Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 287 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Virginia gerrymandering, red flag laws, due process, gun confiscation, Mel Brooks, Spaceballs, New Jersey gun laws, universal background checks, defensive weapons, Second Amendment, Trump re-annexation, social media, gun owner faux pas, civil liberties. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen  00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:17 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen  00:18 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, we were talking today, and you had some interesting things to discuss. What did you have? What did you have in mind, buddy? Teddy Nappen  00:31 Well, aside from watching the new “Space Balls” trailer, which, you know, I’m looking forward to it. But it’s never going to be, better. Evan Nappen  00:40 I love Mel Brooks. Teddy Nappen  00:42 That’s the other thing, too. I will give them credit in the trailer, because then he said we unfortunately had to change the name of the trailer. It’s not “Space Balls 2: The Search for Money” because he found money. It was literally just a bag of money that said “Space Balls”. Evan Nappen  00:59 Well, and Mel Brooks is in his 90s, man. But he’s still. Teddy Nappen  01:03 Correct. Oh, wait, I think he, I think he is like 99 like, something crazy. Evan Nappen  01:07 He’s close. I guess that’s what happened when you were married to Bancroft. I guess. You live long. Teddy Nappen  01:15 Oh, yeah, she was Mrs. Robinson? Evan Nappen  01:17 Yeah. Teddy Nappen  01:17 I guess that’s how it kept them alive. Aside from scrolling through. Evan Nappen  01:24 Well, actually, he’s trying to be the world’s oldest man. Wasn’t that his? The other thing that used to do? Teddy Nappen  01:29 Well, that was the, that was the 10,000 year old man. Evan Nappen  01:32 Right. I guess he’s trying to actually be it. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen  01:35 Yeah, and I like to stand up where it was. I think he was like, 10,000 year old man. He’s like, 0h, did you try polygamy? He’s like, yeah. And what do you, what do you think about it? Well, to be honest, I always get out voted. That’s a horrible idea. Horrible. Evan Nappen  01:58 Right! Teddy Nappen  01:58 But anyways, I saw you. You’ve been seeing what’s going on Virginia, aside from the stupid gerrymandering that they’re doing. Evan Nappen  02:07 Well, this is bad for gun rights, because Teddy Nappen  02:09 Their gun rights is the worst. Evan Nappen  02:10 Because if they take the House by gerrymandering Virginia to flip the House to the party of evil, you know, the Democrats there, we’re gonna have our hands full again. Teddy Nappen  02:25 Yeah, other than the record gun sales now, because people were paranoid thinking that Virginia was going to start going door to door to take their guns, just because of how poorly the bills were written. To the point where the Virginia State Police comes out and, you know, the Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, Spanberger’s pick to lead the State Police goes on and says, there is no legislative proposal seeking to do this. (https://wset.com/news/local/not-now-not-ever-virginia-state-police-dispel-rumor-of-law-leading-to-gun-confiscation-firarm-control-abigail-spanberger-gun-control-bill-april-2026) There will be no. The Virginia State Police work every day to enhance public safety and protect civil liberties. Those liberties not granted by Government and will not be impeded by Government. Cut to all the laws that they just passed. (https://crimeresearch.org/2026/04/virginias-long-list-of-new-gun-control-laws/) Not now, not ever. Activity of this nature, by its very nature, is un-American. Huh? Let’s and then cutting to all the bills of Universal Background Check, Safe Home Storage, the Assault Weapon ban, Red Flag, Ghost Gun ban. You know, everything else that is impeding our rights. Evan Nappen  03:32 Right! Well, the thing is, they have, there’s a history of going door to door in the history of gun control itself, which is what we’ve always talked about with the four key words. Beginning with Legislation and then leads to Registration, and then that leads to Confiscation, which leads to Extermination. And every major Holocaust has been preceded by those four words. And Virginia, you know, would get on the pathway of confiscation and them saying, oh, you know, we won’t go door to door. But of course, they will go door to door, and they’re liars. I mean, if you want to see their lies, just look at their Governor, who is the epitome of lying. I mean, that’s what she did to get into office. Teddy Nappen  04:25 She called herself moderate. Evan Nappen  04:26 She misrepresented herself, and then is doing this. So, they’re all about lies. And in America, we’ve had attempts at going door to door. New York did it, New York City, because they have registration of long arms. So, they actually, at a point, attempted confiscations. And folks may not know this, but New Jersey was going to do that. After the assault firearm law passed in 1990, there was an attempt, by way of the Administrative Code, to change what had been New Jersey’s procedures regarding Certificate of Eligibility. So, in those days, you could do a private sale. Private sales were allowed. And this is why having so-called Universal Background Checks is really just a gateway to the registration / confiscation scheme. Because back then in New Jersey, you could have private sales for long arms by doing a Certificate of Eligibility, and the Certificate of Eligibility was simply kept by the seller. As a matter of fact, with the old Certificate of Eligibility, the buyer didn’t even get a copy. The new Certificate of Eligibility that came after that, the buyer and the seller got a copy. But with the old one, only the seller got the copy when a long arm was sold. And it got filed nowhere. There was no requirement that it be filed with the Government. Evan Nappen  06:02 They tried to promulgate, through the code, a rule that said Certificates of Eligibility had to be filed with the State Police. That was not in the law. The reason they wanted that was because they needed to connect the chain so they could go door to door, confiscating so-called “assault firearms”, which were long arms, rifles and shotguns, and to force on private sales the revealing of the information as to who they got transferred to by claiming that there was a failure to file the certificate of eligibility. And I personally, when I was working at the time for the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, and we were fighting the assault farm ban, I opposed in the rulemaking process. I sent a whole piece in fighting and opposing that rule change. That it was not based on the law, that they were going beyond the Administrative Procedures Act in trying to promulgate this, and I succeeded in stopping them from doing it, which broke that link in the chain for them to continue with their confiscation scheme that they wanted to do back then. So, I saw it firsthand and was able to stop it. Teddy Nappen  07:24 Imagine if you weren’t, you weren’t there, Dad. If you were in some other state or some other spot, and that had gone through. My G-d. Just that would have been. The only thing I could think of, is just bullets first at that point, like. Evan Nappen  07:37 It would have been a radically different scenario, because they were on a path of wanting and considering it. And we knew this for a fact. They were actually going to try to implement the door to door confiscation and searching down every assault farm they could find. But that didn’t happen. And the other thing that didn’t happen, interestingly, is they were supposed to put forward guns they wanted to add to the list. That’s actually in the law. They have never done that, although they still could, but they never did that. Teddy Nappen  08:16 Mass does that. Evan Nappen  08:17 Yeah. Mass does it there. Jersey has it in the law to do it. But they never did it in New Jersey, weirdly and oddly, but they could. Teddy Nappen  08:25 Who was it? The firearms bureau that was the Mass attorney? He was the one that worked for the Bureau. And then. Evan Nappen  08:33 Yeah, Jason. Teddy Nappen  08:35 Jason. And then he saw the dark side of what they were doing, and then came back and started fighting the good fight. But my G-d. Just imagine those meetings where, like, all right, what are we going to ban today? Like it’s the arbiters of truth. Like, just decide. Evan Nappen  08:50 Yeah. They purposely, in Mass, purposely had a meeting to try to figure out how to make it as difficult as possible to get licenses, particularly for non-residents. They focused on what to do. And I’ll tell you, even to this day, that was the worst carry license application process I’ve experienced. And I’ve gotten carry licenses from everywhere you could get them. And it took, it took 14 months to get a Mass carry license, and it’s only good for 12 months. It took longer to get it than the license lasts for. It’s insane. We applied in January. They  force you to have a personal meeting, and they didn’t schedule the personal meeting for nine months after the application. Then it was another five months after that before they even issued it. And that personal meeting is utterly useless. All they do is ask you the very same questions that you’ve already certified on an application, and they fingerprint you there electronically, which could be done anywhere else. Evan Nappen  10:02 So, it’s all just a load of absolute garbage. Just to discourage. And this is what licensing laws are designed to do. They’re

    42 min

  4. APR 19

    Episode 286- Shoot New York’s Eye Out

    Episode 286- Shoot New York’s Eye Out Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 286 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Air guns, BB guns, federal law, state law, preemption, New York ban, imitation firearms, gun rights, mental health, firearm safety, historical context, Vatican security, Pope’s stance, gun control, legal advice. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know, my whole life I’ve really loved air guns. I had BB guns and air rifles as a kid. I had my, of course, the classic Red Ryder, and I had a Crosman 760 XL. Now, that was the Crossman 177 pellet and BB rifle, and the XL had the beautiful golden receiver on it. I don’t know if any of you had an XL version of the 760, but that was a really fun, great air gun. And I had a Benjamin. Man, that was a powerhouse, and it was .22 caliber pellet. You can pump that baby up, and that was my number one squirrel killer. And all as a kid. I shot squirrels in my yard, where my father had a giant garden. He needed to keep the squirrel population down, and I shot those squirrels. Then I cut off their tails, and then I sold the tails to Mepps Lure company, which would buy squirrel tails. I think they still might do that. And that got me some money as a kid. And it was used, of course, to buy more pellets and fun things. And I progressed, as maybe some of you did, to a love of adult air guns. Evan Nappen 01:59 And then, of course, Robert Beeman and air rifle headquarters. They were bringing in those premier, phenomenal air rifles that today are the standard of an entire sector of what I’ll call the gun world. Some of you may have had great RWS guns. My favorite were the Feinwerkbaus. I’ll never forget, my dad got a Feinwerkbau 124 from Beeman that he ordered. He had it custom ordered, and they worked out, worked up the innards on it. So, that thing was sweet. And ever since then, I’ve acquired many adult air guns. I have, you know, the finest Feinwerkbau ever made, the 300 series, the Olympic Feinwerkbau. It just shoots through the same hole. Evan Nappen 03:01 There are so many phenomenal air guns. And today, of course, the revolution in air guns is the pre-charge air gun. They have air guns that have tremendous ability for hunting, and air guns are just a blast. They’re fun. They’re a great way of learning firearm safety and shooting skills. A great way of Page – 2 – of 10 introducing young folks into firearms and the fun and joy of shooting. So, air guns are great. I have a deep love of air guns. Always have. I’m a collector of air guns. I love the history of air guns. And you may know that an air gun was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition, which made a lot of sense, because the ability to get gunpowder in the wilderness is not an easy task. And with an air gun, there’s always air around. They would pump up that air gun and could use it to take big game. It was that air rifle. It is actually still known and around, that was used on the St. Louis, you know. When they left St. Louis, they had it with them on that great exploratory mission under President Jefferson. And air guns, even at one point, they were used militarily by the Austrians. Napoleon had the death penalty for anybody caught with an air rifle, and those were able to fire repeatedly with enough power to be used militarily. There’s an amazing history and air guns. But the modern sporting air gun today, all the way down to the BB gun, has a tremendous role. Evan Nappen 05:02 Yet, despite the tradition and the history of air guns in America, New York is now proposing a law to ban BB guns and air guns. The law that New York Democrats, of course, are proposing is to ban air guns by making air guns all being placed in a category of “imitation weapons”. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/04/13/new-york-lawmakers-take-aim-at-bb-guns-n1232199) And by doing that, it would require that every air gun has a plug and specific coloration, and by putting them in that category, they will no longer shoot. Okay? So, you know, what’s the point there? The idea here being, if you make them an imitation firearm, and then they want to raise the age from 16 to 18. They’re selling this nonsense under a typical gun oppressionists lie of claiming police-involved shootings involving individuals who possessed an air gun, which was designed to look like a firearm. You know, the same way they sold the nonsense of cop-killer bullets, of which no cop has ever been killed by one. But why should that stop them from banning so-called cop-killer bullets. Anytime they get any angle that they can sell to the public and fool the public, who doesn’t have an understanding of guns as such, they do it. Evan Nappen 07:11 And here, New York now may become subject to what would essentially be a ban on air guns and BB guns. But let me say right now on the Gun Lawyer podcast that if New York succeeds in passing this law, there is a magic bullet, shall we say, that can kill this law. New Yorkers can shoot the eye out of New York’s air gun ban. The way to do it, I’m going to give you right now how to kill an air gun ban. It is under the United States Code, Title 15 (Commerce and Trade, Chapter 76), Section 5001. (https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-15/chapter-76/) Evan Nappen 08:12 And this, my friends, is a federal law. It is a federal law that deals with imitation firearms. The reason this federal law is such an incredibly powerful weapon is that this federal law is an area of firearm pre-emption law. What it means is that federal law preempts state law. Federal law supersedes and is superior to, overrides. Overrides it, my friends. Overrides it. And because of that, we are able to take out state laws that attempt to interfere with air guns, and, for that matter, imitation firearms. The very thing that New York is attempting to use as the vehicle to create an air gun ban. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 09:27 Let me tell you about Section 5001. Section 5001 first defines and lays out what is required to be on imitation firearms. It lays out what we have seen in the last few decades of having the distinctive markings, the blaze orange plug on look-alike or toy air guns and other imitation firearms and such. The look-alike firearm, which is what the law refers to, is defined as any imitation of an original firearm which was manufactured, designed or produced since 1898 including and Evan Nappen 10:21 limited to toy guns, water guns, replica non guns, airsoft guns firing nonmetallic projectiles, you know, such as airsoft and such. The term does not include any look alike, non firing collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898 or traditional BB, paintball, or pellet firing air guns that expel a projectile through the use of force or air pressure. And lo and behold, this section has a statement that says, preemption of state or local laws or ordinances. Preemption. The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of state or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section. Okay. Then it goes on and it says, ready? No State shall and then number one, prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm. So, replica collector firearms are protected. And two, very important here for New York and any other state that wants to try to ban air guns, prohibit the sale parentheses, other than prohibiting the sale to minors end parentheses, of traditional BB, paint ball or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure. So, should New York be as repressive and stupid as to attempt to ban air guns, federal law preempts and nullifies, supersedes, that state law. Evan Nappen 12:54 Let me tell you another little factor, very interesting. I used this law successfully to attack New Jersey’s assault firearm law. In the case of Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen versus Florio, which you can find at 744 F. Sup. 602, back in 1990, I challenged the then Attorney General, Robert Del Tufo. I brought an action, a civil action, challenging New Jersey’s assault firearm ban on a number, and magazine ban, by the way, on a number of things. One of the specific challenges was utilizing 15 U.S.C. 5001, which is the air gun preemption. New Jersey’s assault firearm ban, as written, included air guns, because air guns are firearms in New Jersey, and the ban on assault firearms and magazines by definition included air guns. And this case with Judge Garrett Brown, federal judge, had an injunction, which, by the way, this is why today you can still buy air guns, BB guns, pellet guns in New Jersey that may seem at first to fall under the definition of New Jersey’s assault firearm law because of this case and its outcome. The court found that the prohibition as it affects air guns was unconstitutional in that it was preempted under this federal law. Evan Nappen 15:06 So, there’s even case law enforcing this federal preemption as it comes to air guns, even in an assault firearm ban, no less a ban that specifically attempts to ban air guns and BB guns. So, I am giving this to New York as information, folks, and anywhere else that there is an air gun ban that we have a weapon. Believe it or not, air guns, BB guns, etc, are more protected than firearms in America. More protected because federal law preempts state laws from banning them. If we had federal preemption for firearms, then the only firearm law would be the federal law, and no state law banning guns would stand. But we don’t have federal preemption. Our federal gun laws, except with

    42 min

  5. APR 12

    Episode 285- Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick

    Episode 285-Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 01:23 So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause. Evan Nappen 03:07 J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10 pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process. Evan Nappen 04:18 Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge. Evan Nappen 05:21 Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”. Evan Nappen 06:19 J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 07:42 Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed. Evan Nappen 09:47 The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, if they are, “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later. Evan Nappen 11:12 The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this grou

    36 min

  6. APR 5

    Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns?

    Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns? Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 284 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Appellate Division, Bergen County, mental health crisis, firearm sale, handgun purchase permit, New Jersey law, firearm storage, third party disqualification, extreme risk protection orders, domestic violence, Second Amendment, gun confiscation, robots, Milgram experiment. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my firm has done it again. We have won yet another Appellate Division gun case, and again coming out of Bergen County, which is notorious when it comes to denials of individuals regarding their gun rights. And we have yet another case here that’s very important, and we’re going to discuss it fully. It really is significant in what the Court is stating. It’s addressing problems that we’ve seen throughout the practice of gun law and the gun rights oppression that has taken place judicially. And the expansion is now, finally, apparently being curtailed. Evan Nappen 01:29 Let’s talk about this case. So, this case is “In the Matter of Compelling the Sale of Maya Kun’s Firearm”. And if you want to read the actual case, the link, of course, is online at our website, where we always put the transcript of the show. We’ll have the link to the case. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) But let’s take a look at what this case is about and its legal significance. The petitioner is a Maya Kun and appeals from an order compelling the sale of her handgun and prospectively barring her from being issued, you know, in the future, a handgun purchase permit and a firearm purchaser ID card. And what happened here? The police were called to Kun’s home. Her boyfriend, D.G., is what we’ll refer to him as, and as referred to in the case, was experiencing a mental health crisis. Kun voluntarily surrendered her firearm, and that’s a firearm for which she was licensed in New York on the day of the incident. Evan Nappen 02:47 The State then filed a motion to compel the sale of Kun’s firearm, which Bergen is notorious in doing, by the way. And following the hearing, the Court granted state’s motion and ordered Kun, as follows. Kun was “prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving firearms and/or ammunition, and from securing or holding an FPIC or HPP . . .”, being a Handgun Purchase Permit or a Firearms Page – 2 – of 12 Purchaser ID Card, “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, or a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.” And the Court says that, after further review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court erred in compelling the sale of Kun’s firearm and reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion. Evan Nappen 03:47 And the facts are interesting in this case, and I’ll just give you it in a nutshell. Kun called local police. Kun was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and specializes in child psychology. The police responded to Kun’s home after being informed by a third party that Kun’s live-in boyfriend D.G. had made concerning statements about wanting to harm himself. Upon arrival, Kuhn said that D.G. had been drinking heavily and planned to kill himself over anguish regarding the anniversary of his mother’s death. The officer that came there smelled alcohol, said D.G. was mildly aggressive, had a bruise above his right eye from where he fell while intoxicated, allegedly, and the officers eventually decided to transport D.G. to the hospital for evaluation. D.G. was evaluated and sent home that same day. Evan Nappen 04:55 Now, Kuhn had voluntarily surrendered her firearm to the police on that day. The firearm was a Glock 19, and it was stored in a safe in the primary bedroom, accessible only with a code and a key. The firearm was removed after D.G. was placed in an ambulance and sent to the hospital. Kuhn had a New York Firearms ID Card for the Glock, and she didn’t have a New Jersey license. But, as you should know, in your home, under N.J.S. 2C:39-6.e., you can possess a firearm without a license in New Jersey under that exemption. Kun testified that they lived together for three years, and she was the only person who had access to the gun safe. And in response to questioning by the trial court, who often acts very aggressive in questioning in that court, we’ve experienced it and seen it, said that she would have given D.G. access to her gun because she had no concerns about his mental health. However, later in the hearing, she corrected that earlier statement and said she would not have given access. And at the hearing, Kun also produced, however, keep this in mind, a letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst, which said that he’s been seeing him for symptoms related to the mother’s passing and does not have any concerns related to suicide or homicide on his part. And this includes during the episode in question, which led to all this, and around the anniversary of the mother’s death. He has no history of violence and hasn’t had a drink in a year. And despite losing his father two months ago, he attends AA and in his professional opinion, he does not pose any danger to society or himself. Now that was on D.G., of course. The trial court found both officers credible and concluded D.G. was disqualified from having gun licenses and that he was likely to engage in conduct other than justified self-defense that would pose a danger to himself or others. And that’s of course, under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c). Evan Nappen 07:12 The court also found, here’s where the rub comes in, that Kun, our client, was not fit to own a gun, as she was a threat to health, safety or welfare of the public if issued a firearm. And in making its decision, the Court considered only Kun’s statement that she was willing to give D.G. access to the gun safe despite his mental health and did not credit her later testimony, correcting the earlier statement. In sum, the court held. Quote. This is the court’s holding. This is court in the trial court. “In my view, given the totality of evidence here, it is common sense given the fact that you would give access to a person who clearly has been very troubled. Who’s expressed suicidal ideation, has had an issue with alcoholism Page – 3 – of 12 and continues to treat with a psychologist for the past year, that cohabitates with you. Given the totality of evidence here, and your initial answer to me that you wouldn’t hesitate to give him access to firearms, I do find that the State has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and you’re disqualified pursuant to 2C:58-3.” The Appellate Court says, we review a trial court’s legal conclusions regarding firearm licenses de novo. They look at it anew. Evan Nappen 08:35 They then in the opinion, which you can read, reiterate through case law. Reviewing all the case law and such, the court says, as N.J.S. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of handgun purchase permits and firearms purchaser ID cards, a person may not receive either if they are “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” The Court then says later down in the opinion, “The statute does not require that an applicant provide information regarding other members of the applicant’s household, although there are requirements regarding the safekeeping of a firearm from minors.” Let me just tell you, folks. We run into this a lot, where guns that belong to innocent third parties in a home get confiscated due to the actions or conditions or issues of a third party in a home. Evan Nappen 10:01 Of the other party, and here the court is saying very clearly, the statute doesn’t require that the applicant provide information about other, about others. Further in the opinion, it says that the trial court erred in disqualifying Kun based on D.G.’s alleged mental health struggles. All of the disqualifiers under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) address the conduct of the firearm owner, not that of an adult third party who lives with the owner. Despite this clear language, the court’s opinion was overwhelmingly focused on D.G.’s conduct and risk propensity. The trial court found D.G. was disqualified from having a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card pursuant to several disqualifiers, including reputation in the community, mental illness, prior and voluntary commitment, character, temperament posing a threat to public health, safety, welfare. The Court considered the letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst as a “net opinion” and insufficient to prove D.G. no longer suffers from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with or handicap them in the handling of a firearm. Evan Nappen 11:38 But D.G. was not the owner of the gun. The weapon has not been seized from him. There was no domestic violence order in place, and he was not seeking a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Folks, this goes at this giant bugaboo, this issue that has been plaguing New Jersey gun owners, that leads to confiscations, that leads to individuals losing their rights because of another. And the court has addressed it here. “The court had no reason to make findings regarding D.G.” The State did not present evidence or prove issuance of a firearm to D.G. would be a threat to health, safety, or welfare from possessing. The incident in question happened over a year ago. The State presented officers responded to th

    42 min

  7. MAR 29

    Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up

    Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 283 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun lawyer, John Petrolino, Citizens Committee, New Jersey, carry permits, African American applicants, retired police officers, freedom of information, institutionalized racism, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, Second Amendment, anti-knife movement, UK gun laws, knife control. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen 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. So, we are currently watching with great expectation here over a lawsuit that has been brought and filed by our good friend John Petrolino with the help and assistance of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (ccrkba.org) And what is going on here is very interesting, because John, who many of you know, does excellent reporting on firearm issues, particularly on New Jersey as well. He does great extensive coverage. Well, John was instrumental in having the permit to carry statistics getting publicized and put out there. And with it being put into the ether and made part of an awareness that otherwise really wasn’t there about the key discovery he made regarding blacks, black carry applicants. African American applicants are denied more than double their white counterparts for non-criminal reasons. Okay? Evan Nappen 01:55 And John, he requested the records seeking the statistics on retired police officer carry permits to build on the coverage of all as to who has been denied. So, remember retired police officers in New Jersey can get the RLEO, the Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Card, which in effect functions as a carry permit for retired law enforcement. Prior to the Bruen decision, where it was virtually impossible for folks to get carries, Retired Officers through the RLEO were able to get their carry in that manner. Now, of course, there’s been even more progress where LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) also covers law enforcement and actually covers New Jersey law enforcement, which to large degree makes even needing a retired law enforcement carry not as necessary as it used to be. But still, it is something that is done, that is issued. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:14 John requested through, you know, essentially New Jersey’s freedom of information to get the records so that we can continue the further analysis. And what I have here is a news release from Citizens Committee. (https://ccrkba.org/ccrkba-director-sues-nj-officials-over-denied-records-requests/) And what it says, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.” “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino . . .” It continues, “The NJSP”, meaning New Jersey State Police, “has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one”, Director Petrolino said. “When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.” Evan Nappen 04:46 That’s right. And as further noted in the news release, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get,” says Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information. We laud Director Petrolino in his quest to hold New Jersey officials accountable by forcing them to be transparent with those they swore to serve.” Yes, it is very important that these records get out there, because the current records already show the institutionalized racism that occurs in carry permitting systems. That alone should stand for why we should have Constitutional Carry in New Jersey, where you do not need any permit, as do the majority of the United States. They have no permit required, and it is something that is not necessary, nor in full exercise of the Second Amendment. We should not even be required to need a permission slip. And this illustrates the reasons why. Because the surest way to avoid the racial discrimination, to avoid these type of coverups over records, is to not have to have the records at all, by having what is lovingly called Constitutional Carry. Evan Nappen 06:34 You may have heard there’s a bill federally being pursued to have National Constitutional Carry, which would preempt all states and make it so that any law-abiding citizen can carry without any permit anywhere in the U.S. Now, as a step in between getting to that would be national reciprocity, where every State has to at least recognize every other state’s carry permit, although the majority of states don’t even require carry permits anymore. So, this is what we’re working toward, because this is fundamental to our rights. The ability to carry, the ability to be defenders and not victims, and the fight continues. This is yet another important, very important, step in the fight. As it reveals, and has the potential to reveal, the flaws and other problems that go to bias, racism, arbitrary denials, discouragement built into the system itself. These are all the mechanisms that permitting systems are designed to create. They’re actually made to do this. They’re made to discourage. The idea that it has anything to do with public safety is, of course, a joke, and it’s proven by the Constitutional carry states that are doing just fine without the permission slip. So, in the states that have this still in place, it’s there to be a barrier to the exercise of our rights. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 08:28 And you know, it’s kind of laughable to see the Left talk about how outrageous it is, unbelievably outrageous, how it’s Jim Crow 2.0, to require an ID to vote. To vote! That’s Jim Crow. But what goes on with carry permits, with gun licensing? Oh, that’s fine. Well, if that’s Jim Crow 2.0, gun laws are Jim Crow 2000. It’s insanity then, Okay? That’s what’s going on in that radical difference. Teddy Nappen 09:10 Honestly, Dad, it makes me think back to Shaneen Allen, where, you remember, we reached out to all the pro black groups, all the others, like bringing. Evan Nappen 09:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:22 They were going to put a single black mom in jail for doing nothing more wrong than. Evan Nappen 09:28 Seven years, with three and a half years minimum mandatory, was their best offer when I took on the case. Teddy Nappen 09:35 Yep, reached out to Al Sharpton’s group, the NCAA, anything? Evan Nappen 09:39 Everybody, right! Teddy Nappen 09:41 Nothing. Crickets. Evan Nappen 09:43 Crickets. Teddy Nappen 09:44 Because there is a built-in reason. These people, the Left are just Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, they have no standards. It’s about oppressor and oppressee, and it doesn’t matter what position we must take. Because that’s how you end up with Queers for Palestine. That’s how you end up with the fact that they’re pushing actual racist gun laws. Because that is the standard. Because it has to be. No, no. We have to make sure these people are disarmed so we can keep the oppressor / oppressee mindset continuing. Sorry, we can’t side and agree with common sense issues like civil rights. Evan Nappen 10:26 And the most fundamental of all civil rights is the right to be armed. I mean, look right now at what’s going on in Iran. Gee, why haven’t the people risen up to get rid of that evil, terroristic, ruthless regime? Page – 4 – of 11 Why? They don’t have the guns. They don’t have the guns. That’s the problem. That is the big problem. And we have, as an insurance policy in America the Second Amendment, and it’s a check on tyranny. Okay? Enemies, both foreign and domestic, all right? This is why it’s there. And you can see countries that have disarmed their civilian population, and then you see what they do to them. You can see that taking place. Not just in countries as extreme as Iran, or as extreme even as North Korea, or others, what we think of as dictatorships or totalitarian states. But just look now at the U.K. and what is going on there. And Teddy, I think in Press Checks, you’re going to be talking about that, and there you can see what. I’m not going to, we’ll just put that as a little teaser. We’re going to get into that, and it’s critical. So, I want to applaud John Petrolino and Citizens Committee (CCRKBA.org) for pushing to get these records, and as we can expose the cover up. Because why? Why not release them? What is it that they’re so afraid of us finding out, right? You know, there’s something there. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s something going on there, and I can’t wait to find out the truth. We will get to the truth. Evan Nappen 12:25 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a fantastic range down in Lakewood, New Jersey, where Teddy and I shoot. We got our training and certificates at WeShoot, and it’s a great resource, as well. They are having a big March Madness sale, and this sale is going until Tuesday the 31st. Here’s some of these deals in their

    37 min

  8. MAR 22

    Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law

    Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 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 with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell  01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen  01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell  02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell  02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell  02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen  04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell  05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws. Robert Bell  06:16 However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense. Evan Nappen  07:05 And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right? Robert Bell  07:24 Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think. Evan Nappen  07:32 I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case. Robert Bell  07:53 They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but. Evan Nappen  08:30 But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct? Robert Bell  08:40 Correct. Evan Nappen  08:40 Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do? Robert Bell  09:16 They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules. Evan Nappen  09:31 But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence? Robert Bell  09:57 Credibility. Evan Nappen  09:59 Right! Robert Bell  09:59 Credibility. Evan Nappen  10:00 Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen. Robert Bell  10:13 It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them. Evan Nappen  10:16 Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed. Robert Bell  11:04 Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that. Evan Nappen  11:18 Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified. Teddy Nappen  11:37 Didn’t they just pass t

    35 min
See All (288)

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
    288
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Copyright MMXX CounterThink Media and SunZu Media All Rights Reserved
  • Show Website
    Gun Lawyer

You Might Also Like