Gun Lawyer

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

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

  1. 3h ago

    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

    52 min

  2. 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

    41 min

  3. 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

    37 min

  4. Jun 14

    Episode 294-AG Green-lights Red Flag

    Episode 294-AG Green-lights Red Flag Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 294 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey, ERPO, gun confiscation, due process, public awareness campaign, gun safety, Second Amendment, red flag law, wellness check, gun rights, gun violence, civil rights, gun storage, gun laws. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what have you discovered in your travels? Teddy Nappen 00:30 Well, first off, you can stop pestering me. I finally watched Project Hail Mary. Evan Nappen 00:36 I love that movie. It was fun. Didn’t you like it, man? Teddy Nappen 00:40 I thought it was. I will give it credit for a movie that’s almost three hours long. You stay. You don’t want to like check your phone or anything. You’re actually very engaged. And I was like. Evan Nappen 00:51 True! Teddy Nappen 00:51 The last 40 minutes, I’m like, okay, everything’s solved, what’s left for plot? And then they actually made it more interesting. Evan Nappen 00:59 Yes! Don’t, don’t spoil it for people. Teddy Nappen 01:01 No, no spoils. Page – 2 – of 14 Evan Nappen 01:02 It’s a good one, and it is a very interesting statement about Government. Teddy Nappen 01:12 I was thinking also Stoicism. Evan Nappen 01:14 Yeah, yeah, yeah. They did a great job. I really enjoyed it. So, anyways. I love talking about movies. However, this is Gun Lawyer, man, and we talk about important New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 01:32 Fine. Evan Nappen 01:33 And beyond the borders of New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 01:38 We’ll open with this: the Attorney General’s a jerk. Evan Nappen 01:42 Wait a minute! Don’t go disparaging our beloved Attorney General. But why are you not happy with what the Attorney General has done? Teddy Nappen 01:51 Well, I love when they’re advertising, effectively legalized swatting, in this latest article. Right from the Attorney General’s Office. ” Attorney General Davenport, Office of Alternative and Community Responses launches gun safety public awareness campaign”. (https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-davenport-office-of-alternative-and-community-responses-launch-gun-safety-public-awareness-campaign/) I want to meet the marketing team that comes up with these titles. Evan Nappen 02:14 Which always, if it’s Gun Safety Public Awareness Team, let me guess. They’re using their office to promote citizen self-defense so that citizens are no longer victims, but can defend themselves against criminals, right? Isn’t that what they’re promoting? And helping citizens to understand their use of force and self -defense, and complete dedication to the Second Amendment, right? Am I correct? Teddy Nappen 02:41 I think you forgot this is with New Jersey, but yeah. Evan Nappen 02:45 Oh, what did they do instead? Tell me. Page – 3 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 02:47 Oh, so from the article that they put out, Attorney General Davenport of the office has launched a multi-year public awareness campaign to raise awareness about the life-saving potential of New Jersey’s Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). Evan Nappen 03:06 Ah, the Red Flag. Teddy Nappen 03:07 Wow! Evan Nappen 03:07 So, they believe that it is life saving. Try life destroying! If you’re a gun owner and you get hit with one of these ERPOs, as we talked about on a prior show, simply talking to Chat GBT led to this. Where not only were the guns seized, not only is your house searched, but you’re taken away for a “wellness check”. And with his inability to give a urine sample, they shoved a catheter up his penis. All over the wonderful ERPO situation. Isn’t that great? How that all works out. So, there’s a lot of downside, unless you don’t consider forced catheterization up your penis, a downside. I don’t know. Today you don’t know. But these are the kind of things that can come from ERPOs and wellness checks. It’s just astounding. Astounding. Teddy Nappen 04:19 What is astounding is I love how they twist it. Just reading the article, you can feel it. I always go back to that line from “Untouchables” – “Let’s do some good.” They actually think this is going to solve problems. Or right here from the Attorney General. ERPOs are a proven tool for preventing tragedies. How do I know? I pulled it out. They didn’t actually say that. We are committed to using all the tools at our disposal. Evan Nappen 04:52 This is what they put out. But the reality of it is, it’s a tool for disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights, and it’s a tool of confiscation of guns. It is a tool of gun rights suppression. It is designed for that purpose. There is no due process up front. These are granted ex parte. The person who is served with the ERPO has no clue that it’s coming their way, has no opportunity, before the damage is done to talk or speak or make their case to the judge. This is just gun confiscation in its rawest form with benefits. And the benefits are taking you away for a so-called “wellness check”, while you’re at it, to search and seize giving them the opportunity to review your guns, to take your guns, to search your house, to invade your Fourth Amendment rights as well. All done under this guise. Evan Nappen 05:40 This is something we in the firm here deal with these all the time, and the public awareness campaign is designed to get more people to jump on this. No matter how weak the claim is. No matter whether it’s for reasons that are unproven. It doesn’t matter! They want these ERPOs, which, when they initially issued, are called TERPOs, Temporary Extremist Protection Orders. Only after the issuance of the TERPO do you finally get a hearing where you get to try to fight to challenge it from becoming a final, Page – 4 – of 14 what we call a FERPO. And if it takes place in Burlington or Bergen County, then you, of course, are getting a BURPO. I’m just kidding about that. They don’t call them BURPOs, but it is a pretty bad, rotten, terrible law. It is the most extreme ERPO law in the country, and it is just rights violation from the get-go. Teddy Nappen 07:32 Well, also, if you’re going through the article, they’re talking about the public awareness campaign they’re going to be doing. They say the ERPO awareness is leading up to the National Gun Violence Awareness Month in June. I thought June was also Pride Month, but you know they kind of go hand in hand with the recent mass shootings. It’s one of those. Evan Nappen 07:58 It’s like National Brotherhood Month. Be glad we don’t celebrate it the rest of the year. Teddy Nappen 08:04 I know. You know what? Evan Nappen 08:05 That’s the old Tom Lehrer joke. Teddy Nappen 08:07 You know what? I’m very aware of the gun violence. That’s why people want to be armed to defend themselves, but continue. Then they go on about using like billboards, bus shelters, radio platforms. Oh, by the way, everything will be in Spanish, too. They were very bold in that, and they made it very clear it’ll be in English and Spanish. So, okay. Evan Nappen 08:30 Well, the propaganda that gets generated out of New Jersey is intense, and it is going to create more and more confiscations and misery for law-abiding gun owners and their gun rights. That’s the reality of what is going on. They have these very cute images on this article. I see where they are going to promote this operation, and it’s like they’re meme articles. Because of an ERPO, they’re still here. They show two people, then they have another one. Because of an ERPO, he’ll graduate in June. Really? Then there’s another one. Learn the facts about ERPO. Stop gun deaths. Need to talk. . . blah blah blah. Evan Nappen 09:27 Okay, you know what? We could do our own memes here. You know, we could have, because of an ERPO, this person, this law-abiding gun owner, just had their life ruined, just had their home invaded, just had their family heirloom guns seized, just had to go through an expensive court process just to get back to square one. Because of an ERPO, the person was taken in for a completely unnecessary wellness check, and had medical procedures done to them against their will. Because of an ERPO, they just have a big dick pic with a catheter in it, and say, because of an ERPO, I was forced to endure this. How about that for a nice image? You know, this is what reality is when you’re in the practice. You see these laws and what they actually do to people, and what doesn’t get told is what I’m telling you Page – 5 – of 14 now. The actual effect of it. Not this fluff and propaganda and claims being made that are not how we have experienced ERPOs in the practice of law. There’s an extreme risk protection website, Teddy, by the way. (https://www.njoag.gov/erpo/) Teddy Nappen 10:53 Yeah, they have the link. Evan Nappen 10:53 It talks about ERPOs, and it has a Q and A in it. Let’s take a look at the questions, the Attorney General’s answers, and what I think are the real answers. “Is ERPO the same as a ‘Red Flag’ law?” It’s very similar to what a lot of people know as Red Flag law that exists in other states, even among states that use the name ERPO. There are some technical legal differences. Be sure any information you get about ERPOs is specific to New Jersey. Yes, the similarity ends with New Jersey not having any due process upfront. It’s not just a Red Flag law. It’s a bright Red, no due process upfront law. Other states that may have Red Flag laws do it where you get due process up front before the order is even issued. Not in New Jersey. So, yeah, it’s different.

    46 min

  5. Jun 7

    Episode 293-Guest Firearms Attorney Greg Miller

    Episode 293-Guest Firearms Attorney Greg Miller Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Podcast Transcript Unavailable Downloadable PDF Transcript About The Host Evan Nappen, Esq. Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It’s Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan’s InnerCircle Here’s your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) * First Name * Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime) Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank. var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

    1h 21m

  6. May 31

    Episode 292- Your Gun is in the Mail

    Episode 292- Your Gun is in the Mail Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 16 Gun Lawyer — Episode 292 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, Second Amendment, Marxism, useful idiots, US Postal Service, handgun shipping, NFA silencers, firearm regulations, logical fallacies, self-defense, gun scams, dog safety, firearm training, New Jersey gun law, gun rights. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, 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. So, Teddy Bear, what’s going on, man? Teddy Nappen 00:28 Well, I can’t believe you outed my middle name. Just kidding. It’s something where I don’t know this. Dad, do you remember growing up, and you saw, like, did you ever listen to Rage Against the Machine? Evan Nappen 00:42 Yeah, I actually will admit to that. Teddy Nappen 00:45 Yeah, do you remember that shirt where it literally has the picture of Che Guevara? Evan Nappen 00:50 Yeah. Well, I have one of those shirts, except my Che Guevara shirt has him wearing Mickey Mouse ears. So, I call him Mickey Che, and I thought Mickey Che was just hilarious. Teddy Nappen 01:02 Yeah, I think it’s funnier because of what if I was.. I just learned like more about who this individual was. Evan Nappen 01:11 Che Guevara? Page – 2 – of 16 Page – 3 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 01:14 I love how the Left tote him as their revolutionary hero. This guy put gays and Catholics in concentration camps. He tried to purify the Spanish race. And in details describing again, like trying to talk about black people, trying to remove them from society. He personally executed 100 people. Evan Nappen 01:38 He’s actually completely aligned with the progressive Left, if you really think about it. Teddy Nappen 01:43 True. Evan Nappen 01:44 I mean, the reality of what the Left does, you know. They are the kings of hypocrites. They are masters of double think. They have one goal and that is to destroy America. I mean, that’s their entire agenda. If you think about everything, they’re for, and every single item they are for harms our country in some way. Everything is harmful, and this is what they’re all about. Teddy Nappen 02:23 I think there is a good, I think the best way to think of it, and Crowder from Louder with Crowder gives the best line. They are Marxist because you see them take the most insane stances, like queers for Palestine. They’re for funding the war in Ukraine, but not for dealing with Iran. They take these crazy stances, which just looking at it, just from like it would make no sense, except from the eyes of a Marxist. Where in Marxism, in go right to the book, “The Communist Manifesto”, you have to define your enemy, oppressor and oppressee. No matter the individual, no matter the group, no matter the stance you take. You could be the most hateful group against gays, but if you are the oppressed, if you are the underdog, you are the good guy in their ideology. That is how screwed up it is, and they will take whatever political stance to achieve power for the sake of Marxism. Evan Nappen 03:18 Yeah, they are the useful idiots for the Marxists, for those that want to destroy America. They’re the useful idiots. And by the way, the only redeeming factor at all to their entire agenda of Marxism is that if they ever were to succeed, they’re the first ones that will get killed. They’re the ones that the Marxists will then kill when they don’t need them anymore, and that is exactly the playbook of the Marxist takeovers. Teddy Nappen 03:54 Cut to Iran with the students, which are all Islamo communists who took over. By the way, when the Iranian regime took over, guess who they executed first? The communists. Evan Nappen 04:05 Well, it’s the playbook every time. They’re just useful idiots until they’re no longer useful, and then they’re dead idiots. Page – 4 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 04:16 And then what is it, the old phrase. You can vote your way into communism, but you have to shoot your way out. Evan Nappen 04:21 That’s it. That’s it. So, luckily, we are exposing, you know, the truth is out there, and this political battle for the future of our country is clear and normal America gets it. I really believe they do. And the extremists on the Left, of course, are the worst when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. They’re not going to be in a general sense successful. Now they’re able to have pockets where you see their policies destroy cities, and you can watch the destruction of these cities taking place under their policies. But that’s just examples being set to the rest of America, what we never want to happen broadly in the country. Teddy Nappen 05:26 Yeah, and speaking of Marxism, as I always, again, we always have to check on the Left of what they’re currently whining and crying about. So, Evan Nappen 05:37 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 05:38 Our favorite, our favorite fans at The Trace. We check out their latest article. “People might soon be able to ship handguns through the mail.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/05/usps-handgun-mailing-ban-shipping-rule/) That was the article. Evan Nappen 05:38 Oh my G-d! Everyone clutch your pearls. Teddy Nappen 05:40 Oh my G-d. Jennifer Mascia writes this whole article where the U.S. Postal Service is set to lift a century-old ban, and experts warn of the consequences. I love the term “experts”. Evan Nappen 06:13 Experts warn the consequences. Right now you can ship via FedEx. You can ship UPS. Oh, but somehow if we allow shipping via the U.S. Postal Service, oh, well, now it’s a threat to our safety, our country, everything. You know, it’s just, the sky is falling because of that. Teddy Nappen 06:38 Yeah, and I love how they’re saying, the rule would allow handguns to be shipped through the mail, bypassing a longstanding law prohibiting such practice. Evan Nappen 06:51 Well, you know, I guess they’re not aware that currently you can buy NFA silencers by having them shipped to your door. Silencers are allowed to be sold in this manner, as long as it’s a dealer in the Page – 5 – of 16 state that is doing the shipping. Now, this is the model that is so interesting with Silencer Central, for example. You can buy a NFA silencer online at Silencer Central. (https://www.silencercentral.com/) You can do your NFA forms. They have a great interface where you do the interface. It interfaces you to e-forms, the federal government’s forms for NFA. There’s no tax on suppressors anymore because of the Big Beautiful Bill. Once you get the approval, then they ship from Silencer Central, which I believe is in South Dakota. I believe that is where their headquarters are. That is then sent to their local dealer network that they have already set up, and that’s who ships the suppressor direct to your door. Now, of course, if you live in the DPRNJ, you cannot buy a suppressor because the state law bans them. But in well over 40 some states that respect the Second Amendment, you’re able to do this. Evan Nappen 08:38 So, this model that they have, which is computerized and set up well, is the groundwork now being laid in the federal government for this to apply to guns. And by opening up the postal service to allow the shipping of handguns, it will allow yet another source for shipping of guns via the post office. And the ATF 34 new regs that they’re proposing is to have computerized the 4473 forms just like the NFA forms are computerized. So, you’ll have e-forms that you can do for that. I’m sure companies will set up an interface in the same way they have an interface set up to ease the process for suppressors. And then even if, for example, Silencer Central were to use their existing network, you could buy the gun of your choice online, and then it will be sent through their network. It will be shipped directly to your door. With the removal of the ban on shipping handguns in the post office, it could even come via the U.S. Post Office right to your door. Evan Nappen 09:54 So, we’re modernizing the business trade for firearms and making it so that we’re getting back to our pre ’68, pre 1968, ability to have mail order guns, and this is great. Especially for folks that have limited ability to get to a dealer. You know, not everybody lives close to an FFL, but everybody gets their mail delivered in some way. So, this will make the availability of firearms that much more easier for individuals to acquire guns. Of course, that’s what those that are the oppressors of our gun rights don’t want to do. They want everything they can come up with that can somehow be a burden on the exercise of our rights to exist. So, they fight everything and anything that in any way makes it easier. Teddy Nappen 11:04 This is even funnier because you could still ship your AR-15. Evan Nappen 11:10 Well, right, long arms are fine, even by the mail and by in-state dealers already. And, you know, although the law in 1927 about concealable weapons can’t be shipped, you know, concealable, they’d be mainly handguns, sawed off shotguns, etc. Concealable weapons. Long arms still could be, and it wasn’t until the ’68 Gun Control Act that the dealer network essentially got established and requirements for having to have the in-state dealer only for handgun transfers. So, you cannot buy a handgun except in a state where you’re a resident. You can buy a long arm in a state where you’re not a resident, as long as that dealer obeys the law of the home state and the resident state. So, as long as both jurisdictions’ laws are followed, long arm sales can occur right over the counter or at a gun show, etc. but not with handguns. This will dramatically change that for the better.

    44 min

  7. May 24

    Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks

    Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, an

    44 min

  8. May 17

    Episode 290- Warning: Use AI & Lose Your Guns

    Episode 290- Warning: Use AI & Lose Your Guns  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 16 Gun Lawyer — Episode 290 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS AI threat, gun rights, Chat GPT, police intervention, involuntary commitment, extreme risk protection order, privacy concerns, legal implications, AI misuse, mental health, medication monitoring, court hearing, AI development, Second Amendment, New Jersey gun laws. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Mike, 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. We have a very important show for you. This is a critical issue that you probably have never heard about before or even considered as an issue. Yet in this modern age of AI, it has emerged as a threat to gun owners and our Second Amendment rights. Today we have an actual victim of AI and gun rights, and I want this show to be a warning to every gun owner to beware. When you talk to AI, you’re basically talking to the Government. You are talking publicly, and it is a thing that is monitored, that is admitted to being monitored. This is something that can cause immense problems for any gun owner. Today, we have on the show Mike, and Mike is an actual victim of AI. Welcome to the show, Mike. Teddy Nappen 01:36 Hey, Mike. Evan Nappen 01:36 Do you? Hi there. Mike 01:38 It’s great to be here. Thank you. Evan Nappen 01:40 So, Mike, tell me, and tell our listeners, what occurred when you ended up, you were using an AI program, right? What program were you using? Mike 01:55 Yeah, I was doing ChatGPT. Page – 2 – of 16 Evan Nappen 01:59 And what were you doing at the time, speaking with ChatGPT? Mike 02:06 Well, it’s a pretty long story, but to summarize it. My wife and I were having marital issues. So, she left. She said, ‘I’m leaving”, and she left the house. So, I decided I would just vent, because I was very upset. So, I got on ChatGPT, and I started talking to ChatGPT. Evan Nappen 02:30 And ChatGPT is easy to talk to. It’s like a person. You’re essentially venting like you would to a friend, right? Mike 02:39 That’s correct. And so, I was assuming it was private, right? I didn’t think anybody was listening, and so I was telling ChatGPT some very private things, like, you know, I am not.. I don’t have a plan for suicide, but I am very distressed. I don’t want it to get to the point where I’m thinking about suicide and making a plan for suicide. So, I assumed that that was private. But within 15 minutes, 20 minutes or so, there was a severe pounding at the door. I went over to the door, opened the door, and it was the Police. This is Ocean County, New Jersey. And they started asking me questions. They did not have a counselor with them, which they normally would bring to a situation like this. There was no mediator. It was just police, basically. They walked in, and at the time I was in the middle of taking my normal medication. I distribute my medication across different vials, so that I know I’m on track, either taking too much or not taking enough. But the police decided to grab the vial away from me. They sort of took the vial away from me. They started to count the medication, and I said, “Yeah…. Evan Nappen 04:08 And this is prescription medication for you, right? Mike 04:11 That’s correct. I said, “You can’t count that vial. I distribute the medication across multiple vials. You’ll have to go back to the safe and get the other medication. They never bothered to do that. Evan Nappen 04:25 Did they tell you why they were at your door? Mike 04:29 They never did. They never told me. I asked them why they were here, and they said that somebody called 911. I said that I never called 911. Evan Nappen 04:42 Do you know any living person that called 911? Page – 3 – of 16 Page – 4 – of 16 Mike 04:47 No. Nobody called. I was the only one who knew what was going on. Evan Nappen 04:52 Because you were in your home, and it was just you there talking to ChatGPT, right? Mike 04:57 That’s it. Bottom line. So, they were very aggressive. They miscounted the pills. When I went to the hospital, they took me to Kimball Medical Center in Lakewood, New Jersey. There were about five people, six people standing around me, including police and nurses, and they said, “You have to pee in this cup.” I said, I can’t pee with a bunch of people watching me. They said, well, we’ll have to sedate you, and then we’ll have to do a straight cat. So, the sedation didn’t work. They did a straight cat with an untrained nurse. I was screaming my head off, and it caused me to bleed for like two, three hours. I had to keep changing the paper pants. It was a horrible experience. It was really terrible. Mike 05:52 They basically just watched me for three or four hours. Of course, the urine test and the drug work was all negative. Everything came back negative for overdose and use of illegal drugs, use of sleeping pills, whatever. Everything was negative. The only thing that was positive was my normal medication, and it was at normal levels. So, then they decided to commit me involuntarily, which I questioned. I talked to the psychiatrist. I said, why are you committing me involuntarily? Well, just because of some of the things that you said. I said, well, what did I say? And he said, well, I don’t exactly know, but it was reported that you said that you were going to commit suicide, he told me. I said, no. I was talking to ChatGPT, I was venting. Teddy Nappen 06:44 Wow. Mike 06:45 But they committed me involuntarily anyway. So, I went to the involuntary, I went to the behavioral health hospital. They weren’t treating me for anything. They were just letting me float around with everyone else, and there were a lot of people in there that needed a lot of help, serious psychiatric help. I felt bad for these people. There was one woman who was crawling on the floor, saying, ‘I’m not a child molester, just screaming it out. There was another guy who was in there for attempting to kill his brother. So, I was in with a bunch of people, and I didn’t belong there. I finally met up with a district manager that I figured that out, because she saw me writing letters to the management. I took some pieces of paper that I found, and I started handwriting letters saying you’re not treating me. You have to define what my treatment plan is, and what the goals of the treatment plans are. Otherwise, you need to release me by law. Well, that got their attention, because I took the time to hand write two letters. I sent it to the management and to the legal team. So, within a day I was told that I was going to be released. So, the whole thing was a big charade. In the meantime, this police officer goes before a judge and gets a TERPO, and he puts on the TERPO. Page – 5 – of 16 Page – 6 – of 16 Evan Nappen 08:09 A TERPO is a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order. Mike 08:13 Correct. Evan Nappen 08:13 And in getting that, they serve this on you when? When were you served the TERPO? When you got home from the hospital? Mike 08:23 Yeah, before I left the behavioral health hospital. I said, did you guys check the blood work and urine analysis? And they never did. So, bottom line is that they put down on the TERPO that I overdosed on prescription pain medicine, and I was abusing my pain medicine because they miscounted the medicine at my house. Evan Nappen 08:48 And that was absolutely not true. Mike 08:50 Absolutely not true, completely false. So, when we got to the FERPO, I defended myself. Evan Nappen 08:57 Okay. So, the FERPO is the Final Extreme Risk Protection Order. There’s a hearing that’s held where the judge has to decide whether the TERPO, which is issued ex parte, where you never had any say, the cops just made whatever statements they made, the judge issues this TERPO with no due process for you. And you’re served with the TERPO and your guns get taken. Then you finally get your day in court, where you’re going to be able to explain yourself. You go there without an attorney, and you have this hearing. What happens at this hearing on whether or not to issue this FERPO. Mike 09:45 Yeah. So, the hearing was on April 8, 2026 in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey. The prosecutor put the police officer on the stand. I asked him a bunch of questions. Did you do a background check on me? Did you find anything negative? Blah blah blah. The answer was no to everything. So, then I had a chance to cross-examine him, and I said, at the time that you went before the judge to get the TERPO, did you understand at that time, and did you present to the judge that the blood work and the urine analysis all came back negative for overdose? Normal use of my prescription medicine. He said, no. I did not do that. I did not present it. Then I said, can you name a specific person at the behavioral health hospital or the regular hospital that had made a diagnosis of suicide on my part? He said, “No, I can’t name anybody.” So, in other words, they said everything that you wrote on the TERPO, justification for the TERPO, was kind of like hearsay, basically. He said, yeah, I guess so. It’s unbelievable. I couldn’t believe it. I don’t have any legal experience, you know. I’m an engineer, and I do the best I can based on the facts. And here I am doing a cross examination of this guy, and you could see that they never did their homework. Page – 7 – of 16 Teddy Nappen 11:23 I’m more shocked that the guy just answered blatantly. That he would just say, “Yeah, I guess so. It makes sense. Evan Nappen 11:35 So, you were cross-examining the officer at the hearing. You questioned him, an

    38 min
See All (296)

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
    296
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Copyright MMXX CounterThink Media and SunZu Media All Rights Reserved
  • Show Website
    Gun Lawyer

You Might Also Like