Gun Lawyer

  Episode 310-SCOTUS… its cup runneth over Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 310 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, SCOTUS, gun laws, case law, firearm cases, felon possession, machine guns, sensitive places, age restrictions, licensing reciprocity, domestic violence, short barrels, free speech, due process, gun deserts SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 Yes, you are. And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, this is very exciting because I’ve been involved, basically dedicated my entire life and career to Second Amendment, and proud of it. I’ve loved and still do love fighting for our rights and helping good people. And when I see the following, it is very, very exciting because the turnaround is just amazing. SCOTUS, which is our anacronym for the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, currently has, as we speak right now, 57 firearm-related cases. Now that doesn’t mean they’re going to hear all 57 cases, but it’s very encouraging. Evan Nappen 01:29 They have 57 gun cases that are getting conferenced by the United States Supreme Court, in which they may take who knows how many, if any, but they may take that will again put the Second Amendment to the forefront and create more case law that we get to use in further challenges and seeing the death of various gun laws. Now remember, the Supreme Court has accepted already Viramontes and Grant, and that is the assault fireman. You know, and maybe magazines. It seems like they might also be considering mags, maybe, maybe not, as part of that. That remains to be seen. But it’s definitely the assault, so-called assault weapon, assault firearm ban that the Supreme Court is going to see whether it is in fact a violation of the Second Amendment or not. That’s going to most likely we’ll see that decision itself in June (2027). Evan Nappen 02:40 But what we have right now are 57 cases where the Supreme Court is conferencing them. When the Supreme Court conferences cases, it’s where the judges discuss the cases and decide whether or not to grant certiorari, in other words, whether or not to grant the hearing on their appeal to the Supreme Court. If the vote gets four of the judges to say, “Yeah, we want to consider this case”, that means there will be a formal Supreme Court appeal that takes place on that case, where briefs will be done and a Page – 2 – of 12 written Supreme Court opinion will come from it, and that will create more Supreme Court case law, which will apply to the entire United States. So this is why it’s so exciting because there’s 57 Firearm cases, and I’ve taken this, by the way, from an article from Bearing Arms, which is titled “SCOTUS Has Plate Full With Gun-Related Cases for Conference”, and it’s by Tom Knighton. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/09/28/scotus-has-plate-full-with-gun-related-cases-for-conference-n1233951?fbclid=IwY2xjawUoGBNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mA3NydGMGYXBwX2lkDzQwOTk2MjYyMzA4NTYwOQABHhaeKYFggEs5knGWTHaq7j9dad_ILCqEs6y-KXBm7XBe9xpW7PJed09DlZ6u_aem_FvBLjsHNAHM3unLAGvxz9Q) Evan Nappen 03:54 And listen to what these cases are that they may or may not take. It’s exciting. Thirty-nine of the cases are challenging the felon in possession ban, or the state equivalent of felons possessing guns. Three of the cases regarding the constitutional protection of machine guns. That’s interesting. Three going at the federal law banning possession by unlawful drug users. One of them going at the federal ban on possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States. So, they’re talking about legal, not illegal, aliens in the U.S. and their ability to possess. There’s one that goes at Washington State’s civil protection order statute, which is, I guess, similar to, you know, the domestic violence restraining order type. There’s a challenge to Maryland’s sensitive place restrictions. So, we got a sensitive place restriction case that possibly the Supreme Court will take, which could be very helpful to us in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 05:12 An age restriction case regarding 18 to 20 year olds being denied their constitutional rights. A commerce clause challenge to 922(g)(1). So, they’re claiming how the federal law on the regulation of firearms violates commerce. There’s one to a shall issue licensing regimes. I thought most of these shall issues were dead, particularly after Bruen. But we probably have some rogue state trying something. Here’s a really, really good one. Boy, I’d love for them to take this one, too. Interstate licensing reciprocity. Maybe we can get national reciprocity accomplished judicially if we can get the Supreme Court to take this case and decide that one permit is valid everywhere in the U.S. or something else along those lines, and why. Teddy Nappen 06:15 Would that also, I don’t know, if that goes even further. Where, say, for example, go to a different state and wanting to buy a gun, you don’t have to transfer it to a dealer instead. Evan Nappen 06:24 Well, that’s different. This is about licensing. Evan Nappen 06:27 Why they would explore that. Well, maybe, maybe, maybe. Depending on what they’re, how they’re viewing licensing as permitting. I think they mean by carrying. Page – 3 – of 12 Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 06:35 Like this basic example. New Jersey has their like FPIC. If another state recognizes that, would that be a way? That would I guess that would be kind of a way. Well we have a Evan Nappen 06:43 Well, we have it to a certain degree. You can buy out-of-state, just not handguns. The Fifth Circuit, I believe it was, recently said that’s unconstitutional. So, we should be able to buy guns since it’s a constitutional right anywhere in the U. S. Why are you restricted where you can only buy your handgun in your resident state? There’s no reason for that, so that’s being challenged. It was successfully challenged in the Fifth Circuit. We’re probably going to see that make its way up to SCOTUS. Then there’s another case on banning possession, the ban on possession by anyone who has a domestic violence misdemeanor. Remember, originally misdemeanors were never disqualifiers for guns. But because of the political correctness surrounding domestic violence, they get a special status of being a disqualifier. So, if you’re convicted, for example, of committing simple assault on your spouse, even at a misdemeanor level, then you’re barred from owning firearms anywhere in the United States. But if you go around beating up complete strangers all day long and get conviction after conviction for simple assault, but it’s not domestic violence, you’re not a prohibited person, okay? So that. Teddy Nappen 07:52 And also that’s the equivalent of “he threw pretzels at me”. So, that it can be just yeah. Evan Nappen 08:08 And we’ve had it just so extreme. There’s another one challenging the federal ban on short barrel shotguns. You know all the NFA stuff is making its way up to the court. One on military courts’ ability to impose firearm restrictions as part of court-martial sentencing. And then a challenge to New York’s prohibition on tasers and stun guns. Evan Nappen 08:35 As far as that goes, this is a heck of a pile. It’s really great to see the massive amount of litigation that is now taking place to try to free our Second Amendment rights from the chains that they’ve been bound by for all these years by these oppressive laws. One of the key cases here, yeah, well, one of them that I think might be really important, just so you know, is the short barrel shotgun case, which are considering whether they’re arms under the Second Amendment. That may be very important because remember we had the Big Beautiful Bill, which led to the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, but that’s just going at the jurisdiction of taxation. If we get a case that finally declares them to actually just be flat out protected under the Second Amendment, then that will kill it dead permanently. Teddy Nappen 09:36 I remember, Dad, weren’t you in that whole fight with Stryker? You were there to help fight against that at the time, if I recall. Evan Nappen 09:43 Yeah, the Striker 12. New Jersey made it an assault firearm, and the federal government then made it NFA as a destructive device. We tried to fight and challenge it, and that was when the 1994 Crime Bill, I Page – 5 – of 12 like to. The 1994 bill that was a crime had the assault weapon federal law in it. It included the strikers. So as a preemptive publicity stunt, the ATF declared that so-called Striker 12s and street sweepers-they weren’t shotguns; they are destructive devices, and you had to register them NFA. Now you could do it at no charge, but this was really an abuse. And yet, to this day, the Stryker 12 still falls in this category of DD. Not even short barrel rifle or any of that, a short barrel shotgun, but actually destructive device. So, it may, though, ultimately prove to be the undoing of even the destructive device federal statute. Evan Nappen 10:55 Really, all the Stryker 12 is and a street sweeper is a 12-gauge shotgun that feeds from a drum, and yet even though the drum-fed Stryker 12 street sweeper, which is a fixed magazine, it’s a fixed revolving drum. You don’t remove it. You have to very much similar to a single action army Colt, like the old cowboy revolver. You got to pop out each shell and reload a new shell into that drum, right? Yet you can get a semi-automatic shotgun that is magazine-fed that uses drums that hold more rounds than even the Stryker 12, and it’s a detachable magazine, and they’re just shotguns, which is fine. That’s exactly what they should be, but tell me why the slower to load 12 gauge drum-fed 12-shot magazine shotgun is a destructive device, but the semi-automatic shotgun that uses detachable drum magazines and fires faster an

  Episode 309-Legalizing Self Defense in NJ Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 309 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Lawsuit, Self-defense, Second Amendment, New Jersey, Weapon ban, Case law, Bruen case, Legal litigation, Arms ban, Knife rights, Stun guns, Slingshots, Media censorship, Expungement SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I have some very exciting news. There is an extremely important lawsuit that has just recently been brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and with Knife Rights, joining in to sue New Jersey. (https://www.anjrpc.org/page/LawsuitToOverturnNJsSelfDefenseBan) Of course, when you do that, you name the Attorney General (Jennifer) Davenport, and also we have the Superintendent of State Police (Jeanne) Hengemuhle. I don’t know. I’m probably butchering that name up pretty good, but anyway, it’s the Superintendent of State Police. Evan Nappen 01:16 In this case, this Association case, what is being challenged, and it is something that has been begging to be challenged, is New Jersey’s ban on self-defense. It is a part of, specifically, and I’ll explain why, New Jersey’s ban on everything other than guns. Their garbage can clause of weapons prohibition. The insanity of New Jersey’s weapons ban has, in its foundation, really, what I know you, as our great listeners, will find shocking as to the case law as it currently stands in New Jersey, that we are looking to absolutely put into the garbage can of history, and that’s where it belongs. Evan Nappen 02:25 Let me go through with you the actual complaint. You know, lots of times when you hear about lawsuits and litigation and these things, you usually hear about it in general terms. You hear about, you know, kind of a summary of what it is. We’re going to get a little more into the weeds here, and I think you’re going to find it interesting and why. I’ll expand your horizons to understanding how incredibly significant this litigation is, and how the stars have actually lined up for us, so we’re of course moving under. When I say we, I mean our side. I did help with this litigation. I’m not counsel of record, of course. That’s my good friend and colleague Dan Schmutter. He does the federal litigation for our state Association, and it’s a fantastic job here that has really laid it out well. Page – 2 – of 10 Evan Nappen 03:43 So, we’re coming from, of course, the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment, as noted in the Bruen case specifically, of the trifecta, the Bruen case, that the Second Amendment’s plain text presumptively guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self-defense. e all know that in our hearts, and we know this as case law. We know that that is what the Second Amendment does, and Bruen established that self-defense outside the home is a protected right. So, in the New York State Rifle versus Pistol Association, I mean New York State Rifle and Pistol versus Bruen, the court also there found that courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding. Evan Nappen 04:55 What does this all mean, and how does this apply to New Jersey? Well, it’s very simple. Let’s accept the initial premise, the Second Amendment is not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms, and arms are a lot more than guns. Arms are essentially any tool of self-defense, and we have the right for that. And what New Jersey is now going to have to defend is the insanity of where New Jersey wants to keep us defenseless. Absolutely wants to keep us defenseless, and the case law proves it. So, the key case that we’re going to talk about in just a little bit of the existing case law is a case of State v. Kelly. Evan Nappen 05:58 But before we get to Kelly, let me talk about the specific statute, the specific laws, so you get an understanding of what New Jersey does. New Jersey defines “weapon” as anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. Then it says the term includes, but is not limited to, and they do a laundry list of weapons, and of the weapons that they list, a lot of them are pretty good ideas. But anyway, it’s all part of it. So, you find that definition under N.J.S. 2C:39-1(r). So, in other words, under New Jersey’s definition of “weapon”, anything can be prohibited as a weapon. Aa baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, a box cutter, bear spray, a stick, anything, and if you use it as a weapon, even your shoe, then it’s a weapon. Evan Nappen 07:10 A good example: if you happen to have a baseball bat in your car, but you’re not on the way to a baseball game, you can be arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned for weapon possession. Here’s how it works. Because New Jersey’s prohibition-remember, weapon is just what we talked about in definition-but the prohibition, which you find under N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), prohibits the possession of any weapon. In other words, any object can be used as a weapon. And here’s right from the statute quote: Under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have, and here’s the kicker: you might think to yourself, “Okay, as long as you have a manifest appropriate use, right, a lawful use, then you should be okay.” Well, here’s a shocker, folks. In State v. Kelly, the court found that preemptively arming yourself for self-defense, to have a weapon for self-defense, is not a lawful use. Let that sink in. You can be prosecuted because you had the nerve to arm yourself with a weapon for self-defense, which is our constitutionally protected right to be able to do. And where do you hear the facts? Page – 3 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 09:01 Go ahead, Teddy. In the complaint, demonstrating that the biggest. I love how they pepper, and you can when you’re reading it, you see they always hammer this point back. Versus State v. Kelly, the single mother. Evan Nappen 09:15 Well, yeah, I want. Let’s talk. I want to talk about the facts of Kelly. Here’s the facts of Kelly. 1990, Kelly case. A single mother of a young child was convicted of possessing a box cutter after successfully fending off her violent boyfriend, who was in the process of beating her to death. Did you hear that? As far as the charges for her use of the box cutter to save her life and defend herself, child, etc. that was all fine. But she’s convicted of possessing the knife under 39:5(d) because the court makes this decision that essentially finds, back in 1990, and it still, you know, that law is still on the books as case law. It’s been modified slightly, and we’ll get to that in a moment. That having a weapon for self-defense doesn’t fit that “manifest lawful purpose”. It’s crazy. Then from there, a subsequent case, after the decision in Heller and McDonald applying the Second Amendment to back to the state of New Jersey, the courts decided another case called Montalvo. In Montalvo, in that case, a person comes to the door with a machete. Somebody’s banging on the door. He doesn’t know who it is, and it’s law enforcement. Well, he didn’t know that, and he wasn’t threatening them. But when he came to the door with the machete, he’s like, “oh, it’s officers, not a problem. He’s not. Well, there’s like, “Hey, you just preemptively armed yourself with a weapon for self-defense. They charge him in the same manner that Kelly had been charged, but the court here distinguished because they realized they had to under Heller, where you were allowed to have in your home weapons for self-defense. The court there said, well, if you preemptively arm yourself in your home, that’s okay, but not outside your home. So, the current law right now is you can’t preemptively arm yourself with any of these other weapons outside your home. Evan Nappen 11:53 Now, when it comes to a gun, that’s different. If you have a handgun and that’s a carry permit, and that’s where you’re allowed to, but only a handgun with a carry permit, right? Short of that, with the minor exception of less than three quarters of an ounce of pepper spray, you cannot preemptively arm yourself with any of these things. And if you have something like that, and it’s a weapon, you’re subject to prosecution for a felony level offense, and New Jersey is now going to be put to the mat on this law. The full definition under 39- 1(r) of non-firearm weapon means anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, and of course, it includes firearms. But with firearm licensing, you have the exception. Evan Nappen 12:55 Then, gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, other dangerous knives, whatever the hell that means, billies, which are similar to nightsticks and trudgens, and they’re impact weapons, right? Blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sand clubs, slingshots. Oh, slingshots! Cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades embedded in wood. Like I said, has a lot of good ideas here, but all these weapons, cesti leather wrap, that was famous. You know, the Roman gladiators would wrap their hands in leather wrap, etc. Well, that’s just a list of what it includes, but isn’t limited to. And by the way, in the list of weapon is stun guns and other devices which project, release, Page – 4 – of 10 or emit tear gas. So, the exemption for tear gas or other, you know, pepper spray and all that is less than three quarters of an ounce. Evan Nappen 14:07 Well, this lawsuit will make it so you can have any size of pepper spray, etc. Stun guns, even though you may have heard about New Jersey saying stun guns are lawful. They’re lawful for possession, but not carrying outside your home. So, winning this lawsuit

  Episode 308-One Gun A Month… On The Chopping Block Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 308 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Law, Handgun Ban, Second Amendment, Summary Judgment, New Jersey, Constitutional Rights, Firearms Regulation, Licensing, Civil Rights, Derivative Disarmament, Public Safety, Legal Advice, Gun Ownership, Criminal Law, Court Case SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen  00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen  00:22 Yes, you are, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. We have a lot of interesting things to discuss at this time. You’re going to want to know. Very important. New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month law is on the chopping block. I believe, on its deathbed. We have a fascinating situation that has developed here, and that is regarding the challenges. There are multiple challenges to New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month ban. Now, this is also from a great article in AmmoLand, one of our favorite two-way news sources, and this is article by Duncan Johnson, which you can read. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/new-jersey-one-handgun-a-month-ban-challenge/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f650d620f6-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-f650d620f6-21268623) Evan Nappen  01:15 It says, “New Jersey’s One-Handgun-a-Month Ban Faces Summary-Judgment Challenge”. And what we’re talking about here is this. There were, I guess, at least two cases challenging the one-handgun-a-month New Jersey ban, where you can’t buy more than one handgun in 30 days. Now, I’ve always tried to look at New Jersey’s one gun a month law as a requirement that you buy at least one handgun a month, but that, of course, is not the intent of the law. And you have FPC, which is Foreign Policy Coalition, NRA, GOA, you know, Gun Owners America, and other gun rights plaintiffs. They’re in federal court, and they’re looking to have New Jersey’s one handgun a month restriction shot down, so that you can buy as many handguns as you wish without being restricted in a time frame. Evan Nappen  02:16 New Jersey has had this one handgun a month law since 2009. You can find it under N.J.S. 2C:58-3.(i), and what it states there is that only one handgun may be purchased or delivered on each permit, and no more than one handgun shall be purchased within a 30-day period. So, this statute restricts the number of handguns. There’s no restriction, by the way, on long arms. This has been just another outrage of the salami tactics used by the gun rights oppressionists, and we have these two cases that are challenging it. Now, what makes this really fascinating is the power of Bruen and the trifecta that we’ve seen of the empowerment of the Second Amendment. The test of constitutionality has now led to us being the good guys, able to file what is known as a Summary Judgment brief, meaning that there’s no need for a trial, and the court can simply rule on the issue as a matter of law, which does very much expedite the process. The reason that that is now being able to be done, and it’s what is being attempted here in knocking out this infringement on our Second Amendment rights, is as follows. Now, New Jersey, the Second Amendment, the text of the Second Amendment, which now applies to states, you know, began with Heller, then you had McDonald that incorporated it to the states. So, New Jersey regained Second Amendment protection, which did not exist prior to the 1960s, when the court actually found, believe it or not, the New Jersey court at the time that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to New Jersey. Well, too bad it does. Big shock. Evan Nappen  04:28 And now that it does. The Second Amendment and the way you test laws today on that, the question first becomes: Does the Second Amendment cover the proposed conduct that the State is attempting to regulate? In this case, does the Second Amendment apply to the purchase of handguns and possession of handguns, and it plainly does. There’s no question it does. And once that happens, once that’s acknowledged and it’s readily apparent, the burden then shifts. This is critical. The burden of proof then shifts to New Jersey in this case, or to the Government to establish that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulations, what we call text, tradition, history, etc. You have to show a historical analog, in other words, an old gun law from when the Second Amendment was enacted, or maybe at best from the 1860s, that had a law that said you can’t buy more than one gun within a month, or some analogous law to that. Evan Nappen  06:12 And what makes this really great is that New Jersey, the State of, retained two historians, Brennan Rivera and Robert Spitzer, and both of their experts acknowledge the central historical problem that laws like New Jersey’s handgun rationing mandate did not exist in the early days of our country’s history. It didn’t exist. And because they cannot meet this burden, it is a matter for summary judgment that the law is unconstitutional. Because if the State can’t meet the burden, then the law falls as unconstitutional. That is the power of the Bruen constitutionality test. Most interesting, there’s a recent precedent in Bonita, the Bonita case, out of the Ninth Circuit in California, which struck down California’s one firearm per 30-day law, so there’s even precedent where the same problem. And in California, they tried to argue so-called historical analog, including gunpowder regulation. They tried everything: licensing schemes, taxes, dealer records, Native American trade restrictions. I mean, they always fall back to the, you know, racist arguments. The Left always tries to claim they’re the champions for race, and yet they happily rely on racist gun laws of the past, which don’t cut it anymore. And none of them could establish a historical cousin for the law. Evan Nappen  08:10 Therefore, you know, New Jersey now is extremely well positioned, especially considering that we’re dealing with the Third Circuit that recently put forward the fantastic decision in which the semi-automatic ban and the magazine ban were found unconstitutional in the full court en banc decision finding the unconstitutionality of those laws, so the stars have aligned quite nicely here. I am optimistic here that we will finally see the death of New Jersey’s one gun a month as the continuous pounding of the power of the newly, relatively speaking, newly empowered Second Amendment does its job, destroying infringement after infringement. Teddy Nappen  09:18 When they were bringing in that law, the one gun a month. What was the Left’s key argument at the time? What was the thing they always try to push in that? Evan Nappen  09:28 Well, one of the absurdities they tried to push is that individuals would put in for a whole bunch of New Jersey pistol purchase permits. I mean, we’re talking individual paper, right? You know what it takes to buy a handgun in New Jersey. You have to put a full application process. Then the permit registers the gun, and the form of register is to the purchaser who acquired. Then it goes to the local authorities. It’s on file with the dealer, and it goes to the State Police, and it’s entered into a state police database. Okay, that someone’s going to go and get all these permits, buy a whole bunch of handguns so they can sell them on the streets. This is the absurdity. No one does that. Nobody done that, which is itself an offense anyway. That was the best they could do. Best they could do. There is no, there is no even reasonable reason for this, other than to try to create various burdens on those that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s what the oppressors do. This is what they do. So the law is ridiculous. Evan Nappen  10:56 Now there is ability, supposedly, if you want to acquire a collection or something else. You could then file a separate application for permission to acquire more than one gun within 30 days. But it is absolutely nowhere to be found in our historical text history and tradition. The burden is on New Jersey, and their own experts acknowledge that it doesn’t exist. It makes it ripe for summary judgment, and with a summary judgment giving us hopefully a victory on eliminating this. So that yeah, at the moment, you still need to get permits for any handgun you want to get, but you won’t be limited to one in 30 days. Teddy Nappen  11:44 It’s kind of it’s very if you kind of think of the logic behind it, where they’re trying to okay, what is this actually accomplishing in their eyes? Because they’re saying, oh, they’re gonna someone’s gonna sell industry. Okay, that’s already a crime. You’re not curtailing the person’s still buying the gun. They still have to go through the paperwork. Still getting rid. Still meeting all the criteria. So, in what scenario is this curtailing crime? Evan Nappen  12:10 Teddy, you can’t. The problem with your question is that the premise is that you’re somehow giving the benefit of the doubt, for no reason, by the way, to those that want to oppress our rights, as having any real reason based in public safety or any kind of actual logical argument for doing this. The reason they’re doing it is to oppress us. Period. End of story. There is no other logical, rational, statistical nothing that backs their claims. Nothing. It’s just well, the legal term is bullshit. That’s all they have, and this is going to go. It’s got to go. There’s no rational reason, even in terms of the old constitutional question of, you know, is there a rational basis? And because that was so broad in the old days, you know, if you said, well, because if the aliens from outer space attacked, we need this or some insanity, well, okay, you know it was so. Those days are dead and gone. There’s no reason for this. They can’t justify it. Evan Nappen  13:27 And on

  Episode 307- How Many Guns are in the US? Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 307 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun ownership, firearm data, Second Amendment, gun rights, common use, New Jersey, legal standing, NSSF, voter turnout, political elections, gun training, self-defense, intersectionality, police interaction, legal advice SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, here’s a number I want you to keep in mind. The number is 461 – 461 Million guns are in private hands in the U.S. That’s roughly 100 million more guns than people in the U.S. Now, where is this number coming from? Is this just speculation? Is it just good guessing? Is it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This number is one of the strongest, most data-based numbers that I’ve seen. Now, this is from an article in AmmoLand by one of my favorite writers, Dean Weingarten. The article is titled “461 Million Guns? Survey’s Firearm Numbers Nearly Matches 125 Years of Federal Data.” (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/461-million-guns-survey-federal-data/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=5d24fd0d04-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-5d24fd0d04-21268623) Evan Nappen 01:41 That’s how strong this figure is. And why is this important to know? It’s important to know the number of guns to illustrate the absolute absurdity and futility of the gun rights oppressors’ dream of banning, confiscating, and removing all guns from the United States. You know ultimately that’s their wet dream, right? o get rid of every gun, you know. Ultimately. In the meanwhile, they come up with every possible way of trying to diminish and extinguish our rights. And what makes this survey and this data combo so fascinating as to its force, strength, and validity is that the survey, William English did a survey of gun owners. It was done in mid 2026, and these ratios of the survey methods,, and numbers of firearm findings. This is mirroring the federal data. So, the survey paper, which was released in August 2026, was is and is considered the best designed and executed survey to date. The 2026 survey has been designed to overcome minor defects in the original survey that was done in 2021. The questions were sharpened and clarified, and ownership has been limited to the individual questioned. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:38 The survey’s respondents were represented in 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the participants were not volunteers for this particular survey. So, the first national representative survey of 51,398 individuals over 18 were chosen, and the screening questions that they used identified over 18,000 individuals as potential gun owners. Then almost 17,000, a little under, of the individuals were validated as gun owners, and in the middle of the survey, a question was used to validate the responses. Only people who read the entire question could answer it correctly, and 98.2% of the respondents passed the internal checks. This roughly 17,000, a little lower, respondents were found to average 5.2 firearms per owner. About 87,000 firearms. And this is a very large sample. The smallest sample was in Vermont with 28 respondents. California had 1,549, and Texas had 1,686. Evan Nappen 05:18 So, based on this, it’s calculated that there were 461 million firearms in the United States. his is very interesting in and of itself. Then they took these survey results and they compared them to the numbers of ATF. ATF. They were placed into a spreadsheet. By the way, that’s provided online by The Trace. (https://datahub.thetrace.org/dataset/firearm-production/) This is by our, you know, key group of Second Amendment oppressors. Using the numbers in the data from the ATF, The Trace found that 513 million in the end of 2024, including 231 million and change handguns, 171 million and change of rifles, and 110 million and change of shotguns. The numbers show that the agreement in both databases is astounding. The ratios are nearly identical, as shown in the graphic. The largest difference is shotguns, in which the difference is only 0.1 percent. That’s how close these two different databases are. And as the article points out, skeptics may say in a large sample of 87,000 firearms selected at random, you’d expect resulting ratios to be extremely close. That is exactly what you would expect of a very large sample selected by random. That is the point. It is validation of the sample methodology, and it’s validation of the accuracy of the reporting by respondents. So, folks, the number to use when discussing, arguing, debating, and slamming those that want to oppress our rights is that you’re talking about 461 million privately held firearms in the United States. Teddy Nappen 08:04 There’s another factor to this that I think was highlighted in the Cheeseman case. The thing that won the day about ending the assault weapon ban and ending various basically the strong arm of the Left’s gun control is common use. 400 million guns all across the nation. I want to make sure. I want that number going up because that’s how we win the argument. Where common use, if they ever try to make any claim on anything from the argument with suppressors, right now we have that up in the air. Over 6 million, yeah. This needs to continue. Evan Nappen 08:42 The numbers are there, and common use, and just even the impossibility of the anti-Second Amendment dream is so clear. We are a country that has essentially 100 million more guns, give or take, more than we have people. So, we are strong in gun ownership, and the Second Amendment is strong. It is something that is absolutely a fixture in our culture, and these folks that want to take away our rights and remove this are in a dreamland. Yet, they’ll still try, and they try various methods. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 09:37 As a matter of fact, New Jersey’s latest one of their gambits is, of course, abusing consumer protection and trying to sue the firearm industry out of existence. We just had a really great case out of the Third Circuit, which is allowing the gun industry to challenge New Jersey’s reasonable controls laws”. (thereload.com/third-circuit-allows-gun-industry-challenge-to-new-jerseys-reasonable-controls-law/) So, New Jersey put this forward to lay a foundation to attempt to litigate and sue out of existence gun makers and guns they don’t like and all that. Originally the federal court did not allow NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, to assert a legal standing to challenge this law, And the federal court said, “Oh no, no! Yes, they do have standing, and the challenge can continue. And that’s really great news. Because while the state tries to enforce their, you know, lawsuit to kill firearms in state courts, which of course lean toward always toward favoring the state and their anti-second amendment oppression agenda, the federal court takes a much fairer view, as we’ve seen. It now allows the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) law, the federal law, which was designed to stop this tort lawfare taking place, to go at the our Second Amendment rights through abusing, you know, the civil system. It allows the PLCAA arguments to be asserted by NSSF and the other plaintiffs in federal court and to have their day. So, this is great news. It is very important because it is going at, for example, New Jersey’s attempt going at Sig and going at Glock and others. The district court has essentially reopened the case. They’ve accepted the complaint, and they now found that NSSF has standing to bring the suit. So, this is good stuff. We’re seeing tremendous wins and victories stacking up in the federal courts. You know, not the least of which was the fantastic so-called assault firearm and large capacity magazine ban being found unconstitutional. Teddy Nappen 12:46 Would there be a way to? I’d be curious. What would be the best method in kind of strengthening PLCAA to stop the amount of litigation? Because they continue to try to carve their way out. Some narrow loophole around PLCAA. Evan Nappen 13:05 Exactly what NSSF is doing by bringing these federal suits is establishing the case law precedent, which is at the moment the best plan. But if we, as Americans now, if we decide that we would rather get $5,000 from having Republicans win the midterms, that not only do we stand to gain a lot of gun money out of that victory, you know, I’m sure we could use five grand to buy some really fine weapons. It will also further strengthen our ability in a Trump administration to improve and add to laws that protect Second Amendment rights, and in getting rid of laws that harm our rights, and continue with the various funding and removal of other NFA taxes. Let’s say that will make other things still out there on NFA good to go, and there’s just tremendous change that I see just in two years of President Trump’s administration and Republican control. It is critical that everyone you know get out and vote. Tell them get out and vote, and get our liberties secured further. Our Second Amendment freedoms, and maybe even pocket an extra 5K of our own money anyway, which I’d rather see go to American citizens than to illegals or funding USAID or all the other Left-wing mega NGOs and all this stuff, where the money circulates back so that the Democrats can continue to use it politically. No, you know what? Instead, let’s just see the money go to us, back to us, and see our freedom increase. How’s that? Page – 4 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 15:27 My only issue with the aspect is you can never beat the Left in terms of just giving away free stuff because they that’s always been their platform of everything when it comes to programs, welfare, and so I understand the value in this, like trying to make a tone

  Episode 306- Big Brother’s Eye on Guns Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 306 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS 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 SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Teddy, welcome back, you new father, you. And I’m the new grandfather. Teddy Nappen 00:29 Yes, I know, and don’t worry, all is good. Just sleep is for the weak. Evan Nappen 00:34 Ah, right, exactly, exactly. Oh my! And how is beautiful, Aliyana, doing? That cute little peanut that she is. Teddy Nappen 00:45 Aliyana is doing quite well. She is. Evan Nappen 00:47 And your lovely wife? How is she? Teddy Nappen 00:50 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, Evan Nappen 01:01 Oh yeah, very special, special. Teddy Nappen 01:02 Yeah, but they’re both doing quite well, and I’m eternally blessed for that. Page – 2 – of 15 Evan Nappen 01:08 That’s right. And we got the baby to the range. She did great on her first shooting experience there. Teddy Nappen 01:15 I know we took out. Evan Nappen 01:17 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. Evan Nappen 01:19 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. Evan Nappen 01:28 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. Teddy Nappen 01:40 There’s two things. Evan Nappen 01:41 Training begins. Teddy Nappen 01:42 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. Evan Nappen 01:56 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 Evan Nappen 03:31 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) Evan Nappen 05:02 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.” Evan Nappen 06:49 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 Evan Nappen 08:45 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. Evan Nappen 11:08 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? Evan Nappen 12:20 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