Episode 306- Big Brother’s Eye on Guns
Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript
Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript
Gun Lawyer — Episode 306 Transcript
Gun laws, Second Amendment, Ninth Circuit, California law, Surveillance, FFL, Self defense, Firearm storage, Heller decision, New Jersey, Guillotine, Weapon definition, Propaganda, CDC data, Gun training
Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2
and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Teddy, welcome back, you new father, you. And I’m the new grandfather.
Yes, I know, and don’t worry, all is good. Just sleep is for the weak.
Ah, right, exactly, exactly. Oh my! And how is beautiful, Aliyana, doing? That cute little peanut that she is.
Aliyana is doing quite well. She is.
And your lovely wife? How is she?
She’s doing also well. It’s definitely one of those moments when you see your wife holding your newborn child. Definitely that kind of spark. Oh yeah, very special,
Oh yeah, very special, special.
Yeah, but they’re both doing quite well, and I’m eternally blessed for that. Page – 2 – of 15
That’s right. And we got the baby to the range. She did great on her first shooting experience there.
She got her CCARE. She’s good. She took out a Charter Arms .22. The trick was the range officer allowed us to just put up balloons to make it easier. It worked.
She took out a Charter Arms .22. The trick was the range officer allowed us to just put up balloons to make it easier, and it worked.
It was good. It was good. We start them young in the Nappen family. You know, you have to give one day of birth, and then you’re at the range.
The two things Aliyana will grow up with having. Number one, I want to teach her to be a critical thinker, and number two, all I can show her for self-defense. Everything I can for her to be a critical thinker.
That’s right. And you do that for all kids. It’s a way of not being a victim, not being a victim. Critical thinking and knowing how to defend yourself – two very important things. Well, I’ve got to tell you, the Ninth Circuit in California had a very interesting decision. The reason I want to discuss it is, I believe this decision may give us hints as to what may be coming in New Jersey and other places. As we see the power of the newly, relatively speaking, empowered Second Amendment crushing gun laws that are literally over a century old, the anti-Second Amendment crowd, the Second Amendment oppressors, are, of course, looking for avenues to oppress our rights, and they have to work within this new framework. This decision out of the Ninth Circuit, I find of great concern because of its potential to possibly be utilized as a mechanism and tactic for the anti-Second Amendment Left. And what happened in the Ninth Circuit is an Appellate Decision, after the trial court in the Ninth, and what it did was leave in place California’s 24/7 gun store surveillance law. Page – 3 – of 15
Now you may say, okay, well that’s just gun stores. Yes, but it’s very easy to expand this, and I’m going to show you why this should be of great concern. So, let’s take a look at what happened in the Ninth Circuit with California law, and then I’m going to discuss where I think the gun rights oppressors may see an opening for shenanigans. We’ve got to be prepared and recognize that this could be a potential area of penetration where they will probably strike and try to oppress us. So, California, requires licensed dealers to video record and audio record. By the way, interior video and audio, and retain all the recordings for at least one year. Now I’m getting this, by the way, from a great article in AmmoLand by one of our favorite authors, John Crump, and it’s called “Ninth Circuit Leaves California’s 24/7 Gun Store Surveillance Law in place”. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-leaves-californias-24-7-gun-store-surveillance-law-in-place/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=fb0c8bc3fc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-fb0c8bc3fc-21268623)
The article discusses how a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s controversial gun store monitoring law by a two-to-one margin. Now, the case is Richards v. Newsom. No shock that the defendant is Governor Newsom. And what happened in this case was brick and mortar FFLs, two home-based FFLs, gun rights groups, including GOA, GOC, CRPA, and SAF, and individual patrons of the shop, were all plaintiffs in this action. They challenged California’s law, which was enacted in 2024, that requires every California FFL to operate a 24/7 digital video system that also records audio inside the premises. Cameras must cover entries and exits, display areas, points of sale, and clearly identify people, and run at least 15 frames per second. They have to store footage for one year. In addition, dealers must post a conspicuous warning that says, in all bold, THESE PREMISES ARE UNDER VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE. YOUR IMAGE AND CONVERSATIONS MAY BE RECORDED.”
At the District Court level, the level below the Appellate level, the law was found constitutional, and the plaintiffs then appealed to the Appeal Court in the ninth, which came out with this decision. It was a three-judge panel, and it was Judge (Lucy H.) Koh, Judge (Ana) de Alba, which were both appointed by Biden, and a Trump appointee, Judge Kenneth Lee. In this case, one of the claims they made was that this violates the Fourth Amendment. That’s the constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure, and the panel rejected the claim, saying that the dealers’ recordings are not themselves a Government search. There is no physical intrusion by the State, citing another case of Jones, and no government acquisition of data, citing two other cases of Carpenter and Chatrie. Dealers are not transformed into state actors by merely being required to keep cameras. Wow, let that sink in. And, of course, the two Biden judges rejected Judge Lee’s inspection theory on three grounds. And that is that the law doesn’t authorize inspections, though there are other penal code provisions that do, and that even if it did, the statute is facially valid under New York versus Burger because it limits who may inspect and what may be inspected. Page – 4 – of 15
The plaintiffs also claim that the law violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause. The Court said no good to that one as well. The majority, again, the two Biden appointees, said it’s not a physical taking. Dealers own and install the equipment, and the Government doesn’t occupy the premises. hey claimed it’s not a regulatory taking. That dealers in this heavily-regulated industry have reduced investment-backed expectations, and the alleged compliance costs, by the way, of $17,000, without a before and after value comparison, do not suffice. And the character of the action is a “public-safety regulation, not a physical invasion”. he Court also rejected the First Amendment claims, where the judge held that overbreadth fails because the statute doesn’t punish or regulate speech. The anonymity claim failed because one, no one must identify themselves, even though cameras must be positioned to identify customers easily. And the Association claim fails because membership is not compulsory, and it shot it all down. hen the majority also declined to adopt the dissent, you know, the good guys’ dissent of the right to receive and exchange information. They rejected that theory, claiming the plaintiffs didn’t raise it, and cited other cases that involved actual prohibitions. So, this is incredible. The one dissenting Judge Lee would have also held that inspection scheme violates the Fourth Amendment as applied to FFLs. There’s no time or place limits. So, agents could theoretically enter home at any hour to check the system, and they left the audio and visual surveillance requirement in place.
Now this is California, granted, and this is, of course, on dealers. However, what are the requirements, constitutionally speaking, when it comes to firearm storage, and we’ll argue regulation? You see, we have heard rumors and things have been printed that one of the things that New Jersey is going to pass, particularly in response to the finding of unconstitutionality of both the assault firearm ban and the magazine ban is something having to do with storage. Well, I’m thinking that it probably isn’t simply going to be focused on storage, but may in fact try to utilize a visual and audio surveillance requirement as well, and place that upon anybody that possesses so-called assault firearms magazines, maybe even all guns. Who knows how far they’ll take it?
If we take a step back and we look at the Heller decision, in (District of Columbia v.) Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, of course, that requiring lawfully-owned firearms in a home to be kept unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Heller Court found that this storage requirement was unconstitutional because it rendered firearms inoperable and prevented individuals from using them for immediate self-defense in the home. Scalia, when he wrote the majority opinion, said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a working firearm ready for core lawful purpose of self-defense. Now, of course, if it’s surveillance, surveillance does not stop you from keeping the gun ready for lawful purpose of self-defense. t’s simply a surveillance and “security requirement”.
Further, the court in Heller noted that the ruling did not cast out on certain other traditional regulations, stating that laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents under specific or different regulatory contexts were not necessarily invalidated by Heller. Scalia, when he wrote the Heller decisions, suggested that the Court’s analysis did not “suggest the invalidity of laws regulating storage Page – 5 – of 15
of firearms to prevent accidents”. When he talked about that distinguishing feature. He was drawing a sharp legal line. The Court did not say that all storage laws are unconstitutional. Instead, it distinguished between complete baseline disabling of a gun versus conditional safety rules. And you know how the Second Amendment oppressors always try to exploit to the max anything they’re given in any way, and this is an opening that I expect they’re going to attempt to.
Let’s take a further look and elaborate. So, for example, the absence of a self-defense exception. ow, the fundamental flaw in the District of Columbia storage law was that it was an absolute 24/7 mandate. Well, in terms of the DC code, a firearm had to be unloaded and bound by a trigger lock, even if an intruder was actively breaking into the home. Now, Heller struck that absolute mandate down, but what Heller preserved was storage regulations that maintain a flexibility enough to allow a person to access and use their weapon dynamically when facing an immediate threat. So, it might still be able to require lock boxes that can instantly be opened. Let’s say with a fingerprint or something like that. This may be a direction they’ll go.
There’s a distinguishing between immediate control and unattended storage. The lower courts heavily relied upon in the Heller quote to uphold secure storage and child access prevention, and New Jersey in fact has a law that says you can’t allow a minor to access a loaded firearm. But the crucial legal distinction is whether the gun is currently in use or whether it’s sitting unattended. One of the distinctions is the on-person distinction. In challenges that followed Heller, courts ruled that laws requiring guns to be locked up only when not under direct personal control of the owner are constitutional. So, they’re going to be exploiting that. f you’re awake and carrying a firearm or have it on your nightstand while home, that’s within your immediate control. But if you leave the house, if you well, if you leave the house and you go to sleep, and the children are present. The state has a valid interest in regulating the unattended storage to prevent an accidental discharge or theft.
So, my question would be, when it comes to, if they were trying to regulate, let’s say they force everyone to have, okay, you need to have X amount of storage. You need to have a safe in requiring of that. Could there be you’re putting the undue burden of saying, well, now you’re adding essentially a poll tax to a right?
That may be one of the arguments about that. I’m not sure how that’ll play out. It’s interesting. Well, and the third thing to keep in mind in Scalia’s reference to “different regulatory contexts”, it means that certain storage laws can be tailored to high-risk environments and specific populations, and they’re historically and legally permissible. So, for example, commercial and public contexts, the Government can mandate strict storage requirements for commercial gun dealers, and California has completely exploited that. You know, usually to prevent like smash and grab robberies or public housing, military barracks, government workplaces, stuff like that. Then there’s preventing vulnerable access. And that’s laws specifically punishing gun owners if a child or legally prohibited person, like a convicted felon, can Page – 6 – of 15
gain access to an unsecured firearm and causes harm are widely considered valid under Heller. So, these do not ban self-defense. They penalize essentially negligence.
This is the playing field that we’re going to see the antis try to exploit. And now you can combine that with possibly requiring 24/7 surveillance to the degree that it could be applied to an individual, even in their home. Because remember you had home-based dealers as well that were part of this that were trying to raise these claims. Now, granted, this is the Ninth Circuit’s view of it. New Jersey, frankly, has often taken a strong view when it comes to Fourth Amendment protections. But who knows whether their desire to have Second Amendment oppression will overcome their desire to have Fourth Amendment protection? We’ve got to be aware of this.
I would take it a step further, Dad. Now say, you need to have an AI program required for your camera, and now that AI can calculate and determine firearms, where they’re going, who has them, how many you have, and no longer need it. We’re always worried about Universal Background Check as the way of the national registration. Imagine an AI in every home, and it determines each firearm. There’s your national registration, and now they have their list to come collect them.
And then it could be viewed at any time. You could see these things happen. I mean, it’s just outrageous the implications. This is very scary stuff when you combine the potential of a surveillance requirement and mandating alarm systems in a home. Cameras, audio, lighting-all these different things. To what degree can the Government extend its power in the name of public safety? Given what is apparently allowed and disallowed by way of Heller and subsequent courts’ rulings and determinations over those things. So, I see this as a new battlefield, a new front that we’re most likely going to have to be very much vigilant about and wary. I also can see this type of California law, at a minimum, applying to New Jersey dealers. At a minimum imposing and trying to create because New Jersey often follows California for their extreme gun rights oppression, and California often follows New Jersey for what they do. They work often hand in hand, and its extension to citizens is something we need to be very concerned about. Hey, Teddy. What do you have of interest in Press Checks? You had mentioned something that I thought was kind of fascinating, and it reminded me of the French Revolution. What is that you need to tell us about this?
As you know, Press Checks are always free, and this comes from the Capitol Police as they had to arrest.
The Capitol in Washington D.C. Page – 7 – of 15
Yeah. United States Capitol Police seized a guillotine, shot a man, and arrested him for carrying a dangerous weapon, for being in possession of a guillotine. (https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-arrests-driver-guillotine-truckbed)
Oh, a guillotine. How did he possess it?
In the back of his pickup truck.
So, he’s driving around with the guillotine on the back of his pickup truck. Was he going to use it in a theatrical play or movie, or was he going to use it to make political speech, or did he actually want to start chopping heads?
There was no clarification, but he was just pulled over. There was this giant guillotine on the back of the truck.
Could have been a Halloween display in advance. I mean, I don’t know. Well, you know, it’s an interesting kind of weird to say a guillotine is a weapon unless it’s being utilized as a weapon. I mean, what do, you know? What are you gonna say to somebody? You know, give me your wallet, or I’m gonna cut off your head. I mean, what? I don’t really see how. It’s not like it fires a projectile. It’s not like it’s easily carried in one’s pocket. How is it gonna qualify as a weapon unless it is somehow intentionally used as a weapon?
Here’s the problem, though, for the law. From what I was able to pull on DC. They have to prove that he’s able to carry the guillotine in order to charge him with that.
Well, I guess it’s a vehicle-mounted weapon. I don’t know. But it’s not a weapon. It’s not firing anything. It’s not projecting anything. It’s harmless unless you actually get somebody to stick their head in it. Other than that, you know, it’s as much a weapon as somebody’s shoe is a weapon. You could take off your shoe and start beating somebody in the head. Now your shoe is a weapon, right? Otherwise, shoes just aren’t weapons. I don’t necessarily see how. If I was handling that case, I would immediately bring a motion that this doesn’t qualify as a weapon. Now, I don’t practice in D.C. So, I don’t know how broad their description of weapons are. But if we were to look at New Jersey, the best they could claim is that it falls under the “other weapons” section of N.J.S. 2C:39-5d. But even with that, the definition of weapon under New Jersey, I don’t even think it’s fitting it unless there’s some allegation that fits it under NJ’s definition of weapon and meets all the elements of it. Page – 8 – of 15
I want to go a step further and just have someone drive a truck with like an electric chair on the back. Then have another one where he’s driving with the car, and it has the torture device that was used to stretch people. I’m just curious to like what does the extent of where do they can where do the line drawn is it just because it has a blade?
Well, here’s where it gets odd, and it’s an interesting thing. Because New Jersey’s definition of weapon, which you’ll find under N.J.S. 2C:39-1r. says that a weapon means anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury. However, there are so many things out there. I mean, a kitchen knife, a chainsaw, a hammer, a golf club. I mean, it never ends because anything is readily capable of it. But you still have to fit into New Jersey’s other weapons. Because even before we go there, the term “weapon” under New Jersey law includes, but is not limited to firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip. They say a clip. Can you imagine this? I mean, magazine, but okay, or other component to render them immediately operable. Components which can be readily assembled into a weapon. I always hate a definition that tries to define it by using the term itself. That’s frickin’ useless. And then
And then, gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives, billies, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sandclubs, slingshots, cesti, or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades embedded in wood. Well, that sure gives you a lot of great ideas. At least I give it credit there. But anyway, and stun guns or any weapon or other device which projects, releases, or emits tear gas or other substance intended to produce temporary physical comfort, discomfort, or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed into the air. But if you notice, all these things that they’re putting in this category of weapons require a person to use them in a way that an individual would be targeted for being struck or hit or cut.
Whereas, a guillotine would require the person themselves putting their head into the guillotine, or being forced to put their head in a guillotine, and that seems like a bit of a challenge to still fit it under the definition of weapon. But even if it did fit under, just for argument’s sake, of being arguably a weapon because it’s capable of that lethal use, you’d have to say. But the definition of weapon isn’t the prohibition in New Jersey law. The prohibition for weapon you’ll find in the weapons prohibition statute, which is the 2C:39-5d. “Other weapons”. And 2C:39-5d. says other weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. It’s felony level offense, and it carries a year and a half max in State Prison.
So, what would be circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have? f you’re riding around with the guillotine, let’s say, for political speech purposes, which could be legit, or Page – 9 – of 15
you’re transporting it for making a movie, let’s say, or using it in a play or in a magic show. Okay, because there are magician guillotines. I personally have one called the Arm Chopper, where you do a whole routine where you get a volunteer, and you chop carrots with it. Then you put their arm in it, and it’s a whole fun thing. Of course, it doesn’t chop the person’s arm; it magically does not, and everything’s fine. en there’s another one. A guillotine version, magician, where when you chop it, it’s rigged so that the arm looks like it’s falling into the bag below, but of course it isn’t. Yet you can still lock it in place to cut carrots and demonstrate its effectiveness before you do the trick, you know. But there’s a legitimate, lawful purpose – a magician’s prop. Maybe you are into it for decorative purposes, for craftsmanship purposes. I mean.
You’re trying out a new thing.
You’re trying out a new Gallagher routine with watermelons.
I don’t know, but this is intriguing to say the least. I’ve done a lot in almost 40 years of practicing this area of law, but I will have to say that I’ve yet to have anybody charged with possession of a guillotine as a weapon. But I’m ready to defend it; should it be necessary. But there you go. That’s a crazy, interesting story, Teddy. Thanks.
Hey, I want to talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey. That is a range where Teddy and I both shoot, and my family shoots, and my brother shoots. We love it. WeShoot is an awesome resource right there in Central Jersey, easily accessible right off the Parkway. You’ll love it at WeShoot. If you haven’t checked out WeShoot, you really need to. It is a great place, a special place. They have a fantastic state-of-the-art range, a great pro shop with awesome toys, and they can set you up whether you’re a beginner or advanced shooter. They can get you the right equipment, the right gear, the best ammo, best guns, right there at WeShoot, and the best people. They will help you and guide you so that you make the right choices for what your needs are. You need to go to WeShoot, try it out. You’ll see what I’m saying.
You can check WeShoot out at weshootusa.com. They have a great website, beautiful photography. They pride themselves on their great photography. They have all kinds of great courses, not just courses, so you can get your CCARE and other certifications that you may need, and other courses for getting permits from even other states, but advanced training and other types of fun shoots and very Important advanced training, and if you are brand new, they can start you off right by learning the basics and beginning with proper instructions so that you don’t become a GOFU. It’s very important training and having a place to shoot. It’s critical in New Jersey, and WeShoot can give it all to you. So check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com. Page – 10 – of 15
Let me also shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey Gun Law, used by, well, everybody that needs a gun law book. They’re using it, and you need to have one so that you don’t become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pains to explain the insane matrix called New Jersey gun law. It’s done in only five over 500 pages, but don’t let that intimidate you. It’s 120 topics all broken down in question and answer, so that you can even you can get an understanding of New Jersey’s insanity and so that you can protect yourself and stay legal. Go to evannappen.com, evannappen.com, and get your copy today.
And, of course, we’re all very excited about the Federal Relief From Disabilities Program being reinvigorated by the Trump administration and the DOJ. It’s been 33 years since I’ve been able to help people regain their Second Amendment rights that may have federal disqualifiers. If you’d like to get a free evaluation of whether you qualify and what it can do for you, and what you need to know as its interplay with other states and Jersey law, and to see what it can do for you, go to evannappen.com, and you can fill out our little contact form there for getting federal relief. And if you need state relief, we do rights restoration, including New Jersey expungements, and getting rid of other disqualifiers that may be in your past, whether it’s old restraining orders or other things that create bars to the exercise of your Second Amendment rights. Go to evannappen.com and learn about those things. And feel free to get in contact with me. I’ll be happy to speak with you, or someone from my team will be happy to help you with your issues. And let me also mention that Teddy has other Press Checks. I’m sure. What else do you have?
This is the famous double Press Checks. I could not pass this one up. When I saw this article, I was shocked, and then reminded that the vast majority of the Left can’t be funny. If you go back to maybe the ’90s, and you’d have.
You laugh at them all the time, though, Teddy.
Yeah, we laugh at them. They try to be funny, and they try to joke on us. But they just come off as boring because comedy was always about pushing the envelope. The all-time favorite movies of comedy, like Blazing Saddles, or even like George Carlin’s bit, “Seven Things You Can’t Say on Television”. George Carlin.
George Carlin. I saw him live twice. Yeah.
And you have, you know, Nick DePaolo, Norm Macdonald, people who would their whole idea was to push the envelope. Funniest man alive, Richard Pryor. These are all the ideas, and then comes to the Marxist Left. This is, you know, we’ve got to give it to The Trace, who decided to give them free Page – 11 – of 15
advertising. They decided to make a musical pushing to repeal the Second Amendment. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/08/good-guy-with-a-gun-musical-interview/)
Oh my God! A gun oppression musical.
A musical called “Good Guy with a Gun”. That is their comparison.
That’s about as wokey as you can get. A musical doing this.
It’s gay. It’s really gay.
And going through this. By the way, you can go on Spotify. You go wherever they have the song list. You can listen to it if you want to.
Oh, that’s it. I want to listen to anti-Second Amendment songs.
What are they trying to do this like the other play? What was it that going after or mocking Mormons?
Yeah, the Book of Mormon. It was.
There you go. Right. This is the Left’s one of their tools of pushing their agenda is doing. Yeah, I know, real,
Real, real stunning and brave to mock Mormons and going after the Second Amendment. Now, do one on Sharia law and see how that goes.
Oh yeah, right. Yeah, that’ll go over big. Sure. Yeah, that’ll be the yeah. Page – 12 – of 15
Or what is the Chinese play where it’s China before communism, where Chinese have actually sent agents to attack their bus, and do stuff like that. But here.
You know, not this stuff. That’s just you know agenda driven with just another potential way of somehow getting their effed up message implanted.
Yeah. So, they got a bunch of F tier celebrities who wanted to show their virtue signal. They took a pay cut, so they would do this play out of Los Angeles, of course. It is a theatrical concept, billing it as the Book of Mormon for the NRA. The action satire swells on the day the Second Amendment is wiped away, and the numbers reminiscent to Les Misérables begins with the right winger singing, “The day that we’ve always feared the liberals have come to take our guns away. Then comes a brief monolog from a Cockney woman spiles into mania. They came in the night. They took the little ones, the Glocks, the small handguns you keep under your pillow. It was invasion of basement of ant and basement and antics violated antiques violated.
Well, they think it’s really hilarious that they’re going to come for the little ones, the handguns”, and then build up from that. That’s so funny, Teddy. It’s just so funny the way they crush our rights.
Well, you have this. It’s the screeching Left who still believe in going after the little ones. Just look at Lindsey Clancy. But anyways. The whole and going I love how they like say this famous actor from “This Is Us” and this other lady from “Orange is the New Black” and the way there and George voice the voice of God was George on Seinfeld. Okay, cool. The whole plot is the character gets a magic gun that turns people conservative. His daughter gets a magic megaphone that turns people liberal, and the antics ensue. In the end, they go into the whole article about the whole point is to dispel the myth of the good guy with the gun.
Oh, the myth of the good guy with the gun. Like all these folks that have made a difference in stopping crime, criminals, terrorism that are average citizens, that no longer want to be victims but have chosen to be defenders. And not just defenders of themselves, but defenders of others. As a matter of fact, Teddy, this goofy crap by them on the play, but weren’t you telling me about that very fact? About the difference being made by people that try to stop, for example, mass shootings? What were you telling Page – 13 – of 15
me about that? Let’s talk about good guy with a gun. What have we learned about good guys with a gun?
So, the CDC again have added the data showing that it’s two.
And this is their data from the CDC?
Up to 2 million self-defense uses of a firearm. Self-defense uses. That doesn’t even mean pull the trigger. Defensive uses of a firearm.
Right. Just the mere presence of a firearm.
So, if it saves one life . . . how about 2 million? Two million lives saved! That is from the CDC’s website. Also the fact that they are now including the FBI reports showing mass shootings. Now they’re showing civilian intervention and stopping the bad guy.
You mean, good guys with a gun, or good guys no longer wanting or agreeing to be victims, and good guys making a difference, right?
Yeah. This is something to where they are. This is a logical fallacy right here. It’s called false premise. They’re starting with a false premise, believing that there’s never any good guy with a gun. Even though we can clearly debunk that immediately just by that argument. But going into this whole insanity of the play, I want to remind you all. This is what they’re about. This is what they try to do through propaganda, and yeah, it’s in the gayest way possible. And I’ll take the citizen vigilante that’ll probably sell out more than this play out of.
Well, that’s the crazy thing because movies and other things that were not necessarily designed to be propaganda, but that have the message of individuals who fight back. I mean, you can look at “Red Dawn”, which is still considered a classic today, and what was that? Individuals fighting back. You can look at virtually the entire genre of westerns is the individual who fights back. I mean, that’s what we’re really about.
The funniest scene I ever saw for this as a pro gun argument was in the movie “Death Proof”. It’s rated as one of the worst for Quentin Tarantino. I happen to like it. Page – 14 – of 15
I enjoyed Death Proof. I like the music, too.
Oh yeah, it was good there. Just seeing Kurt Russell play a weird twisted serial.
Oh my G-d, yeah, did he ever.
There’s one scene where it’s the four girls are sitting on the table. They’re having a discussion. That’s what Quinn Tarantino always does: is having table conversations. The one girl says, “You still carry a gun? Why do you do that? And it’s like, “Why not?” And goes into that whole argument of where, like, “Why you don’t you know you can risk that? You know what I want? I want to carry my gun. I want to go where I’m able to go. I want to be able to defend myself, and she makes and hits home every argument. Where then they say, “What about pepper spray? I don’t want to give them a rash. I want to put them down. Like that’s the whole. Like they’re trying to be satirical. They’re going to be showing it.
Big spoiler is that’s what she uses. Yeah, saves the.
hoots it. Shoots at Kurt Russell to get him to go away to save the girls. So, it’s one of those demonstrations. But even I’ll even give it another way, just satirical. Always Sonny did the exact thing where you have two both sides, ones for pro, ones against, and the anti side is like it’s so easy to get a gun. Both of them get denied their background checks immediately. Then they try, and then immediately try to go to a gun show, and they’re trying to do under the table. And the gun dealer’s like, “No, I’m not going to do that. And finally, they try to do a deal to buy it from an illegal alley, and that falls through, and to the point where they’re arguing. They see like, wow, it really is hard to get a gun. Then we realize, and it’s satirical because they show it in a way. This one here in the whole article, they’re trying to like joke on the liberals by she shops at Trader Joe’s. If you’re using a bazooka on one side and a squirt on the other, it’s you’re not both sizing it very easily.
Right. Well, that’s not their goal, but that is really interesting. But I don’t think that play will be coming to a playhouse nearby anytime soon. And if it is, it’ll be a financial failure.
Remember, this is the Left’s game, though. Do you remember when they did Julius Caesar? They dressed him as Donald Trump. This was in 2017. In the play where he’s killed. In the play where he’s violently stabbed to death.
No, gee, what were they trying to say there? I wonder. Page – 15 – of 15
Yeah, exactly. And then you have the New Yorker here trying to say, it’s hardly bears the point that art is not life. I love how they play that game every time. Oh, really? Okay. Now cast Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling as Black Panther for in Wakanda. Then tell me it’s not that. No big deal. I love how they always bring that up when it comes to oh art takes that. Cut to the musical of assassins that they had to cancel after the first attempted assassination.
Where it’s a musical about
Yeah. This is part of their M.O., and it’s disgusting. Well, Teddy, thanks for bringing that to our attention, so we know what play we’re going to never get a playbill for or see. Now, I’ve got to tell you about this week’s GOFU. You know the GOFU is Gun Owner Fuck Up. It’s where gun owners make mistakes that can cost them their freedom, their firearm rights. It cost them a lot of money, and you get to learn for free, so you don’t become a GOFU. And this week’s GOFU is really basic. Some of you listening may say, “Really, seriously?” I’m telling you, why am I talking about this? Because my friends, I get the phone calls. I get the phone calls from the GOFUers. I get those calls.
This week’s GOFU is real simple. Practice your draw. Know your firearm. Okay, simple. Practice drawing and firing if you’re carrying. Practice reholstering. Practice it with an empty firearm. Make sure you are proficient in how to handle your specific firearm and know your gun. Know how it operates. You know, some guns have manual safeties. Some guns do not. Know your gun. Know how to use it. Practice and train. Not just on shooting. Not just on hitting the target. But practice on understanding the function of your gun – the loading, the unloading, how to absolutely know it’s empty. How to work your gun and how to draw your gun. How to holster and unholster your gun. Make sure you’ve practiced that with a safe, empty firearm. That you’ve had the right training. That you’re doing it properly, and that you are proficient in that. Because if you’re not and you have a problem, if you have an A.D., if you have some issue, you’ll become the next GOFU, and I don’t want to see that.
This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.
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.
Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E306_transcript
About The HostEvan 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
Join Evan’s InnerCircleHere’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.
