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 the scene, but they did not proffer any evidence regarding D.G.’s present condition, etc. So, all this discussion about D.G., all that, whatever, the bottom line is that’s not about Kun. Page – 4 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 12:54

Out of curiosity, applying this to what they’re trying to push now with the, what was it, the household background check.

Evan Nappen 13:01

Well, this is just the thing. This is why they’re even trying to put legislation to make it part of the law that you can be disqualified because of somebody else. But that is not the law. And listen to this. The court then said, compounding the error, the trial court in Bergen then attributed the risk it found in D.G. to Kun because of her statement. “She wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access to the firearm in her safe.” Solely due to this statement, the court disqualified her under health, safety, welfare. The courts find that Kuhn wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access is not supported by substantial, credible evidence. The only basis of this finding was Kun’s answer, which she later clarified to the following hypothetical questions.

Evan Nappen 14:01

This is a from the transcript from the hearing. Court: Would you ever give him access to the combination or key? A. Yes, I would. I don’t have any. And then the court interrupts, You would give him access? Answer. I don’t have concerns for him being suicidal or homicidal. I’m a psychiatrist myself. So, I don’t, I mean, you probably want me to say I wouldn’t, but like honestly, I don’t have. Court: Oh no, I don’t want you to say anything other than the truth, okay? Answer. I am telling you the truth. He’s sober. He’s not, this was a one time thing. He was grieving his mother. He drank for those six days. When the officers came in, he was taken to the hospital. The psychiatrist there evaluated him deemed him not a suicidal homicidal. Sent him home the same day. He’s been in therapy. I think his therapist provided a letter. The therapist also has not been concerned for his safety.

Evan Nappen 15:01

Now this is the appellate court. “It was unreasonable for the court to construe this answer as anything other than Kun’s expression of her confidence in D.G.’s mental health and current stability. Far more probative testimony elicited at the hearing revealed Kun responsibly stored her firearm by locking it in a safe, accessible only to her. Moreover, she testified, in the three years she and D.G. had lived together before the incident, D.G. had never requested nor was ever given access to the firearm. The trial court’s finding lacks support in this record. Moreover, the trial court’s interpretation N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) improperly engrafted a storage requirement onto the statute.” Although there is a storage requirement for minors, there exists no New Jersey statute regulating the storage of firearms for people who cohabitate with other adults. Simply put, Kuhn was under no legal obligation to lock away her firearm simply because she lived with D.G. It is not the court’s role to rewrite NJ law 2C:58-3 to impose such a requirement. State v. Jones. Citing State v. Jones. It is not our job to engraft requirements on a statute that the Legislature did not include. Rather, it is our role to enforce the legislative intent as expressed through the words used by the Legislature.

Evan Nappen 17:04

So, this is a great case. It addresses something that is seriously ongoing throughout New Jersey as a basis for search and seizure. We see this take place in ERPOSs. You know, the ERPOs, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, where third party guns get taken. We see it happen in domestic violence, where innocent third parties, who have nothing to do with the DV at all, where it’s often, you know, let’s say the Page – 5 – of 12

parents, but it’s the son and the girlfriend. Not the parents. Their guns get taken, too, and vice versa, when they’re not at all involved. And then you see the State saying, oh, well, these people are disqualified, so you’re disqualified, too. It’s this ridiculous approach of just having an agenda of disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights based on the act of third parties and the Kun case stands in sharp Appellate contrast to those ongoing activities that take place every day throughout the New Jersey courts. So, keep this case in mind.

Teddy Nappen 18:31

Just to extrapolate off of this case, one of the things, because we know New Jersey down the pike, they’re going to try for this. They’re going to try to do this, family background check. What would be some of the legal grounds? Because you’re effectively, what you are doing is denying someone a civil right based on the fact that there’s someone who potentially should not be able to access or act or use said civil right. So that’d be the equivalent of, oh, I live with a, I live with someone who has a criminal conviction who can’t vote. So, therefore you can’t vote as well. Like it’s the. I don’t see the value.

Evan Nappen 19:10

Well, what if somebody in your household posted threats online? Do you now? Does the court say I’m sorry, but you are not allowed to go and use your computer anymore because somebody might access your computer and write something unlawful. Do you lose your First Amendment rights because of a third party? No. You know this idea of costing us our rights. These are individual rights. Let’s underline and bold that word individual rights. Okay? They’re the rights of the individual. They’re not shared rights amongst a group. They’re the person’s rights. And the courts are and should never be able to take away one person’s rights because of another person. Why is that? Because we have no control over others. Who do we have control? Who do we have responsibility for? Ourselves! Who do we have authority over? Ourselves! All right? It is therefore absolutely unfair and absurd that an individual would lose their rights because of another and that is a slippery slope that we cannot go down.

Evan Nappen 21:07

So, we’re finally getting case law that is pulling back this practice. It’s wrong. It is not justified under New Jersey law. It’s not justified under New Jersey licensing law. It’s not justified under New Jersey gun law, under the disqualifiers. And the court here makes that crystal clear why Bergen County was wrong in what they did, and this is something that has infected the system, and we have to be on guard and alert. We finally have a case law that is extremely instructive in this matter, and you can read it for yourselves, folks. And like I said, the link will be right there, and you’ll be able to read the case in its entirety. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf)

Evan Nappen 21:23

Hey, let’s talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is offering New York City CCW, New York City carry certification. So, if you want to get your non-resident or even resident New York City Carry Permit, you can get it via the course being offered at WeShoot. If you’re looking to apply for your New York non-resident carry permit, they are offering that course for only $289. You will be able to take the comprehensive 18 hour court course designed to meet all the requirements necessary so you can submit your application for your New York carry. This course spans two days, featuring 16 hours of classroom instruction and two hours of live fire training. You’ll cover critical topics such as firearm Page – 6 – of 12

safety and storage, pistol and ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, use of force, federal and state specific laws. And build live fire training. And have live fire training to build confidence and practical skills. If you’re seeking these certifications, you can go there.

Evan Nappen 22:47

They also have optional DC for Washington DC and Maryland wear and carry certification, as well as your ability to obtain Washington DC permit for just $150. So, if you’re looking to expand your ability to carry outside of the state of New Jersey, look no further than WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. You’ll love it there. It’s conveniently located right off the Parkway. They have plenty of other training, too. A beautiful range and a great pro shop. They have great deals on guns and accessories. They can get you equipped, whether you are a novice or a pro. WeShoot is for you. Go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Check out WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey.

Evan Nappen 23:44

Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, and it is your guidebook to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. It’s written to be user friendly and to help you not become a GOFU, my friends. So, go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll be able to click the link right there and order a book. You’ll have it in a matter of days. EvanNappen.com. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us in Press Checks, which I understand are free?

Teddy Nappen 24:28

Well, as you know, and you stole my line, Press Checks are actually free. I always want to look towards what would be if the Left had unfettered power. Where they pack the court, control the House, Senate, and President, what would they do? We don’t even have to look that far, because we are reminded to our neighbors of the North how completely, utterly insane they are when it comes to destruction of their rights. Canada, as we’ve spoken before, remember, they were doing a buyback program, the voluntary, even though it’s not it’s voluntary mandatory, even though they say, oh, it’s a voluntary program. Such a voluntary program that you have to turn it in or you’re going to be committing a felony. Yeah. Very voluntary. So, March 31 was the drop dead date of when you had to turn in your firearms that were banned. And this is the scheme that they’re pushing. This was done by the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree. I’m probably mispronouncing that. I don’t care. This is an gun right suppressor. So, this was their push. And after all.

Evan Nappen 25:49

He’s a hose head. He’s a hose head.

Teddy Nappen 25:52

Yeah, an imported hose head, let’s just say. But the one thing I always love is they show the breakdown numbers. This was from Colin Noir, a great Second Amendment guy. He won the Gundies Award for male influencer. A great individual. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNBwQSAYYiI) Page – 7 – of 12

Evan Nappen 26:12

I love Colin. He’s great. He does great stuff.

Teddy Nappen 26:14

He did a good breakdown, along with Rebel News, where they talked about how out of all their gun grabbing, it got to 2.5% of the firearms in the country, which was effectively 52,000 out of 2 million of the of the confirmed guns. By the way, not to mention all the other stuff that people probably, you know, buried.

Evan Nappen 26:39

Oh, like, you know that, wait, that’s what BATF stands for, by the way. It stands for Bury All Thy Firearms. Yes. Okay, go ahead.

Teddy Nappen 26:49

Including the E for everywhere. But so I love how they point out, like, okay, we’ve screwed this up. So, now what? There was an exchange between the Minister Gary and the House of Commons Member Dane Lloyd, who pointed out the failure and explained. So, the plan was in quote, March 31 was the time to complete the enrollment. And what is the option? What is to be done? Well, they’re going to roll out the Royal Mounted Police and other agencies will be available in the spring and summer to do the collection. Okay, that’s a very Canada way of saying they’re going to send mounted police and other agencies to come into your house and take your property.

Evan Nappen 27:40

Oh, God. I suddenly thought of that Mountie from the old Bullwinkle, Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon.

Teddy Nappen 27:47

Oh, yeah, what was his name?

Evan Nappen 27:50

I don’t remember. But anyway, that would be, that’d be a good meme. They did the live action. Give me your guns with him. Hand over your guns. Please, may we have your guns? No, it’s Canadian. They’ll be very nice about it. Please, may we have your guns? Right.

Teddy Nappen 28:04

Yeah. Oh, Dudley Do-Right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Do-Right)

Evan Nappen 28:07

Dudley. Oh, perfect.

Teddy Nappen 28:09

Dudley Do-Right.

Evan Nappen 28:11

Dudley Do-Right. Could it be any better? This is the Dudley Do-Right gun confiscation scheme. Page – 8 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 28:18

Yes.

Evan Nappen 28:19

Dudley Do-Right. Yeah. Oh, perfect, exactly.

Teddy Nappen 28:23

Yeah. And by the way, they pointed out, after the, after the Minister recommended they use the Mounted Police, the House of Commons, Lloyd responded Minister, I find that very concerning. We’re going to send police officers door to door as frankly, many police forces across the country are refusing to participate in the program.

Evan Nappen 28:51

Oh, man. I’m so shocked about that. They don’t want to go around and take citizens guns. I wonder why? Why?

Teddy Nappen 28:59

Yeah. Yeah, gee, I wonder from the fact that they are disarming their people. The fact that Canada has a rampant crime wave, which, by the way, remember Canada’s the first of mass shooters. And the ’90s were even worse in Canada, and on top of which, their economy is already teetering. Their budget is overblown from the social safety net. Now, on top of the fact that they’re very thinly stretched forces, they’re going to send them door to door to people. I love this guy’s response, where he said, oh, don’t worry. We’re going to look to. The Minister said we’re going to look to voluntary, either retired police, or off-duty police, to go to the households.

Evan Nappen 29:45

Oh, even better. I’m sure retired police wait to go door to door to try to take citizens’ guns in Canada. I’m sure they’ll volunteer in droves to do that. I mean, come on.

Teddy Nappen 29:59

Well, I love how they stress the term. This is a voluntary program. We’re not, we’re not expecting much resistance. This is just voluntary,

Evan Nappen 30:08

Yeah, voluntary!

Teddy Nappen 30:10

Yeah. How much was that? And bear in mind, this comes from like the firearm, their version of the NRA, the Firearms Rights Coalition of Canada. (https://firearmrights.ca/1500-guns-banned-from-law-abiding-canadians/) Their fighters who point out the failure of this where, not only, by the way, not only were they saying, oh, we’re not going to come for your guns. They clearly are. I love, it’s just it drives me nuts. In 2010 Justin Trudeau, when he did an interview about the mass registration, what were the words? I always hear the argument that registration of guns will lead to the taking away of guns from Page – 9 – of 12

everyone. That’s just not true. The argument is false because we have a gun culture in Canada. We are just trying to do common sense.

Evan Nappen 30:52

Oh, right. It’s always common sense. Listen, we know the four words, and we’ll say it again in case you don’t. Legislation. And then what comes next is Registration. Then Confiscation, and after that is Extermination. We’ve seen it repeat throughout history. Every major Holocaust is preceded by taking the guns. And you can see what lack of guns does in let’s say Iran. You want the people to rise up. You want them to knock out that evil terrorist regime? Cuba. Again, in all these places. What do you have? You have disarmed the population. So, Canada is going down the road of disarmament, and it is always a road that is paved to hell.

Teddy Nappen 31:36

And the Coalition highlights then in 2020 the banning of 1500 different models of their version of assault weapons. The ending of buy, sale, transfer or use of military assault weapons. What is that? They don’t know.

Evan Nappen 31:54

They don’t know. Just seize the gun. And here’s the thing, they’re having trouble getting anybody to go and seize the guns. And yet, that raises an interesting question, doesn’t it, Teddy?

Teddy Nappen 32:11

Yes.

Evan Nappen 32:12

And what is that? That we were talking about?

Teddy Nappen 32:15

Well, I under, well, we were getting to the fact that the main issue, and the Left know this is the hardest part. If they had the power, they would. They want to do this. They want to disarm the people.

Evan Nappen 32:28

Of course! This is, this is their end game goal, their end game.

Teddy Nappen 32:32

But the issue is the feasibility, because they have to get so much cooperation from the police, from the locals, and that’s why it failed in Australia. They still can’t even get the guns through. They’re trying to do it now, and they, and half the country, isn’t complying. In the U.K., anywhere they go, they cannot get the compliance.

Evan Nappen 32:51

So, what might be a mechanism that they can use? Page – 10 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 32:53

This where, this is where it’s going to come down to at this point, robots. They’re going to use robots.

Evan Nappen 32:59

Wait a minute. Now, people might laugh. They might laugh and say, robots? That sounds ridiculous. But stop a minute. Stop a minute. We are entering into a new world. Within about a year or so, Elon Musk will be selling his robots, and robots are going to become a way of life. Just like, you know, years ago, you may not have even believed the internet could exist. You may not have believed GPS could exist. All these things. AI is exploding. Yet robots are the future. We see. What are drones that we’re fighting wars with? They’re flying robots, when you get right down to it. So, robots are going to become a tool, and they are arguably a threat to our gun rights in the future because robots can be used to actually effectuate the confiscation of guns. Think about it. Officers, normally, are not going to want to go, and may even in fact, refuse to go, if they have taken their oath seriously, to take guns from law-abiding citizens. But you know, who won’t refuse? Robots. Robots won’t refuse.

Evan Nappen 34:24

You may don’t think of robots like a 1950s sci-fi movie. Modern robots are kind of amazing, and they can do things that people do. And they’re going to get better and better and better at doing those very things. Do not be surprised. And you can say, hey, I remember hearing this way back on Gun Lawyer, way back years ago. And it won’t even be that long ago, I heard about robots taking on a role of law enforcement. I could well see robots coming to houses talking about guns that they believe are there. Even having scientific mechanisms in them that can sniff for guns, that can search for guns. I mean, look, what do they do now with dogs? They have it, right? They have it now with Wi Fi, right?

Teddy Nappen 35:21

Where you’re walking into.

Evan Nappen 35:22

Right!

Teddy Nappen 35:22

If you walk somewhere, it can actually track if you’re carrying.

Evan Nappen 35:26

So, don’t, don’t right. And, yeah, don’t discount this.

Teddy Nappen 35:31

Go a step further. Now apply it to, okay, think drones. Now they get the anti-gun whack nut group where you have the appeal to authority, where, like, oh, I’m supposed to do this, and controlling the robot from a screen, because that takes away the human element, where they’re no longer going door to door. Now you’re just sending some robot and commanding it to get the gun without being there. Without, like, following the logic, because it’s what they’re training them all for. Page – 11 – of 12

Evan Nappen 35:58

Right! And now they don’t have to face the homeowner and they and it’s more impersonal. They can demand the seizure and have literally a robot army to seize guns. You think it’s laughable? I don’t. I don’t. Because they will stop at nothing to disarm us if we ever quit in our fight. The eternal vigilance that it takes to maintain our rights, and this will become a tool of the oppressionists to steal our rights, to take our guns, to essentially enslave us. That’s their goal.

Teddy Nappen 36:39

Take it a step further to the Milgram experiment. You remember that? The famous experiment where the whole idea is you have someone in the room, and they’re supposed to test like, elect like electrical shocks to basically make it so you can react. There’s someone at the lab turning the dial, and they know full well. If they turn it higher it’s going to kill the person, but they keep turning it. Then the guy in lab coat goes, well, the experiment has to continue. You have to turn the dial. And that appeal to authority. And you know what really screws up every time they do this? 90% of the people turn that dial to kill someone. So, now apply that to where you’re controlling this robot and disarming it. Well, we have to do this because it’s for your safety. They have no standards to the Left. This is what they want. If they had the means to disarm you, they will. But currently, they are not. It’s not feasible. Don’t get.

Evan Nappen 37:35

Well, I guess we’re gonna see all kinds of gun testing on robots. I’m assuming we’re going to see reports of that. Because what happens if a robot goes crazy and gets dangerous? What rounds are the best at stopping robots? Hmmm?

Teddy Nappen 37:55

Ten millimeter.

Evan Nappen 37:56

Maybe 10. I don’t think. Do we have to move up to a big 50? Probably not. We’ll see where the weak spots are in robots and all that kind of stuff. It may come down to some interesting times as the old curse goes. I’ll tell you, folks, beware, and stay vigilant. I think there is. We can never lose sight of what their end game is, and that is disarmament of the individual so that we can be controlled. And this goes to the very heart of what the Second Amendment is about. The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting, folks. It’s about a check on tyranny. It’s about enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is about our insurance policy for our freedom and to remain free. And these things are threats. As science and technology progresses, there’s so many wonderful things that can come from it. I’m not anti-progress or anti-science, but there also can be a lot of danger. I can foresee this danger, so stay vigilant.

Evan Nappen 39:06

Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. Now this week’s GOFU. You know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. This is where you get to learn very cheap, meaning, for free, what can be very expensive lessons. And this week’s GOFU is this. If you’re transporting or carrying a gun, know your destination. Know where you’re going, and make sure that where you’re going doesn’t put you into a trap. And let me tell you right now, I have cases where individuals, maybe on the job or otherwise, or they get diverted because of some emergency, or they’re going to do something and don’t realize that Page – 12 – of 12

they are ending up, let’s say, for example, on military property, or at a protected port, for example, or at any other place like that where firearms are prohibited. If you enter these places, search of vehicles is absolutely permitted, and you’re essentially consenting to it by just coming up to that gate. And if you come up to that gate with a gun, you’re going to have a problem. You’ve got to know where you’re going to end up with your firearm, and even if that wasn’t where you were intending to go, you have to realize that suddenly you could have trouble. You could have a problem.

Evan Nappen 40:35

If you’re in your vehicle with a firearm, and you end up having to go not just to a New Jersey sensitive place, but we’re talking about having to go on to property where there’s going to be active searching for firearms and where firearms themselves are prohibited, that can be a trap. We have cases where it has become a trap, and it is absolutely a GOFU. So, folks, be aware, be clear. Make sure you don’t bring your firearm to a prohibited place, and be very careful about Federal places that you may have to enter into that will pose this risk to you and your guns.

Evan Nappen 41:25

This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.

Speaker 2 41:36

Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing [email protected]. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

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 protected]

Email (required) *

First Name *

Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)