Page – 1 – of 10

Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy.

SPEAKERS

Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen

Evan Nappen 00:16

I’m Evan Nappen.

Teddy Nappen 00:19

And I’m Teddy Nappen.

Evan Nappen 00:21

And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey.

Evan Nappen 01:23

So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause.

Evan Nappen 03:07

J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10

pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process.

Evan Nappen 04:18

Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge.

Evan Nappen 05:21

Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”.

Evan Nappen 06:19

J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10

Evan Nappen 07:42

Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed.

Evan Nappen 09:47

The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, if they are, “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later.

Evan Nappen 11:12

The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this ground until the hearing was all but completed. Page – 4 – of 10

Evan Nappen 12:20

Moreover, and this is important, the trial court failed to address whether JBL knowingly falsified his response. Now we’ve experienced, folks, in our practice that there are times, many times, as a matter of fact, this trifecta of a win here that we’ve had. Where the court will make any statement that they deem to be a false statement, not even over the application, to be a basis for denial. And here the court is making it clear it takes a knowingly falsified response, and it has to be based on what’s in the application. At the close of the hearings, after both parties have presented their arguments, the court pressed, pressed J.L.B. as to his understanding of the nature of his mental health treatment, his course of therapy with his doctor, and interpretation of the question on the FPIC application regarding mental or psychiatric treatment.

Evan Nappen 13:19

Footnote three, and, folks, listen to what footnote three says. This is what happened in that court. Footnote three by the Appellate Court. “We note this line of questioning by the court was improper, as were other lines of questioning throughout the hearings. When presiding over a bench trial, the court may examine witnesses ‘to clarify testimony, aid the court’s understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the efficient conduct of the trial.'” “In this case, the trial court extensively cross-examined J.L.B. on multiple occasions and, in doing so, crossed ‘that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality’ and substantially prejudiced J.L.B.’s right to a fair hearing.” And I can tell you, folks, that there are plenty of others that have experienced that in Bergen County, the court goes on in the opinion.

Teddy Nappen 14:42

If I recall, isn’t Bergen, pretty much the only county where they ever go after people for falsification?

Evan Nappen 14:48

No, they’re not the only county, but they are the lion’s den of problems. And this is really great, that this case is shining the light on what went on in this case. And this is now critical, so let me just go on. J.L.B. explained that he had answered “no” because he had been treated by a psychologist who held a PhD, not a psychiatrist or physician. He further stated he never received a clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition, including depression or anxiety. He was never treated with any psychiatric medication. He noted he had not seen the progress notes until they were released during the hearing, and he had begun to address why he would not know what a doctor puts in her notes before being abruptly cut off by the court. Get a load of that, folks. The trial court did not address these contentions. Instead, it relied on the doctor’s progress notes, unknown to J.L.B. at the time he filled out his application, to erroneously conclude J.L.B. suffered from anxiety and depression and he had falsely answered the questionnaire. Whether J.L.B.’s response was false, however, is a question the record before us does not resolve for the following reasons: J.L.B. was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself, given the lack of notice, the record contains no clinical diagnosis of mental health conditions, nor evidence of any mental health treatment, and the doctor did not testify at the hearings.

Evan Nappen 16:35

Importantly, the court’s analysis entirely ignores the statutory requirement the falsification be made knowingly. Even if J.L.B.’s response was false, he had no reason to know the contents of the doctor’s notes when he completed the application. These records were not produced until the hearings on his Page – 5 – of 10

appeal, long after the application was submitted. A finding of knowing falsification cannot rest solely on the contents of records J.L.B. had never seen. Additionally, the court also denied the appeal pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5), finding that no FPIC or PPH shall be issued “to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. “This is the “broadest” of disqualifications for obtaining an FPIC or PPH. “In re Application of Carlstrom”, by the way, is citing another Nappen case. The provision is intended to relate to cases of individual unfitness, even though not dealt with in specific statutory enumerations, the issuance of a permit or identification guard would nonetheless be contrary to public interest.

Evan Nappen 17:58

The court’s reasoning in determining J.L.B. was disqualified pursuant to is as follows, and this is from the court hearing. This is the Appellate Court quoting this quote from the hearing in the Bergen County Court. This is the judge’s finding in that hearing. I also find that he’s disqualified pursuant to 58-3(c)(5), to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare, because the person was found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s really due to Mr. (J.L.B.)’s testimony. Particularly his testimony before the court here today, where he minimizes his course of treatment with Dr. Lenzi, and tries to divert attention away from Dr. Lenzi’s Progress Notes, in a very long letter, which states that Mr. (J.L.B.)’s treatment, while focusing on decreasing his anxiety, and the fact that he presented with depression and anxiety, both at Intake and at various times throughout the course of his treatment. The public health, safety, and welfare doesn’t just include the public outside of (J.L.B.) household. It also includes Mr. (J.L.B.) and his children. So, that’s the court’s decision. I do find that the state has met its’ burden by preponderance of the evidence.”

Evan Nappen 19:13

Then the Appellate Court says, in response to that, “This reasoning is misplaced. J.L.B.’s discussion of Dr. Lenzi’s progress notes was not an attempt to minimize his treatment or divert the court’s attention, but rather an effort to explain why those notes did not render his answer on the application knowingly false. A self-represented applicant’s attempt to contextualize his counseling records cannot support a finding of unfitness within the meaning of 2C:58-3(c)(5). Indeed, we recently rejected the notion that an applicant’s credibility or dishonesty can serve as a sole basis for disqualification pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). What case are they citing? “See In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Mikhail Polatov’s Application for a Firearms Purchaser ID Card.” Another Nappen win case. They’re using it to win here for our client, in which they say.

Teddy Nappen 20:20

Polatov Cocktail.

Evan Nappen 20:21

That’s right. That was our last show. It was on that case. Finding no correlation between the applicant’s lack of credibility and the absence of essential character or temperament that would make him more likely than not to be a danger to public health, safety, or welfare if he had a firearm. The court’s reason provides no meaningful explanation for how the record supports a finding that the issuance of a permit would be contrary to public health, safety or welfare. See Weston v. State. In the final analysis for a Page – 6 – of 10

court to sustain an administrative decision, which affects the substantial rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record to support it. Because the foregoing is dispositive, they declined to address the remaining arguments we made. They reverse and remand the matter for a new hearing before a different judge. This case is a great win, and we’re very proud of it. We’re very glad to have helped our client here, and it is a trifecta of three wins coming out of what goes on in Bergen County, my friends. So, beware. Learn from this and make sure you have good counsel when fighting for your gun rights.

Evan Nappen 21:45

Let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a great range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s the range where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we got our certifications and where we love to shoot. Great range, great pro shop. They’ve got fantastic firearms equipment and great training. Get your CCARE there, your certificate, so you can get your carry. Whether you’re beginner or an advanced shooter, WeShoot is a place for you. WeShoot is just wonderful. All I get is fantastic feedback from everybody that goes there. They treat everyone like family. You will love it. WeShoot is conveniently located in Lakewood, New Jersey, right off the Parkway. Easy to get to, right there in Central Jersey. It is a great resource. We need our ranges, folks. Without our ranges, you don’t have a place to shoot, and this is a great resource that you can take advantage of. Pay a visit to WeShoot. Check out their website at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. You will also really enjoy their website. They have the WeShoot girls. They have fantastic top of the line professional photography, and you can learn all about this wonderful experience that awaits you at our favorite range, which is WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey.

Evan Nappen 22:31

And let me also remind you that you need to get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It is 120 topics, all answered by question and answer in a 500 page book. That book is so big it is a weapon itself. So, get your copy today by going to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. You will help protect yourself from becoming a GOFU. You don’t want to do that. You need to know the insanity that is New Jersey gun laws. And that’s why I wrote that book, to make it as user friendly as possible for you to know. Hey, Teddy. What do you have for us today in Press Checks?

Teddy Nappen 24:07

Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and one of the things that is always important is to keep tabs on our opponents, the gun rights suppressionists. I was perusing through EveryTown, and they put out their press release, patting themselves on the back. Everytown Gun Safety Action Fund Announces the Endorsements of Moms Demand Action volunteers for running in the offices of North Carolina and Texas. (https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-endorses-first-round-of-moms-demand-action-volunteersrunning-for-office-in-2026/) And they were, you know, it’s various people seems that are running in these districts because they’re trying to attack there. You notice that they’re trying to hit like North Carolina and Texas, specifically in those areas, because they’re trying to counteract a lot of the fights going on in all the other states. Page – 7 – of 10

Teddy Nappen 24:56

We all know the Democrats, their polling is lower than Trump’s and the entire Republican Party. They’re at the lowest point. You can cut to Harry Enten on CNN, who is just the golden retriever of CNN, freaking out at the numbers every time. But what I love, what actually caught my eye was what was highlighted. They were talking about the Everytown Victory Fund. Back in 2021 they launched a program known as Demand a Seat, an educational program that trains, quote, unquote, grassroots volunteers and gun violence survivors to take next steps in their advocacy efforts by running them for offices and working on campaigns. They highlight 1200 volunteers across 47 states. Operating and trying to claim and move into these positions.

Teddy Nappen 25:55

So, stop right there. Here are the sycophants, individuals that are politically driven in removing and taking away our rights and trying to run in small localities. This is the game they play. This is how they chip away at our rights, and this is where they’re targeting elections. And you know their endowment of money, funding by Bloomberg of his actions. Where does this pan out? To see the results, cut to Virginia. If anyone’s been paying attention on that end, the insanity of gun laws that were rolled out by, was it Shinebomb? Of all the insanity that they were trying to pump out through the legislation, that giant omnibus. Remember, they ran a moderate campaign and then what?

Evan Nappen 26:47

Well, this is what they do. They make believe they’re moderates, when in fact, they’re extremists. They’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to our rights.

Teddy Nappen 26:57

Correct. And right here, they’re even bragging about it right on there. DemandASeat.org. On their whole website, 13 Moms Demand Action volunteers elected into the Virginia House.

Evan Nappen 27:10

Get a load of that. They got 13 fanatical anti-gunners into the legislature. And why aren’t we running a counter program to get pro Second Amendment rights’ candidates from the grassroots to run? Where’s our candidates?

Teddy Nappen 27:34

Here they’re out spending NRA’s 31,000 in the Virginia elections. So, it’s very much we need people. If anyone is out there who has time and ability to run locally, it could be anything on that in the positions.

Evan Nappen 27:51

Yeah, anything.

Teddy Nappen 27:52

You can be anything.

Evan Nappen 27:53

Yes, I agree. Get active. Page – 8 – of 10

Teddy Nappen 27:57

Yeah, what ever it can be in the positions, because I’ll highlight, right now.

Evan Nappen 28:02

Well, it’s the old, it’s the old thing. All politics are local, right? So this is critical.

Teddy Nappen 28:09

I’ll highlight to you right here from the New Jersey Globe. This is back in 2023. National gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety endorses five New Jersey municipal races and candidates from their grassroots organizations. (https://newjerseyglobe.com/gun-control/everytown-endorses-five-candidates-for-local-office-in-n-j/) Here we go again. So, they’ve been running this program since 2021. You can go on the website. They’re bragging about it right here. It’s the DemandASeat.org. And they train them up on the lingo that they’re pushing, the language that they need to put in bills. Whatever program they can and will activate in locals, they will do so. Any ordinance they can get away with, they will do so. That’s how you get the air gage knife out of California. They don’t care. It’s whatever.

Evan Nappen 28:54

One thing. You’ve got to give the antis credit. Because they’re always conniving some other strategy to try to screw us out of our rights. They are good at it. I give them credit for that. Where’s our counterforce to this? Where is it?

Teddy Nappen 29:09

Well, it comes down to this. To all gun owners, who it was. Well, I forget the percentage number that vote. And look, you have to understand this is how they get us. Because I see the U.K. I see California. That is their goal. We talked about in the last episode. If they ever get in power, if they ever find the means to do so, they will take away our rights. They will take away our ability to possess firearms. They will take away our rights to defend themselves. They have already done so in all these other places, and they continue to push for it. They will continue to push otherwise. So, you see, right now, people need to be active locally. This is where they get started every time.

Evan Nappen 29:53

It’s critical, and it’s very important. Hey, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, and it’s a really important one. It is a GOFU that became an epiphany to me. And I want to tell you about this. Because, you know, our GOFU is, of course, the Gun Owner Fuck Up, and it’s important to talk about these things. These are mistakes from actual cases that people make, and it can be very costly to them. Cost them their freedom, their fortune, their family, their careers, everything, and you, the listener, get to learn it for free. Well, I’ve got to tell you, folks. I just recently came across a case that has really shocked me about how this is a GOFU, and I want to tell you why. Because it has to do with the “Duty to Retreat”. Now in terms of self-defense, when it comes to the legal framework of self-defense, which falls under the heading of “justification for use of force”, justification. It’s an affirmative defense. And we talk about justification for the use of force. We can talk about non-deadly force. We can talk about deadly force. Then the law lays out when you can and can’t use force. Page – 9 – of 10

Evan Nappen 31:13

I’m not going to spend a whole, you know, three hours here explain to you the law of deadly force and force. But as all of you should be aware, New Jersey, like many other states, has provisions that even though they can allow and permit the justification for the use of deadly force and/or force, there is built into the law a check that has to be in place called “Duty to Retreat”. So, the Duty to Retreat is put into our self-defense law so that you might be justified in using, let’s say, deadly force. You might be justified in doing it, but the law says that if you can retreat with complete safety, then you’re required to do that. That’s called the Duty to Retreat.

Evan Nappen 32:10

Now, what I’ve always thought about this, I’ve always realized that, look, what type of self-defense scenario would you be in where you know you’re in a life and death situation, or something where you feel you need to use force, deadly force, and, or, you know, even non-deadly force, but you’re in this position where you need to use force and you somehow can retreat “with complete safety”. Like, how do you have complete safety? And I always thought, you know, short of “Beam me up, Scotty”, how are you going to have complete safety in any scenario like that? I’ve never encountered a hypothetical until now, where it’s no longer a hypothetical of where Duty to Retreat might actually be applicable.

Evan Nappen 33:06

And here’s the scenario, folks. Here’s where it’s a GOFU that you better be aware of when it comes to Duty to Retreat. You’re in a situation. This is based on actual case that I know of. You’re in a situation where you are encountering a threat, a threat to your life, a threat even to possibly others. And you’re, let’s say, outside of your home, encountering such a threat. And then in that encounter of the threat, you retreat into your home. Shut the door. The threat is outside. You’re inside. You arm yourself inside, perfectly lawful at that stage. What should you do? You should call the police. That’s what you do. You call the police. You’re in your home. You’ve gotten away from the threat.

Evan Nappen 34:12

Where’s the GOFU? Well, in this case, leaving your home to re-engage the threat. No, no, no. You just retreated with complete safety. You now could even call the police. You now have armed yourself to protect yourself in your home. You go back out there to re-engage a threat. That’s a problem, folks. Potentially a big problem. Potentially an argument that could raise your failure to abide by Duty to Retreat. It’s a possibility, and it’s a strong possibility. So, what’s the GOFU? Once you’ve gotten away from the threat, stay away from the threat! That’s the takeaway. You got away from the threat. Stay away from the threat. Call the police. Do not take it into your own hands. Do not re-engage. You’ve escaped the threat. Leave it at that. That’s the important thing. To do otherwise may, in fact, be a giant GOFU.

Evan Nappen 35:32

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. Page – 10 – of 10

Speaker 3 35:43

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)